Quote
ds1984

The Rolling Stones becoming their own record producer are not affected by this article contrary to Pink Floyd or Bob Dylan.

The Rolling Stones holding their own rights since 1971 (Promo-Group) while Bob Dylan recently sold his rights to Sony Music and Pink Floyd wanted to sell their rights (currently on hold) - [Variety.com] .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-12-26 18:10 by Irix.

Quote
Irix

Quote
ds1984

The Rolling Stones becoming their own record producer are not affected by this article contrary to Pink Floyd or Bob Dylan.

The Rolling Stones holding their own rights since 1971 (Promo-Group) while Pink Floyd and Bob Dylan sold recently their rights to Sony Music.

Are you sure that the 2011 EU directive covers the exact same kind of rights.

There are performer right, author right, publishing rights, and others.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023-12-26 18:09 by ds1984.

Quote
ds1984

Are you sure that the 2011 EU directive covers the exact same kind of rights.

The 50-years discussion is about unused recordings. Have a look into the (national) copyright laws - there're more countries in the world than the 27 EU member states. The 2011/77/EU is only a directive and had to be incorporated into national law of the EU member states.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023-12-26 19:20 by Irix.

The cost to administer and protect the copyright under multiple country/regional laws may be more than the potential revenues to earn from some copyrights. On this site, and a few others, there are hardcore fans who will gladly collect any tidbit of recorded Stones material. But how much real income could be in it for the band? Record and CD sales, even when they put a decent amount of money into promotion, worldwide, can't add up to more than a couple hundred thousand units (Stripped was released when people still bought large amounts of CDs...and I think sales were still pretty low). For streaming, how much gross revenue will a studio or live outtake from 1971 generate? I know I would listen, along with the rest of those who read this, but in the wider world? 100,000 streams, maybe netting $100-$200 max? Maybe far less, depending on where people listen. It may not cover the cost of their attorneys answering the phone.

Quote
buffalo7478

The cost to administer and protect the copyright under multiple country/regional laws may be more than the potential revenues to earn from some copyrights.

Must be worth it since Pink Floyd temporary released 1972 & 1973 recordings in 2022 & 2023 worldwide via streaming services - [iorr.org] , [iorr.org] .

"Bob Dylan’s team [...] simply pressed 300 or so CDs and sent them to random European stores with no advanced notice to technically comply with the law" - [www.RollingStone.com] .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-12-26 21:35 by Irix.

Quote
ds1984
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.

where exactly do you find this in the EU directive?

Quote
Irix

Quote
buffalo7478

The cost to administer and protect the copyright under multiple country/regional laws may be more than the potential revenues to earn from some copyrights.

Must be worth it since Pink Floyd temporary released 1972 & 1973 recordings in 2022 & 2023 worldwide via streaming services - [iorr.org] , [iorr.org] .

"Bob Dylan’s team [...] simply pressed 300 or so CDs and sent them to random European stores with no advanced notice to technically comply with the law" - [www.RollingStone.com] .

not really randomly since more or less the same stores get their small share almost every year

Quote
slewan

Quote
ds1984
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.

where exactly do you find this in the EU directive?

I do not find it explicitely written that way.
So feel free to correct me if you get a better understanding of the reason why The Rolling Stones are not proceeding to a first lawful communication to the public within the 50 years of the fixation and still avoid losing their producer rights over them.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-12-27 13:57 by ds1984.

Quote
ds1984

Quote
slewan

Quote
ds1984
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.

where exactly do you find this in the EU directive?

I do not find it explicitely written that way.
So feel free to correct me if you get a better understanding of the reason why The Rolling Stones are not proceeding to a first lawful communication to the public within the 50 years of the fixation and still avoid losing their producer rights over them.

as far as I understood the EU directive it says that if a record company hasn't released yet unreleased stuff before the end of the 50 years peroid artists have the right to demand a release. If the record company refuses the artists are entitled to release the stuff themselves – before the 50 years period ends. If they don't do so the copyright expires.

Why neither the Stones nor their record company does anything, remains a mystery but I don't think it was anything to do with the EU law.
On the other hand I think the deluxe editions of Exile, Some Girls, and Tattoo You were reactions to the copyright situation – at least it saved the copryrights for important outtakes.

Quote
slewan

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.

Well, what would make sense for you or me does not mean it makes sense for the Stones, whatever their reasoning really may be.

There's also another aspect one should keep in mind concerning previously unleaked performances: Let's say a complete Wembley 1973 soundboard enters the public domain after 50 years and gets released by the Stones afterwards.

So as an enterprising public domain label you think it's now free for all? Like "let's copy the Stones release and sell it cheaper"? Careful: If you copy the Stones official release "'cause it's public domain!" you might get in trouble with local unfair competition laws. Stones lawyers will argue that the Stones spent a significant amount of money to bring the original recording up to release standarts (restoration, mixing, mastering, whatever) and by copying their release, you exploit their investment unfairly...
...and there you are with all your copyright wisdom...!

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.

It's anybody's guess, but I'd say it's a fair estimation that all outtakes leaked combine about 20% of what they actually have available. Also, they recorded half of the 1971 and 1972 tours, and most shows of the tours since 1973. Professional 8 and 16 track, and 24 track since 1989. Most shows since 1989 are filmed as well.

The answer why they don't release more most likely is that Jagger is not interested in releasing any material without tampering it.

Mathijs

Quote
Irix

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.

But you surely must have noticed that a lot of artists and their record companies have released tons of their archive recordings already since many years - and well before the 50 years expiration-deadline? As standalone releases or as bonus tracks for album rereleases and box sets like live shows, studio outtakes or BBC recordings - not to speak of download/streaming activities?

The fifty years rule only applies to broadcast material, which is why we can issue previously-unreleased radio and TV broadcasts but not studio outtakes

[rhythmandbluesrecords.co.uk]

Quote
johnnythunders
The fifty years rule only applies to broadcast material, which is why we can issue previously-unreleased radio and TV broadcasts but not studio outtakes

[rhythmandbluesrecords.co.uk]

this is simply wrong! The 50 years rule applies to all kinds of recordings. The fact that there are more live recordings on the market is simply because they are easier to access than (unreleased/not leaked) studio recordings.

by the way: did you notice that no recording that is sold on the website you mentioned has been made after 1972? It's easy to guess why…

Quote
johnnythunders
The fifty years rule only applies to broadcast material, which is why we can issue previously-unreleased radio and TV broadcasts but not studio outtakes

[rhythmandbluesrecords.co.uk]

Nope. Most of the Dylan copyright releases were NOT broadcasts, and included studio outtakes and live performances (both soundboard and audience recordings)

The Stones ABKCO recordings from 1969 were audience and soundboard live material

Quote
Mathijs


The answer why they don't release more most likely is that Jagger is not interested in releasing any material without tampering it.

Mathijs

I lean on thinking that this is the explanation. The Stones, or Mick, do not want to release anything just for the sake of it (to get the copyright). If there would be some real money involved there, the attitude might have been different, but there are not. To get a few cents, Jagger would not let some low-rate stuff to be released. Let the bootleggers for the joy of die-hard fans, do they small business, like they have always done, no big deal.

The artists who do that - Dylan, Pink Floyd - probably have a different kind idea of artistic integrity. For them the idea to control everything they ever have done seems to be the driving agenda. Anyway, one can also critizise this attitude or being amused by it - do they really take themselves so seriously that anything they ever done needs to be protected against bootleg market, no matter there is not really money involved?

We need to also remember that the curtain set by 'Beatles Directive' - that of ANY recording reaching 70 years from 1964 on will be Public Domain - is getting closer and closer... Compared to that I think some non-officially released stuff is not really such a big deal...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-12-27 18:57 by Doxa.

Quote
Irix

Quote
ds1984

The Rolling Stones becoming their own record producer are not affected by this article contrary to Pink Floyd or Bob Dylan.

The Rolling Stones holding their own rights since 1971 (Promo-Group) while Bob Dylan recently sold his rights to Sony Music and Pink Floyd wanted to sell their rights (currently on hold) - [Variety.com] .

Dylan only sold his catalogue in two deals in December 2020 and July 2021 (the latter was announced in January 2022)

The first copyright extension release came out in December 2012.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-12-27 18:51 by Gazza.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
johnnythunders
The fifty years rule only applies to broadcast material, which is why we can issue previously-unreleased radio and TV broadcasts but not studio outtakes

[rhythmandbluesrecords.co.uk]

Nope. Most of the Dylan copyright releases were NOT broadcasts, and included studio outtakes and live performances (both soundboard and audience recordings)

The Stones ABKCO recordings from 1969 were audience and soundboard live material

right.

But anyhow – referring to selected case examples is not a way to find out what EU laws say

Quote
Doxa

We need to also remember that the curtain set by 'Beatles Directive' - that of ANY recording reaching 70 years will be Public Domain - is getting closer and closer... Compared to that I think some non-officially released stuff is not really such a big deal...

- Doxa

Start january 1st 2034.
Which artists will be still alive to be concerned ?

Quote
slewan

Quote
ds1984

Quote
slewan

Quote
ds1984
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.

where exactly do you find this in the EU directive?

I do not find it explicitely written that way.
So feel free to correct me if you get a better understanding of the reason why The Rolling Stones are not proceeding to a first lawful communication to the public within the 50 years of the fixation and still avoid losing their producer rights over them.

as far as I understood the EU directive it says that if a record company hasn't released yet unreleased stuff before the end of the 50 years peroid artists have the right to demand a release. If the record company refuses the artists are entitled to release the stuff themselves – before the 50 years period ends. If they don't do so the copyright expires.

Why neither the Stones nor their record company does anything, remains a mystery but I don't think it was anything to do with the EU law.
On the other hand I think the deluxe editions of Exile, Some Girls, and Tattoo You were reactions to the copyright situation – at least it saved the copryrights for important outtakes.

I have carefully read and there are two different articles involved in the question.

To make things clear, I give the article as published by the Official Journal of the European Union

The article 3 paragraph 2 of the DIRECTIVE 2006-116-EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amended by the article 1 paragraph 2 of the DIRECTIVE 2011/77/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL


2.The rights of producers of phonograms shall expire 50 years after the fixation is made. However, if the phonogram has been lawfully published within this period, the said rights shall expire 70 years from the date of the first lawful publication. If no lawful publication has taken place within the period mentioned in the first sentence, and if the phonogram has been lawfully communicated to the public within this period, the said rights shall expire 70 years from the date of the first lawful communication to the public.

This is my point (1) discussed further below

Then there is a new paragraph "2a" added to the article 3 paragraph 2 of the DIRECTIVE 2006-116-EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL by the DIRECTIVE 2011/77/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL - article 1 paragraph 2 alinea c;

2a. If, 50 years after the phonogram was lawfully published or, failing such publication, 50 years after it was lawfully communicated to the public, the phonogram producer does not offer copies of the phonogram for sale in sufficient quantity or does not make it available to the public, by wire or wireless means, in such a way that members of the public may access it from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, the performer may terminate the contract by which the performer has transferred or assigned his rights in the fixation of his performance to a phonogram producer (hereinafter a ‘contract on transfer or assignment’). The right to terminate the contract on transfer or assignment may be exercised if the producer, within a year from the notification by the performer of his intention to terminate the contract on transfer or assignment pursuant to the previous sentence, fails to carry out both of the acts of exploitation referred to in that sentence. This right to terminate may not be waived by the performer. Where a phonogram contains the fixation of the performances of a plurality of performers, they may terminate their contracts on transfer or assignment in accordance with applicable national law. If the contract on transfer or assignment is terminated pursuant to this paragraph, the rights of the phonogram producer in the phonogram shall expire.

This is my point (2) discussed further below


Link to the amended directive : DIRECTIVE 2006/116/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL



So

Point (1) : that sounds like the tape enters the public domain.
So anyone who owns a legal copy of the 50 years fixation can publish it without claim of the original producer.
Discussion : who, other than the original producer, can object the release of the tape?
I may think that unless the artist has already given it to the original producer of the recording, "a legal artist clearance" has still to be obtained to be able to publish it.

Point (2) : this is the "use it or lose it" in favour ot the artist. But contrary to point (1) this point is only about released/communicated recordings.
So I may think now that the "use it or lose it" is not applicable to the Rolling Stones case.

Point (3) : up to now what is discussed are legaly fixed recording. But what about the audience tapes?
This has been the big question around the Beatles Hamburg tapes. With debate about 3.1) did the Beatles autorised the recording 3.2) right to record does not grant right to commercial exploitation of them.

Point (4) : USA...

Excerpts from article Public domain sound recordings


If a sound recording is in the public domain, you don’t need permission to use it (permission from the performers or recording company, that is). But you will need permission from the copyright owner of the underlying work if it isn’t in the public domain.

Until that magic date in 2067, pre-1972 sound recordings are protected by a panoply of state laws (antipiracy and unfair trade practice laws, for example), some of which are quite strict. Trust me. Strict.

Sound recordings published on or after Feb. 15, 1972 and before January 1, 1978 will be protected by copyright for 95 years from publication date. So the earliest date any of these could enter the public domain is January 1, 2068. And unpublished sound recordings? They will continue to be protected by state law.

... and sound recordings made on or after Jan. 1, 1978?

Ditto. Sound recordings made or published on or after January 1, 1978 will be protected by copyright for 95 years from publication date.



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 2023-12-27 19:49 by ds1984.

Quote
ds1984

Quote
slewan

Quote
ds1984

Quote
slewan

Quote
ds1984
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.

where exactly do you find this in the EU directive?

I do not find it explicitely written that way.
So feel free to correct me if you get a better understanding of the reason why The Rolling Stones are not proceeding to a first lawful communication to the public within the 50 years of the fixation and still avoid losing their producer rights over them.

as far as I understood the EU directive it says that if a record company hasn't released yet unreleased stuff before the end of the 50 years peroid artists have the right to demand a release. If the record company refuses the artists are entitled to release the stuff themselves – before the 50 years period ends. If they don't do so the copyright expires.

Why neither the Stones nor their record company does anything, remains a mystery but I don't think it was anything to do with the EU law.
On the other hand I think the deluxe editions of Exile, Some Girls, and Tattoo You were reactions to the copyright situation – at least it saved the copryrights for important outtakes.

I have carefully read and there are two different articles involved in the question.

To make things clear, I give the article as published by the Official Journal of the European Union

The article 3 paragraph 2 of the DIRECTIVE 2006-116-EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amended by the article 1 paragraph 2 of the DIRECTIVE 2011/77/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL


2.The rights of producers of phonograms shall expire 50 years after the fixation is made. However, if the phonogram has been lawfully published within this period, the said rights shall expire 70 years from the date of the first lawful publication. If no lawful publication has taken place within the period mentioned in the first sentence, and if the phonogram has been lawfully communicated to the public within this period, the said rights shall expire 70 years from the date of the first lawful communication to the public.

This is my point (1) discussed further below

Then there is a new paragraph "2a" added to the article 3 paragraph 2 of the DIRECTIVE 2006-116-EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL by the DIRECTIVE 2011/77/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL - article 1 paragraph 2 alinea c;

2a. If, 50 years after the phonogram was lawfully published or, failing such publication, 50 years after it was lawfully communicated to the public, the phonogram producer does not offer copies of the phonogram for sale in sufficient quantity or does not make it available to the public, by wire or wireless means, in such a way that members of the public may access it from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, the performer may terminate the contract by which the performer has transferred or assigned his rights in the fixation of his performance to a phonogram producer (hereinafter a ‘contract on transfer or assignment’). The right to terminate the contract on transfer or assignment may be exercised if the producer, within a year from the notification by the performer of his intention to terminate the contract on transfer or assignment pursuant to the previous sentence, fails to carry out both of the acts of exploitation referred to in that sentence. This right to terminate may not be waived by the performer. Where a phonogram contains the fixation of the performances of a plurality of performers, they may terminate their contracts on transfer or assignment in accordance with applicable national law. If the contract on transfer or assignment is terminated pursuant to this paragraph, the rights of the phonogram producer in the phonogram shall expire.

This is my point (2) discussed further below


Link to the amended directive : DIRECTIVE 2006/116/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL



So

Point (1) : that sounds like the tape enters the public domain.
So anyone who owns a legal copy of the 50 years fixation can publish it without claim of the original producer.
Discussion : who, other than the original producer, can object the release of the tape?
I may think that unless the artist has already given it to the original producer of the recording, "a legal artist clearance" has still to be obtained to be able to publish it.

Point (2) : this is the "use it or lose it" in favour ot the artist. But contrary to point (1) this point is only about released/communicated recordings.
So I may think now that the "use it or lose it" is not applicable to the Rolling Stones case.

Point (3) : up to now what is discussed are legaly fixed recording. But what about the audience tapes?
This has been the big question around the Beatles Hamburg tapes. With debate about 3.1) did the Beatles autorised the recording 3.2) right to record does not grant right to commercial exploitation of them.

Point (4) : USA...

Excerpts from article Public domain sound recordings


If a sound recording is in the public domain, you don’t need permission to use it (permission from the performers or recording company, that is). But you will need permission from the copyright owner of the underlying work if it isn’t in the public domain.

Until that magic date in 2067, pre-1972 sound recordings are protected by a panoply of state laws (antipiracy and unfair trade practice laws, for example), some of which are quite strict. Trust me. Strict.

Sound recordings published on or after Feb. 15, 1972 and before January 1, 1978 will be protected by copyright for 95 years from publication date. So the earliest date any of these could enter the public domain is January 1, 2068. And unpublished sound recordings? They will continue to be protected by state law.

... and sound recordings made on or after Jan. 1, 1978?

Ditto. Sound recordings made or published on or after January 1, 1978 will be protected by copyright for 95 years from publication date.

I can say anything about the situation in the USA so I can only comment on what you wrote about the EU law.

In general I think you are reading too much into the EU law. In other words, your interpretations are not supported by the EU law you quoted.
(1) your assumption that 'anyone who owns a legal copy of the 50 years fixation can publish it without claim of the original producer.' (italic added) is not supported by what you correctly quote. If fact the law you quoted says:
'The rights of producers of phonograms shall expire 50 years after the fixation is made. However, if the phonogram has been lawfully published within this period, the said rights shall expire 70 years from the date of the first lawful publication. If no lawful publication has taken place within the period mentioned in the first sentence, and if the phonogram has been lawfully communicated to the public within this period, the said rights shall expire 70 years from the date of the first lawful communication to the public.'
What you are adding is that the word 'legal copy' in this can't be found in he law. Even the word 'legal' (let alone 'legal copy' isn't used in the quote. The terms 'lawfully' and 'lawful' are referring to publishing and communicating. (The references to 'lawfulness' are important to ensure that the copyright isn't neither been lost because some bootleg is (unlawfully) release nor been protected by an 'unlawful' bootleg release within the 50 years period after the recording was made)
I guess this answers you second question – anyone how has access to a recording can release it after it was become public domain = 50 years after it was recorded, unless it was released by the copyright holder before the end of these 50 years.

(2) Once again you quotation is correct but your interpretation is wrong. Close reading is required: 'If, 50 years after the phonogram was lawfully published or, failing such publication, 50 years after it was lawfully communicated to the public, the phonogram producer does not offer copies of the phonogram for sale in sufficient quantity or does not make it available to the public…" (italics added)
In fact that paragraph is not just about released/communicated recordings. You seem to read 'or' as 'and'. The paragraph mentions different cases: a. published, b. not published, c. lawfully communicated but no copies offered for sale within 50 years. (c. is to make clear that a copyright is expires after 50 years even if the 'phonograph' has being broadcast within 50 years. In other words: broadcasting doesn't protect the copyright from expiring)

You are right in saying that the ruling paragraph 2a is in favor of the artist. But close reading reveals that it's in favor of the artist only insofar as he is entitled so save the copyright by official his recordings by himself if/in case the copyright holder (usually a record company or whoever) fails or refuses to release the recordings within the 50 years period. The copyright holder has to inform the artist what they intend to do before the copyright expires. So the artist has enough time to act and save the copyright if the copyright holder doesn't act. In short: This ruling gives the artist a say in protecting the copyright for another 20 years or let the recording become public domain.

(3). Your third point is already answered. Since the cited law do not draw a distinction between legally and not legally made recordings {at least not in relation to the 50 years rule) it's irrelevant by whom a recording has been made.

If I had to predict the future and knowing the music my daughter and nieces and their friends listen to I think the value of stones, pink floyd, bowie and son on will be zero in the future.

Quote
slewan
What you are adding is that the word 'legal copy' in this can't be found in he law. Even the word 'legal' (let alone 'legal copy' isn't used in the quote.

The terms 'lawfully' and 'lawful' are referring to publishing and communicating. (The references to 'lawfulness' are important to ensure that the copyright isn't neither been lost because some bootleg is (unlawfully) release nor been protected by an 'unlawful' bootleg release within the 50 years period after the recording was made)

I guess this answers you second question – anyone who has access to a recording can release it after it was become public domain = 50 years after it was recorded, unless it was released by the copyright holder before the end of these 50 years.

For this part I should have not used the term 'legal copy'

Quote
slewan
(2) Once again you quotation is correct but your interpretation is wrong.

Close reading is required: 'If, 50 years after the phonogram was lawfully published or, failing such publication, 50 years after it was lawfully communicated to the public, the phonogram producer does not offer copies of the phonogram for sale in sufficient quantity or does not make it available to the public…" (italics added)

In fact that paragraph is not just about released/communicated recordings. You seem to read 'or' as 'and'. The paragraph mentions different cases: a. published, b. not published, c. lawfully communicated but no copies offered for sale within 50 years. (c. is to make clear that a copyright is expires after 50 years even if the 'phonograph' has being broadcast within 50 years. In other words: broadcasting doesn't protect the copyright from expiring)

I don't understand why you say my intrerpretation is wrong.

You mention 3 cases I only see 2

a) lawfully published
b) not lawfully published BUT lawfully communicated to the public

Quote
ds1984

Quote
Doxa

We need to also remember that the curtain set by 'Beatles Directive' - that of ANY recording reaching 70 years will be Public Domain - is getting closer and closer... Compared to that I think some non-officially released stuff is not really such a big deal...

- Doxa

Start january 1st 2034.
Which artists will be still alive to be concerned ?

What does it matter? The artists do not take their catalogue, nor its copyright or value, with them when they die. Besides, if they were aware of facing the death soon, why would protecting the copyright of some commercially marginal weird vaults stuff be their major concern while they still are alive? One might think that in that case they would have some bigger concerns than wasting their bullets on gathering a few cents.

Anyway, the year 2034 will most hurt the entities owning the copyrights now. Mick and Keith will laugh their asses off when ABKCO era releases, one by one and year by year, enter Public Domain... As song-writers they will get their mechanical share of royalties no matter who publishes them. Allan Klein, while busy in coaling, is crying behind the grave...

Actually I recall a few years ago the Stones hired a special agency to watch over their royalties all over the world. Could it be that the EU directive has a role there, knowing that there will be Public Domain releases that will owe them royalties? Technically that of old illegal recordings coming legal works for them: they didn't gain anything out of illegal bootlegs, but now, if those are to be released legally, they will - or should - get at least something... Could this be even explanation why they are not that concerned that some old live recordings are entering Public Domain? Probably Mick and Keith like more money than control... Haha, total speculation, but I feel like finding a missing link here... [and it goes along the old thumb rule for understanding the doings of the Stones: follow the money]

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2023-12-28 13:22 by Doxa.

Quote
ds1984

You mention 3 cases I only see 2

a) lawfully published
b) not lawfully published BUT lawfully communicated to the public

There could be a 3rd case c): 'not lawfully published and not lawfully communicated to the public' - because a recording was made, but never used (tape was archived until now).

Quote
emotionalbarbecue
If I had to predict the future and knowing the music my daughter and nieces and their friends listen to I think the value of stones, pink floyd, bowie and son on will be zero in the future.

Thats why (IMO) the smart thing is to sell their catalogue now as more and more acts of that era are doing.

Quote
Irix

Quote
ds1984

You mention 3 cases I only see 2

a) lawfully published
b) not lawfully published BUT lawfully communicated to the public

There could be a 3rd case c): 'not lawfully published and not lawfully communicated to the public' - because a recording was made, but never used (tape was archived until now).

Indeed, there could be a 3rd case as mentioned by you, but there is not - simply because the cited law has absolutely nothing to do with unreleased recordings! It's solely about the legal relationship between recording artists and their record companies, meaning that recording artists can claim back their rights from their record companies if these don't follow the provisions granted by this law. Basically it protects recording artists against record companies who are not interested in commercial exploitation of said recordings/phonographs anymore. We are talking about recordings that were once released or "lawfully communicated to the public" but are out of print and where the record company has no intention to use them for any commercial exploitation anymore.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023-12-28 19:19 by retired_dog.

Quote
retired_dog

the cited law has absolutely nothing to do with unreleased recordings!

The German copyright law has in § 85 (3) a text passage: "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." This could apply to unreleased recordings. The question would be if a studio tape (or a tape with live recordings) is to be considered a phonogram.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Irix

Quote
ds1984

You mention 3 cases I only see 2

a) lawfully published
b) not lawfully published BUT lawfully communicated to the public

There could be a 3rd case c): 'not lawfully published and not lawfully communicated to the public' - because a recording was made, but never used (tape was archived until now).

Indeed, there could be a 3rd case as mentioned by you, but there is not - simply because the cited law has absolutely nothing to do with unreleased recordings! It's solely about the legal relationship between recording artists and their record companies, meaning that recording artists can claim back their rights from their record companies if these don't follow the provisions granted by this law. Basically it protects recording artists against record companies who are not interested in commercial exploitation of said recordings/phonographs anymore. We are talking about recordings that were once released or "lawfully communicated to the public" but are out of print and where the record company has no intention to use them for any commercial exploitation anymore.

that's what I was pointing out in my post (see above), although I have to admit that your writing style is better than mine.

The three case I mentioned are:
1. phonogram published,
2. phonogram not published,
3. phonogram lawfully communicated but no copies offered for sale within 50 years.

Quote
Irix

Quote
retired_dog

the cited law has absolutely nothing to do with unreleased recordings!

The German copyright law has in § 85 (3) a text passage: "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." This could apply to unreleased recordings. The question would be if a studio tape (or a tape with live recordings) is to be considered a phonogram.

§ 85 UrhG deals with the rights of producers of phonograms (=phonographic sound recordings), not necessarily only record companies, but basically everybody who is responsible for a certain sound recording, by simply doing it (could be an amateur who is recording birds voices in a wood ... or a bootlegger recording a live show ... remember that discussion?) or is paying for a studio or live recording (could be the band themselves in case of the Stones = Promotone, Management, Broadcasters like the BBC or KBFH etc.).

So, of course, a studio tape (or a tape with live recordings) is to be considered a phonogram.