For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Gazza
It's only a European copyright issue
Quote
Gazza
I'm not 100% sure why the Stones haven't gone for the copyright protection thing.
Quote
Gazza
For every artist of that vintage who have put out copyright protection releases, there are dozens of others who havent
Quote
IrixQuote
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.
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.
Quote
ds1984
Pink Floyd did the copyright release not the Rolling Stones.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Maybe because Promopub is located in The Netherlands (EU) and Pink Floyd's company is in England?
Quote
IrixQuote
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.
Quote
slewan
EU law rules that copyright expires 50 years after a recording was made if a recording has not been commerically used.
Quote
IrixQuote
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."
Quote
slewan
that's exactly what I pointed out above.
Quote
ds1984
Pink Floyd did the copyright release not the Rolling Stones.
Quote
slewanQuote
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
GazzaQuote
slewanQuote
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
(…)
Quote
IrixQuote
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."
Quote
ds1984
So all the unaired recorded show up to 1973 are entering the public domain.
Quote
IrixQuote
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
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!
Quote
retired_dog
It's always the artist/performer who has the final say, not the record company.
Quote
retired_dogQuote
IrixQuote
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!
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.
Quote
IrixQuote
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.
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.
Quote
IrixQuote
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.
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.