It's only a European copyright issue

I'm not 100% sure why the Stones haven't gone for the copyright protection thing. However the only Stones copyright issues related to the ABKCO era. The last tour to get a release was, I think, 1969.

Presumably there's something in their contracts since they left ABKCO which has meant that the copyright on their performances from that era haven't expired.

It'll be interesting to see what Dylan's record label does this time next year. He didnt tour for 8 years after 1966 but when he went back on the road with The Band in 1974, the tour was more heavily bootlegged than any before it (probably by anyone) - all 40 shows were recorded.

Thanks for the explanations. I miss when around this time in previous years we had some surprise from the Stones.

Quote
Gazza

It's only a European copyright issue

Pink Floyd released their 1973 live recordings - [iorr.org] - also outside of the European Union via streaming services.

Quote
Gazza

I'm not 100% sure why the Stones haven't gone for the copyright protection thing.

Maybe they're not interested in because their important stuff is already protected by the new 70-years rule? The ABKCO era ended in 1971 which is now more than 50 years ago.

yeah but that doesnt explain why theyve done nothing with live performances in 1972-73

For every artist of that vintage who have put out copyright protection releases, there are dozens of others who havent

Quote
Gazza

For every artist of that vintage who have put out copyright protection releases, there are dozens of others who havent

Could be many reasons: different copyright terms (lengths) in different countries of the world - [en.Wikipedia.org] , the 50-years rule for Radio/TV broadcasts, or stuff is already protected for 70 years (transition for the old 50-years rule ended). Or some recordings (or some markets) are not important enough to protect it worldwide.

Quote
Irix

Quote
Gazza

It's only a European copyright issue

Pink Floyd released their 1973 live recordings - [iorr.org] - also outside of the European Union via streaming services.

Quote
Gazza

I'm not 100% sure why the Stones haven't gone for the copyright protection thing.

Maybe they're not interested in because their important stuff is already protected by the new 70-years rule? The ABKCO era ended in 1971 which is now more than 50 years ago.

I have same interrogation as Gazza.

But I may confuse two laws that both use "copyright" matter.

In short for 1972 both Pink Floyd and the Rolling Stones have live material.

Pink Floyd did the copyright release not hte Rolling Stones.

So far I did not read a clear explanation that I can understand why the Rolling Stones would not be conerned by this, whereas Pink Floyd is.

And in 1973 the Rolling Stone had several show recorded and partly aired on radio.

To my known some recordings* from the 1973 tour including those by KBFH aired September 29 and november 24 1974 are still officially unreleased and should be concerned by entering public domain.

The law is the same for both band.

* : that may concern at least partial shows as the Brussels shows have only been partially released within the 50 years.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-12-24 14:20 by ds1984.

Quote
Gazza
It's only a European copyright issue

I'm not 100% sure why the Stones haven't gone for the copyright protection thing. However the only Stones copyright issues related to the ABKCO era. The last tour to get a release was, I think, 1969.

Presumably there's something in their contracts since they left ABKCO which has meant that the copyright on their performances from that era haven't expired.

It'll be interesting to see what Dylan's record label does this time next year. He didnt tour for 8 years after 1966 but when he went back on the road with The Band in 1974, the tour was more heavily bootlegged than any before it (probably by anyone) - all 40 shows were recorded.

well, Dylan already released his copyright protection release for 1973 some days ago => [www.discogs.com]
of course just a handful of handpicked usually small record stores in Europe and the UK got a few copies like always

1974 will surely be another thing. Although I don't really know why the 1974 is quite popular and I'm sure Sony won't miss the opportunity to cash in.

I doubt that all 40 shows of Dylan's 1974 were recorded. As far as I know only a few shows at the end of the tour were professional recorded for a live albums (which became 'Before The Flood'), bootlegs of some other shows are circulating but surely of fare less than 40 shows.

Quote
ds1984

Pink Floyd did the copyright release not the Rolling Stones.

Maybe it's a thing of the record company. The Pink Floyd 1973 live releases say 'licensed to Sony Music'. Bob Dylan is Sony Music too (Columbia). But the Rolling Stones are Universal Music.

Maybe Sony Music tries to secure copyright in countries of the world where's still a 50-years rule. In the European Union, the end for the 50-years rule was set to 1-Nov-2013 which means that recordings done until the end of 1963 had a 50 years protection while recordings done from 1964 onwards have a 70 years protection.

Maybe because Promopub is located in The Netherlands (EU) and Pink Floyd's company is in England? Just a guess.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Maybe because Promopub is located in The Netherlands (EU) and Pink Floyd's company is in England?

Before Brexit, the UK agreed to the new 70-years rule of the European Union. Someone has to look it up if the UK has changed their national copyright law after Brexit.

Quote
Irix

Quote
ds1984

Pink Floyd did the copyright release not the Rolling Stones.

Maybe it's a thing of the record company. The Pink Floyd 1973 live releases say 'licensed to Sony Music'. Bob Dylan is Sony Music too (Columbia). But the Rolling Stones are Universal Music.

Maybe Sony Music tries to secure copyright in countries of the world where's still a 50-years rule. In the European Union, the end for the 50-years rule was set to 1-Nov-2013 which means that recordings done until the end of 1963 had a 50 years protection while recordings done from 1964 onwards have a 70 years protection.

that's not correct. EU law rules that copyright expires 50 years after a recording was made if a recording has not been commerically used. Only recordings that have been commercially used within those 50 years are being copyright protected for 20 more years (= 70 years). Hence those releases shortly before the 50 years period ends.

Quote
slewan

EU law rules that copyright expires 50 years after a recording was made if a recording has not been commerically used.

The German copyright law - [www.Gesetze-im-Internet.de] - which complies to the 2011/77 EU directive - says in § 85 (3):

"The right expires 70 years after the publication of the phonogram. If the phonogram has not been published within 50 years of its production, but has been used for the purpose of authorised communication to the public, the right shall expire 70 years after this date. If the phonogram has not been published within this period or has been used for authorised communication to the public, the right shall expire 50 years after the production of the phonogram."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-12-24 16:20 by Irix.

Quote
Irix

Quote
slewan

EU law rules that copyright expires 50 years after a recording was made if a recording has not been commerically used.

The German copyright law - [www.Gesetze-im-Internet.de] - which complies to the 2011/77 EU directive - says in § 85 (3):

"The right expires 70 years after the publication of the phonogram. If the phonogram has not been published within 50 years of its production, but has been used for the purpose of authorised communication to the public, the right shall expire 70 years after this date. If the phonogram has not been published within this period or has been used for authorised communication to the public, the right shall expire 50 years after the production of the phonogram."

that's exactly what I pointed out above.

Quote
slewan

that's exactly what I pointed out above.

And you'll find in § 137m (plus § 82) also the rules for my above described transition from the old 50-years to the new 70-years rule (1-Nov-2013).

Quote
ds1984

Pink Floyd did the copyright release not the Rolling Stones.

Looks like Sony Music (Bob Dylan sold his rights to them) refers to such a copyright rule: "If the phonogram has not been published within this period or has been used for authorised communication to the public, the right shall expire 50 years after the production of the phonogram." Why the Stones don't do it, only the Stones-own Musidor/Promotone (Promo-Group) knows.

In the interview with The Wall Street Journal (26-Sep-2023) Mick said about selling the Stones' post-1971 catalog: "No. He knows a tidy lump sum of cash might leave a less byzantine legacy for heirs, but 'the children don’t need $500 million to live well. Come on.' Maybe it’ll go to charity one day. You maybe do some good in the world,' he says." - [iorr.org] , [Archive.ph] , [www.WSJ.com] .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-12-24 20:05 by Irix.

Quote
slewan

Quote
Gazza
It's only a European copyright issue

I'm not 100% sure why the Stones haven't gone for the copyright protection thing. However the only Stones copyright issues related to the ABKCO era. The last tour to get a release was, I think, 1969.

Presumably there's something in their contracts since they left ABKCO which has meant that the copyright on their performances from that era haven't expired.

It'll be interesting to see what Dylan's record label does this time next year. He didnt tour for 8 years after 1966 but when he went back on the road with The Band in 1974, the tour was more heavily bootlegged than any before it (probably by anyone) - all 40 shows were recorded.

well, Dylan already released his copyright protection release for 1973 some days ago => [www.discogs.com]
of course just a handful of handpicked usually small record stores in Europe and the UK got a few copies like always

1974 will surely be another thing. Although I don't really know why the 1974 is quite popular and I'm sure Sony won't miss the opportunity to cash in.

I doubt that all 40 shows of Dylan's 1974 were recorded. As far as I know only a few shows at the end of the tour were professional recorded for a live albums (which became 'Before The Flood'), bootlegs of some other shows are circulating but surely of fare less than 40 shows.

By 'recorded' I mean by fans. Dylan's copyright releases have historically included audience recordings - as did the Stones ABKCO ones.

The shows in Seattle, New York and Los Angeles were professionally recorded for 'Before The Flood' although only a couple of them circulate as soundboards. Every show is available as an audience recording

I'm aware of the 1973 copyright release. Unfortunately I didnt see the e-mail from Badlands offering it until it was too late! I did manage to be quick enough to get the 1970 one from them 3 years ago though!

Quote
Gazza

Quote
slewan

Quote
Gazza
It's only a European copyright issue

I'm not 100% sure why the Stones haven't gone for the copyright protection thing. However the only Stones copyright issues related to the ABKCO era. The last tour to get a release was, I think, 1969.

Presumably there's something in their contracts since they left ABKCO which has meant that the copyright on their performances from that era haven't expired.

It'll be interesting to see what Dylan's record label does this time next year. He didnt tour for 8 years after 1966 but when he went back on the road with The Band in 1974, the tour was more heavily bootlegged than any before it (probably by anyone) - all 40 shows were recorded.

well, Dylan already released his copyright protection release for 1973 some days ago => [www.discogs.com]
of course just a handful of handpicked usually small record stores in Europe and the UK got a few copies like always

1974 will surely be another thing. Although I don't really know why the 1974 is quite popular and I'm sure Sony won't miss the opportunity to cash in.

I doubt that all 40 shows of Dylan's 1974 were recorded. As far as I know only a few shows at the end of the tour were professional recorded for a live albums (which became 'Before The Flood'), bootlegs of some other shows are circulating but surely of fare less than 40 shows.

By 'recorded' I mean by fans. Dylan's copyright releases have historically included audience recordings - as did the Stones ABKCO ones.

The shows in Seattle, New York and Los Angeles were professionally recorded for 'Before The Flood' although only a couple of them circulate as soundboards. Every show is available as an audience recording
(…)

hm, I didn't know or rather forgot it. Since I was never interested in the 1974 stuff (he simply forgot how to sing!) it's quite understandable that I forgot it.
The new Budokan box is the first major Dylan release I didn't buy and a 1974 live box will be the second…

Quote
Irix

Quote
slewan

EU law rules that copyright expires 50 years after a recording was made if a recording has not been commerically used.

The German copyright law - [www.Gesetze-im-Internet.de] - which complies to the 2011/77 EU directive - says in § 85 (3):

"The right expires 70 years after the publication of the phonogram. If the phonogram has not been published within 50 years of its production, but has been used for the purpose of authorised communication to the public, the right shall expire 70 years after this date. If the phonogram has not been published within this period or has been used for authorised communication to the public, the right shall expire 50 years after the production of the phonogram."

Thank you this is what I was looking for.
So all the unaired recorded show up to 1973 are entering the public domain.

Let's rob the Stones vaults !!!

Edit : striked because I misinterpret the meaning - see my next post on the subject [iorr.org]



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2023-12-26 17:38 by ds1984.

Quote
ds1984

So all the unaired recorded show up to 1973 are entering the public domain.

I'm not entirely sure about that - at least there might be an expiration after 50 years, but I'm no lawyer. Sony Music seems to be aware of this 50-year rule - but other record companies apparently not.

Besides the 27 EU member states, there're ~168 further countries in the world where other copyright rules may apply.

Quote
Irix

Quote
ds1984

So all the unaired recorded show up to 1973 are entering the public domain.

I'm not entirely sure about that - at least there might be an expiration after 50 years, but I'm no lawyer. Sony Music seems to be aware of this 50-year rule - but other record companies apparently not.

Besides the 27 EU member states, there're ~168 further countries in the world where other copyright rules may apply.

Be assured that every record company of some stature is aware of this 50-year-rule, not only Sony Music.

One should keep in mind that this is foremost an artist topic and not so much a record company thing. We are dealing with unreleased performances here, and only the respective artist/performer decides whether to release it or not, and this naturally includes copyright extension releases, even in very limited runs. It's always the artist/performer who has the final say, not the record company. Of course, there are exceptions from this general rule, mainly when record companies bought the complete catalog including unreleased material and respective release rights from certain artists, see Dylan-Sony Music.

Why the Stones so far did nothing in terms of copyright extension for their post 1971 material is solely a personal decision and therefore only up for guesswork. Imo it's possible that the increasingly dwindling market for archive releases plays a certain role. Also, the band knows pretty well what's out there circulating already in bootleg and collector's circles, sometimes since decades at that, so copyright extension would mainly make sense for recordings from their archive that haven't leaked so far. But if you finally leak them through limited copyright extension releases you'll also feed greedy bootleggers who never cared for copyrights anyway - well, that's exactly what happed with the stuff that ABKCO put out!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-12-26 06:17 by retired_dog.

Quote
retired_dog
But if you finally leak them through limited copyright extension releases you'll also feed greedy bootleggers who never cared for copyrights anyway - well, that's exactly what happed with the stuff that ABKCO put out!

And with full approvement from The Rolling Stones, mind you!
The recordings leaked on Youtube by ABKCO, is copyrighted by both ABKCO and Promotone (The Stones’ publishing company).

Quote
retired_dog

It's always the artist/performer who has the final say, not the record company.

It probably depends on the contracts or who gave the money or who was in charge for the recordings. Unused recordings could probably be released one time when they're older than 50 years - and then it would be questionable if they still have the copyright. Extension releases should be no problem: release them in low quality (e.g. in mono with limited frequency range and some glitches) - it would only show what's still in the vaults. If the 50-years rule is really a concern, then there should be extension releases beside Sony also by Universal, Warner or independent labels - respectively their artists. But it seems there aren't much activities.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Irix

Quote
ds1984

So all the unaired recorded show up to 1973 are entering the public domain.

I'm not entirely sure about that - at least there might be an expiration after 50 years, but I'm no lawyer. Sony Music seems to be aware of this 50-year rule - but other record companies apparently not.

Besides the 27 EU member states, there're ~168 further countries in the world where other copyright rules may apply.

Be assured that every record company of some stature is aware of this 50-year-rule, not only Sony Music.

One should keep in mind that this is foremost an artist topic and not so much a record company thing. We are dealing with unreleased performances here, and only the respective artist/performer decides whether to release it or not, and this naturally includes copyright extension releases, even in very limited runs. It's always the artist/performer who has the final say, not the record company. Of course, there are exceptions from this general rule, mainly when record companies bought the complete catalog including unreleased material and respective release rights from certain artists, see Dylan-Sony Music.

Why the Stones so far did nothing in terms of copyright extension for their post 1971 material is solely a personal decision and therefore only up for guesswork. Imo it's possible that the increasingly dwindling market for archive releases plays a certain role. Also, the band knows pretty well what's out there circulating already in bootleg and collector's circles, sometimes since decades at that, so copyright extension would mainly make sense for recordings from their archive that haven't leaked so far. But if you finally leak them through limited copyright extension releases you'll also feed greedy bootleggers who never cared for copyrights anyway - well, that's exactly what happed with the stuff that ABKCO put out!

whoever has the final say or right to vote – if recordings are not commercially used within 50 years the copyright is lost and can't be retained.
The fact that a lot recordings are already circulating might play a role in decision process but is irrelevant for the legal question of copyright protection.

It doesn't make sense not to release recording from their archives in order to prevent these recordings from being bootlegged or rather pirated. In contrast, by not releasing uncirculating recordings within time they become public domain (although nobody has access to them) and therefore economically worthless. If they release them after those 50 years anybody is allowed to copy and sell them anywhere (i.e. not just under the table but on amazon, ebay… just anywhere)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-12-26 13:27 by slewan.

Quote
slewan

In contrast, by not releasing uncirculating recordings within time they become public domain (although nobody has access to them) and therefore economically worthless.

They're economically not worthless - you could release them once, e.g. as part of an expensive super deluxe edition. But after that, everyone could use it (e.g. for copies, repackaging, remixes/remaster, etc) due to the expired copyright after 50 years. There're some small labels (e.g. London Calling, 1960s Records, Coda Publishing) who make a little money and often release old Radio/TV-Broadcasts due to expired copyright (50 years). And the artists get money nonetheless due to the royalties for the compositions/lyrics because these are protected for 70 years after the death of the last surviving author.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023-12-26 14:25 by Irix.

Quote
Irix

Quote
slewan

In contrast, by not releasing uncirculating recordings within time they become public domain (although nobody has access to them) and therefore economically worthless.

They're economically not worthless - you could release them once, e.g. as part of an expensive super deluxe edition. But after that, everyone could use it (e.g. for copies, repackaging, remixes/remaster, etc) due to the expired copyright after 50 years. There're some small labels (e.g. London Calling, 1960s Records, Coda Publishing) who make a little money and often release old Radio/TV-Broadcasts due to expired copyright (50 years). And the artists get money nonetheless due to the royalties for the compositions/lyrics because these are protected for 70 years after the death of the last surviving author.

the recordings themselves become worthless once they are public domain. They can put them into great packages/boxes, add merch itmes etc. and make some money by selling these boxes. But once the recordings are on the marked anybody can sell them and beat any price… Anyhow – it makes much more sense to release those deluxe editions you're talking about (or at least some copyright protection release) before the copyright expires to protect the very copyright.

Quote
slewan

Anyhow – it makes much more sense to release those deluxe editions you're talking about (or at least some copyright protection release) before the copyright expires to protect the very copyright.

Yes: either one time an expensive super deluxe edition (copyright lost after that) - or a low quality release for copyright extension to protect it for 70 years.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-12-26 14:55 by Irix.

If they never release these does it mean they're not into cash grabs after all?

Quote
Irix

Quote
slewan

Anyhow – it makes much more sense to release those deluxe editions you're talking about (or at least some copyright protection release) before the copyright expires to protect the very copyright.

Yes: either one time an expensive super deluxe edition (copyright lost after that) - or a low quality release for copyright extension to protect it for 70 years.

no – expensive super deluxe edition before the end of the 50 years period and protecting the copyright by that release.

The way Sony does it with Dylan recordings might be the best way. Everything they consider to be marketable to a wider audience they release either as 'bootleg series' releases or as special live boxes (the 'live 1966' 36 CD box). Stuff they consider to be less marketable they release in very low quantities as 'copyright/50th anniversary' releases. Of course these released are sometimes pirated but at least they save the copyright. Some of these releases were on vinyl only which makes pirating less easy. Illegal copies are to be found, of course. But you have to search for them and regular people and/or casual fans don't find them on amazon etc.


An answer to the question why the Rolling Stones don't do it they was Sony does might simply be that they don't have enough or good enough stuff left in their vaults that might appeal to wider audience.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-12-26 15:47 by slewan.

Quote
slewan

An answer to the question why the Rolling Stones don't do it they was Sony does might simply be that they don't have enough or good enough stuff left in their vaults that might appeal to wider audience.

That might also be the answer why they don't do expensive super deluxe editions every year to secure the copyright. In case of Pink Floyd went Sony Music the way of low quality releases via streaming services.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-12-26 17:00 by Irix.

By making additionnal research I see that in my last post I may not have understood the 2011 EU directive in it's full extend - I was wrong about "public domain", this is not the right matter.


That put light in the case of the Rolling Stone NOT publishing their own archive post 1970, they don't do it because they don't need to do it.



The 2011 EU directive is protecting the performing artist in its relation with the record producer.

And what the 2011 EU directive means is that the producer is losing the right in favor of the performer artist on recording after 50 years if the producer doesn't exploit it.

The thing to understand is that unreleased recording exploitation right are going back to the artist 50 years after it fixation year unless the record producer is plublishing it before the 50 years term ("use it or lose it").

And by becoming their own record producer The olling Stones are not affected by this part of the 2011 EU directive contrary to Pink Floyd or Bob Dylan.



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 2023-12-26 17:49 by ds1984.