Quote
MrEcho

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
MrEcho
In December 2018 ABKCO uploaded the following 1968 tracks on YouTube:
Dear Doctor (alternate version)
Family (alternate intro and mix version)
Family (demo)
Mickey Mouse Blues (Child Of The Moon instr)
Pay Your Dues (Street Fighting Man early)
Sympathy For The Devil (alternate take)

I searched, for example, on Rolling Stones Mickey Mouse, and get no hits on youtube. Were they pulled down right after?

If not on youtube, can you kindly share them?

Thanks!

[iorr.org]
No. 040

Grabbing them now, thanks!

I downloaded that Frankenstein rar but it would not play, keeps getting all kinds of internal errors. Any suggestions?

jb

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
JordyLicks96

Quote
24FPS

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
MrEcho
In December 2018 ABKCO uploaded the following 1968 tracks on YouTube:
Dear Doctor (alternate version)
Family (alternate intro and mix version)
Family (demo)
Mickey Mouse Blues (Child Of The Moon instr)
Pay Your Dues (Street Fighting Man early)
Sympathy For The Devil (alternate take)

I searched, for example, on Rolling Stones Mickey Mouse, and get no hits on youtube. Were they pulled down right after?

If not on youtube, can you kindly share them?

Thanks!

I think this is "Mickey Mouse Blues": [youtu.be]

Nice.

I think that's a different acoustic version of Child of the Moon. The copyright version, Mickey Mouse Blues was definitely different.

Thanks. There are two more, right?

The two acoustic versions on YouTube now are from the Satanic Sessions in October '67 I believe.

The acoustic version from the ABKCO Copyright release, Mickey Mouse Blues, is from March '68.

Mickey Mouse Blues (Child Of The Moon)

Download link: [we.tl]
Link valid until 19/01/2020

Quote
jbwelda
I downloaded that Frankenstein rar but it would not play, keeps getting all kinds of internal errors. Any suggestions?

jb

You need to extract the rar-file, to get audio files:

[www.howtogeek.com]

thank you mr echo, I will look into that. I thought I already had that under control but evidently not

thanks again
jb

and of course it worked, thanks again Mr Echo

jb

Quote
JordyLicks96

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
JordyLicks96

Quote
24FPS

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
MrEcho
In December 2018 ABKCO uploaded the following 1968 tracks on YouTube:
Dear Doctor (alternate version)
Family (alternate intro and mix version)
Family (demo)
Mickey Mouse Blues (Child Of The Moon instr)
Pay Your Dues (Street Fighting Man early)
Sympathy For The Devil (alternate take)

I searched, for example, on Rolling Stones Mickey Mouse, and get no hits on youtube. Were they pulled down right after?

If not on youtube, can you kindly share them?

Thanks!

I think this is "Mickey Mouse Blues": [youtu.be]

Nice.

I think that's a different acoustic version of Child of the Moon. The copyright version, Mickey Mouse Blues was definitely different.

Thanks. There are two more, right?

The two acoustic versions on YouTube now are from the Satanic Sessions in October '67 I believe.

The acoustic version from the ABKCO Copyright release, Mickey Mouse Blues, is from March '68.

Yeah, that's right. Finally got around to listen to MMB now. Love Bill's fuss bass and Keith's psychedelic electric guitar on that take!

Quote
MrEcho
In December 2018 ABKCO uploaded the following 1968 tracks on YouTube:
Dear Doctor (alternate version)
Family (alternate intro and mix version)
Family (demo)
Mickey Mouse Blues (Child Of The Moon instr)
Pay Your Dues (Street Fighting Man early)
Sympathy For The Devil (alternate take)

I do think this version of Sympathy is a leftover of the One Plus One soundtrack, and specifically it's the complete final backing track with Mick's guide vocal.
Also, on the 1969 set Midnight Rambler is so short it made me think it could be an edit piece of the final verse, to be joined to a previous incomplete take.
Any thoughts?
Doc

It's still bugging me why they would release this material....this thing about copyright protection can't be right -why would you need to release something to prolong the copyright protection, when no one has the recording in the first place? With radio shows this is correct -the copyright expires 50 years after the broadcast, and as the material is available to everyone, an official release protects the rights again for another 50 years.

But why protect something that does not need protection? Why protect something from 1968, 51 years after the recording date? Why protect something like Palm Beach 1969, which is too awful in all ways to release anyway? And why release it for a couple of hours on youtube, without any warning beforehand, so the protection actually doesn't hold as it is not an 'official' release to the public?

I don't get it.

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs
It's still bugging me why they would release this material....this thing about copyright protection can't be right -why would you need to release something to prolong the copyright protection, when no one has the recording in the first place? With radio shows this is correct -the copyright expires 50 years after the broadcast, and as the material is available to everyone, an official release protects the rights again for another 50 years.

But why protect something that does not need protection? Why protect something from 1968, 51 years after the recording date? Why protect something like Palm Beach 1969, which is too awful in all ways to release anyway? And why release it for a couple of hours on youtube, without any warning beforehand, so the protection actually doesn't hold as it is not an 'official' release to the public?

I don't get it.

Mathijs

I guess there are people out there who possess these recordings, hence potentially can make a buck on the stuff.

I totally agree with the rest of your post. Obviously, ABKCO did a mistake with the 1968 and 1978-tunes by including it in there, though.

Quote
Mathijs
It's still bugging me why they would release this material....this thing about copyright protection can't be right -why would you need to release something to prolong the copyright protection, when no one has the recording in the first place? With radio shows this is correct -the copyright expires 50 years after the broadcast, and as the material is available to everyone, an official release protects the rights again for another 50 years.

But why protect something that does not need protection? Why protect something from 1968, 51 years after the recording date? Why protect something like Palm Beach 1969, which is too awful in all ways to release anyway? And why release it for a couple of hours on youtube, without any warning beforehand, so the protection actually doesn't hold as it is not an 'official' release to the public?

I don't get it.

Mathijs

I don't know the law but apparently the music has to be posted publicly to retain ownership. It needs protection so that someone else can't sell it. It needs protection so Abkco will still own it and it won't fall in to public domain. I'm not sure if this info is true but that's what I have read.

Quote
exilestones

Quote
Mathijs
It's still bugging me why they would release this material....this thing about copyright protection can't be right -why would you need to release something to prolong the copyright protection, when no one has the recording in the first place? With radio shows this is correct -the copyright expires 50 years after the broadcast, and as the material is available to everyone, an official release protects the rights again for another 50 years.

But why protect something that does not need protection? Why protect something from 1968, 51 years after the recording date? Why protect something like Palm Beach 1969, which is too awful in all ways to release anyway? And why release it for a couple of hours on youtube, without any warning beforehand, so the protection actually doesn't hold as it is not an 'official' release to the public?

I don't get it.

Mathijs

I don't know the law but apparently the music has to be posted publicly to retain ownership. It needs protection so that someone else can't sell it. It needs protection so Abkco will still own it and it won't fall in to public domain. I'm not sure if this info is true but that's what I have read.

But -this is simply not true. An unpublished or unreleased song can never lose its ownership or publishing rights. The time window of publishing rights only start when it is published to the audience. So. for a radio broadcast this is true -the Paris 1970 radio broadcast will become available without the rights in September 2020, unless they are released in an official way.

This 1968 version of Ruby Tuesday for example has its copyrights protected until 70 years after the death of the authors, and 50 years from day it is first published.

It's the same with outtakes for example -you cannot just simply take a Stones outtake, record your own version, and release it. Outtakes are protected by copyrights as well, and by publishing rights starting from the day it is released.

Mathijs

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Mathijs
It's still bugging me why they would release this material....this thing about copyright protection can't be right -why would you need to release something to prolong the copyright protection, when no one has the recording in the first place? With radio shows this is correct -the copyright expires 50 years after the broadcast, and as the material is available to everyone, an official release protects the rights again for another 50 years.

But why protect something that does not need protection? Why protect something from 1968, 51 years after the recording date? Why protect something like Palm Beach 1969, which is too awful in all ways to release anyway? And why release it for a couple of hours on youtube, without any warning beforehand, so the protection actually doesn't hold as it is not an 'official' release to the public?

I don't get it.

Mathijs

I guess there are people out there who possess these recordings, hence potentially can make a buck on the stuff.

That and if I have understood right if ABKCO would release Public Domain stuff (the stuff not any longer protected), anyone could make 'official bootlegs' out of that stuff. Make an own copy, repackage and sell it. And furthermore those recordings would be freely open to be used in movies, ads, etc. without ABKCO controlling or getting any cent out of it.

What goes for those pretty useless live recordings, could it be that ABKCO now technically has an ownership for those relaesed concerts. That is, if someone now comes up with an excellent recording of his/her own, ABKCO can claim that they have copyrighted the stuff. This is really just a wild guess (I also try to make sense out of this, like Mathijs).

But another thing is, as Mathijs pointed out, how 'official' those quick, non-advertised youtube releases really are. This has been questioned in the press as well. Probably they (ABKCO) are just testing waters there, which - by a true Klein fashion - is to be settled in the court some day.

Like someone suggested here, probably we should test the waters here in IORR - to make a safe case first: release our own record of pre-1969 studio stuff here, which technically is Public Domain stuff in EU now... See what happens... Probably we would find ourselves in the court trying to prove that those recordings really are pre-1969, which might nor really be that easy (or cheap), no matter what our ears say...

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Mathijs
It's still bugging me why they would release this material....this thing about copyright protection can't be right -why would you need to release something to prolong the copyright protection, when no one has the recording in the first place? With radio shows this is correct -the copyright expires 50 years after the broadcast, and as the material is available to everyone, an official release protects the rights again for another 50 years.

But why protect something that does not need protection? Why protect something from 1968, 51 years after the recording date? Why protect something like Palm Beach 1969, which is too awful in all ways to release anyway? And why release it for a couple of hours on youtube, without any warning beforehand, so the protection actually doesn't hold as it is not an 'official' release to the public?

I don't get it.

Mathijs

I guess there are people out there who possess these recordings, hence potentially can make a buck on the stuff.

That and if I have understood right if ABKCO would release Public Domain stuff (the stuff not any longer protected), anyone could make 'official bootlegs' out of that stuff. Make an own copy, repackage and sell it. And furthermore those recordings would be freely open to be used in movies, ads, etc. without ABKCO controlling or getting any cent out of it.

What goes for those pretty useless live recordings, could it be that ABKCO now technically has an ownership for those relaesed concerts. That is, if someone now comes up with an excellent recording of his/her own, ABKCO can claim that they have copyrighted the stuff. This is really just a wild guess (I also try to make sense out of this, like Mathijs).

But another thing is, as Mathijs pointed out, how 'official' those quick, non-advertised youtube releases really are. This has been questioned in the press as well. Probably they (ABKCO) are just testing waters there, which - by a true Klein fashion - is to be settled in the court some day.

Like someone suggested here, probably we should test the waters here in IORR - to make a safe case first: release our own record of pre-1969 studio stuff here, which technically is Public Domain stuff in EU now... See what happens... Probably we would find ourselves in the court trying to prove that those recordings really are pre-1969, which might nor really be that easy (or cheap), no matter what our ears say...

- Doxa

That's exactly what they do. This is an unsettled affair, to put it mildly, and they are probably grasping at whatever straw they can get hold of to make sure that they've done all they can preservation-wise – in today's world of digitalisation etc.

In the end what they did might be worthless. However, someone needs to take the first step, to test whether these «publishings» are valid or not. I suspect they aren't.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2020-01-15 14:30 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
exilestones

Quote
Mathijs
It's still bugging me why they would release this material....this thing about copyright protection can't be right -why would you need to release something to prolong the copyright protection, when no one has the recording in the first place? With radio shows this is correct -the copyright expires 50 years after the broadcast, and as the material is available to everyone, an official release protects the rights again for another 50 years.

But why protect something that does not need protection? Why protect something from 1968, 51 years after the recording date? Why protect something like Palm Beach 1969, which is too awful in all ways to release anyway? And why release it for a couple of hours on youtube, without any warning beforehand, so the protection actually doesn't hold as it is not an 'official' release to the public?

I don't get it.

Mathijs

I don't know the law but apparently the music has to be posted publicly to retain ownership. It needs protection so that someone else can't sell it. It needs protection so Abkco will still own it and it won't fall in to public domain. I'm not sure if this info is true but that's what I have read.

But -this is simply not true. An unpublished or unreleased song can never lose its ownership or publishing rights. The time window of publishing rights only start when it is published to the audience. So. for a radio broadcast this is true -the Paris 1970 radio broadcast will become available without the rights in September 2020, unless they are released in an official way.

This 1968 version of Ruby Tuesday for example has its copyrights protected until 70 years after the death of the authors, and 50 years from day it is first published.

It's the same with outtakes for example -you cannot just simply take a Stones outtake, record your own version, and release it. Outtakes are protected by copyrights as well, and by publishing rights starting from the day it is released.

Mathijs

As far as I have understood right - and I am pretty much an amateur here - there is a difference between unreleased composition and unreleased recording of already released composition. What ABKCO seemingly is doing is trying to protect the latter ones.

This is to say that the out-takes and other non-released songs are 'safe' by that '70 yaers after the death by the authors' law - their 50 years old protection stars the day they are officially released (in any form). For example, "Goodbye Girl" is totally controlled by Bill Wyman. It is up to him, if the Stones recording of it will be released some day (and thereby, ABKCO having the rights for it for the next 50 years). However, he could, if he feels like, to release a version of it by his own, or give a permission to someone else to release a version of it. From that day any version of it will be the next 50 years protected. For this reason I think The Stones - Mick and Keith - don't worry about non-released songs. Time is on their side.

But what goes for already released songs - as "Ruby Tuesday" - the protection of their non-relaesed versions, if they are over 50 yaers old, has already expired. So any recording of it by the Stones if it is over 50 years old is free to be released by anyone. However, just make sure to pay the authors (Jagger-Richards) - that won't expire until 70 years after their death. ABKCO is the 'loser' here, not Mick and Keith. ABKCO only can try to relaese any version of it to keep it protected. The release of "Ruby Tuesday" and claiming it to be from 1969 is simply a trick.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2020-01-15 15:10 by Doxa.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Mathijs
It's still bugging me why they would release this material....this thing about copyright protection can't be right -why would you need to release something to prolong the copyright protection, when no one has the recording in the first place? With radio shows this is correct -the copyright expires 50 years after the broadcast, and as the material is available to everyone, an official release protects the rights again for another 50 years.

But why protect something that does not need protection? Why protect something from 1968, 51 years after the recording date? Why protect something like Palm Beach 1969, which is too awful in all ways to release anyway? And why release it for a couple of hours on youtube, without any warning beforehand, so the protection actually doesn't hold as it is not an 'official' release to the public?

I don't get it.

Mathijs

I guess there are people out there who possess these recordings, hence potentially can make a buck on the stuff.

I totally agree with the rest of your post. Obviously, ABKCO did a mistake with the 1968 and 1978-tunes by including it in there, though.

Maybe ABKCO is just sticking with how the Stones release vault material, like how there were ER session songs on the SG bonus and a TSMR track on EOMS bonus.

Look at the copyrights for the early songs on STRIPPED - the copyrights for them were renewed.

What you see in the Stripped example above are the PUBLISHING copyrights being renewed, rather than the recording rights. Only the latter has been subject to EU changes of late.
Publishing is also a minefield however. Look at the dates and those who are good at subtraction will see that renewals for these compositions have been taken at the 28 year point from its initial registration.
Now, 28 plus 28 =56 years and it is at this point in time that Macca seems to have come to some agreement with his and Johnboys compositions which of course are now entering into this time frame. The Agreement with Sony, the current Publisher is confidential (shame) and appears to only apply to US Copyrights.
The question is: Could the Glimmer Twins engineer such a move?
Maybe not as the key may lie in the way the original Publishing contracts were set up and in the Beatles case they had Northern Songs and I'm not sure that Mick and Keith's interests were covered in such a way. Also...Klein set up their deals.
Say no more.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-01-15 18:07 by jlowe.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
exilestones

Quote
Mathijs
It's still bugging me why they would release this material....this thing about copyright protection can't be right -why would you need to release something to prolong the copyright protection, when no one has the recording in the first place? With radio shows this is correct -the copyright expires 50 years after the broadcast, and as the material is available to everyone, an official release protects the rights again for another 50 years.

But why protect something that does not need protection? Why protect something from 1968, 51 years after the recording date? Why protect something like Palm Beach 1969, which is too awful in all ways to release anyway? And why release it for a couple of hours on youtube, without any warning beforehand, so the protection actually doesn't hold as it is not an 'official' release to the public?

I don't get it.

Mathijs

I don't know the law but apparently the music has to be posted publicly to retain ownership. It needs protection so that someone else can't sell it. It needs protection so Abkco will still own it and it won't fall in to public domain. I'm not sure if this info is true but that's what I have read.

But -this is simply not true. An unpublished or unreleased song can never lose its ownership or publishing rights. The time window of publishing rights only start when it is published to the audience. So. for a radio broadcast this is true -the Paris 1970 radio broadcast will become available without the rights in September 2020, unless they are released in an official way.

This 1968 version of Ruby Tuesday for example has its copyrights protected until 70 years after the death of the authors, and 50 years from day it is first published.

It's the same with outtakes for example -you cannot just simply take a Stones outtake, record your own version, and release it. Outtakes are protected by copyrights as well, and by publishing rights starting from the day it is released.

Mathijs

As far as I have understood right - and I am pretty much an amateur here - there is a difference between unreleased composition and unreleased recording of already released composition. What ABKCO seemingly is doing is trying to protect the latter ones.

This is to say that the out-takes and other non-released songs are 'safe' by that '70 yaers after the death by the authors' law - their 50 years old protection stars the day they are officially released (in any form). For example, "Goodbye Girl" is totally controlled by Bill Wyman. It is up to him, if the Stones recording of it will be released some day (and thereby, ABKCO having the rights for it for the next 50 years). However, he could, if he feels like, to release a version of it by his own, or give a permission to someone else to release a version of it. From that day any version of it will be the next 50 years protected. For this reason I think The Stones - Mick and Keith - don't worry about non-released songs. Time is on their side.

But what goes for already released songs - as "Ruby Tuesday" - the protection of their non-relaesed versions, if they are over 50 yaers old, has already expired. So any recording of it by the Stones if it is over 50 years old is free to be released by anyone. However, just make sure to pay the authors (Jagger-Richards) - that won't expire until 70 years after their death. ABKCO is the 'loser' here, not Mick and Keith. ABKCO only can try to relaese any version of it to keep it protected. The release of "Ruby Tuesday" and claiming it to be from 1969 is simply a trick.

- Doxa

Everything has been explained already in this (and possibly other) threads.

The problem is that people (as seen by Mathijs) usually mix up neighboring (copy)rights of artists and record companies with the copyright of composers of a certain song.

The 50 years "use it or lose it"-thing in the EU law deals with neighboring rights only. The copyright of the composers however runs substantially longer, in most countries it expires 70 years after their death.

As I've written some pages ago, songwriters usually sign with publishing companies for a contractual share of incoming royalties. However, songwriters always have the right to allow or veto the first release/publication of a composition.

In a further post some pages ago I mentioned this example:

"I was talking about UNRELEASED/UNPUBLISHED COMPOSITIONS. That's an entirely different story. Let's take GODZI (or GOZI?) for example. It's not only an unreleased recording, it's also an unreleased composition. Any radio station that gets hold of the actual recording and plays it over the radio would sooner or later face a cease and desist letter or court order by Jagger/Richards because of authors of the unpublished work they still retain the right to allow or veto the first publication."

Unlike Godzi/Gozi, the 1968 version of Ruby Tuesday is just an unreleased version/recording of an already released composition, so the composers Jagger/Richards have already lost their "first publication veto (copy)right", however they're still entitled to receive royalties for their composition until 70 years after their death. However, the recording itself has fallen into the public domain by now (if it really dates from 1968) so artist (The Stones) and record company (ABKCO) are out of the picture by now. Having lost their neighboring (copy)rights, neither the band nor the record company could veto the release or claim royalties. Only the songwriters/composers receive money from "public domain"-releases!

So your conclusion, Doxa, is right on the mark!



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2020-01-16 03:51 by retired_dog.

Godzi: Listed on the BMI site.
Songwriters: Nanker Phelge (PRS)
Publisher: ABKCO Music (BMI)
Not sure when it was registered, presumably 1966.

Quote
jlowe
Godzi: Listed on the BMI site.
Songwriters: Nanker Phelge (PRS)
Publisher: ABKCO Music (BMI)
Not sure when it was registered, presumably 1966.

Great find! "Nanker/Phelge" - so it's not only Jagger/Richards, but a group composition, probably an instrumental track only. Love to hear it one day...

It was also mentioned on the songlist screen during the songvote at last year's No Filter US-leg btw., as "Gozi".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-01-15 21:28 by retired_dog.

When the Stones parted with ABKCO in 1970, they registered quite a few unreleased songs to secure publishing both for future releases as well as to protect their claims should the band continue to rework old material. This is why several songs on EXILE are still published by ABKCO rather than PromoPub.

JAMMING WITH EDWARD was not published by ABKCO since the jams were not credited to Jagger-Richards, though PromoPub claimed the publishing. No one appears to have noticed that "Winter" borrowed from "Blood Red Wine" which was published by ABKCO at the time of the 1970 separation.

What has been interesting to observe is that PromoPub controlled publishing for the EXILE outtakes on the RARITIES disc for the 2010 reissue even on tracks that were previously registered by ABKCO. Since an oversight is unlikely, an agreement must have been reached with Jody Klein to reassign ownership. The 2009 reissue of GOATS HEAD SOUP inexplicably listed "Angie" as being published by ABKCO. Not sure how or why this occurred. I was always curious if they meant to assign "Winter" to them, but made a misprint.

While unrelated to ABKCO, when PromoPub registered "Do You Think I Really Care?" in 2011, it was credited to Jagger-Richards-Wood the same as "When You're Gone." The label and booklet list the former as Jagger-Richards only, but Ronnie should receive his royalties based on the publishing registration.
The 2009 reissues also saw some changes to musician credits and producer credits. I don't believe these were oversights but genuine attempts to correct (or, in some cases, rewrite) the past. That, however, is another issue.

ASCAP lists EMI Colgems as the Publisher of Angie.
I guess Promopub may hold or at least share the Copyright though?

Quote
Rocky Dijon
When the Stones parted with ABKCO in 1970, they registered quite a few unreleased songs to secure publishing both for future releases as well as to protect their claims should the band continue to rework old material. This is why several songs on EXILE are still published by ABKCO rather than PromoPub.

JAMMING WITH EDWARD was not published by ABKCO since the jams were not credited to Jagger-Richards, though PromoPub claimed the publishing. No one appears to have noticed that "Winter" borrowed from "Blood Red Wine" which was published by ABKCO at the time of the 1970 separation.

What has been interesting to observe is that PromoPub controlled publishing for the EXILE outtakes on the RARITIES disc for the 2010 reissue even on tracks that were previously registered by ABKCO. Since an oversight is unlikely, an agreement must have been reached with Jody Klein to reassign ownership. The 2009 reissue of GOATS HEAD SOUP inexplicably listed "Angie" as being published by ABKCO. Not sure how or why this occurred. I was always curious if they meant to assign "Winter" to them, but made a misprint.

While unrelated to ABKCO, when PromoPub registered "Do You Think I Really Care?" in 2011, it was credited to Jagger-Richards-Wood the same as "When You're Gone." The label and booklet list the former as Jagger-Richards only, but Ronnie should receive his royalties based on the publishing registration.
The 2009 reissues also saw some changes to musician credits and producer credits. I don't believe these were oversights but genuine attempts to correct (or, in some cases, rewrite) the past. That, however, is another issue.

So many sneaky details with these guys. I wonder if we'll ever know how Mick and Keith felt about "having" to release those EOMS bonus tracks knowing they were ABCKO Publishing.

Quote
retired_dog

Unlike Godzi/Gozi, the 1968 version of Ruby Tuesday is just an unreleased version/recording of an already released composition, so the composers Jagger/Richards have already lost their "first publication veto (copy)right",

This is incorrect -the first publishing right starts at the moment it is published. The copyright law does not 'oblige' to release something unreleased under a penalty of losing the publishing rights. So with RT from 1968 they could have kept it in the vault for another 100 years without losing any rights.

That said -if you want to release it on youtube to prolong the copyrights, why don't you then just release it officially? These studio track would have made an excellent bonus disc to Let it Bleed, it would have sold 200K copies, with a turnover of 3 million $. Or as so many bands have done by now: take those 8-track recordings of Rotterdam 1973, Cow Palace 1975 or whatever, master them for $5000 and make them downloadable for $10 per show. The copyrights are protected, the tapes preserved, you get an article in all music press which is nice for the new tour, and you make money over tapes that are now gathering dust.

Mathijs

Doubtless the first of many

[www.collectorsmusicreviews.com]

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
retired_dog

Unlike Godzi/Gozi, the 1968 version of Ruby Tuesday is just an unreleased version/recording of an already released composition, so the composers Jagger/Richards have already lost their "first publication veto (copy)right",

This is incorrect -the first publishing right starts at the moment it is published. The copyright law does not 'oblige' to release something unreleased under a penalty of losing the publishing rights. So with RT from 1968 they could have kept it in the vault for another 100 years without losing any rights.

That said -if you want to release it on youtube to prolong the copyrights, why don't you then just release it officially? These studio track would have made an excellent bonus disc to Let it Bleed, it would have sold 200K copies, with a turnover of 3 million $. Or as so many bands have done by now: take those 8-track recordings of Rotterdam 1973, Cow Palace 1975 or whatever, master them for $5000 and make them downloadable for $10 per show. The copyrights are protected, the tapes preserved, you get an article in all music press which is nice for the new tour, and you make money over tapes that are now gathering dust.

Mathijs

No matter how we interpret the first publishing right law, there is still left some open questions in regard these odd relaeses as Mathijs is refering here.

(1) Why ABKCO did not release those as proper releases, such as bonus disc to LET IT BLEED or independent live downloads, etc?

Which is related to another question:

(2) What is the role of the Rolling Stones here?

As far as I know ABKCO is not permitted to release any non-released material without the acceptance of the Stones, since they have that veto right for that (at least as far as their original songs go). This at least has been the interpretation why any of these 50th Anniversary versions have had not any interesting bonus material - Mick and Keith didn't allow that (for whatever reason). Anyway, this should apply to these youtube releases as well! The Stones altogether have had quite a strict policy there: not many 60's hidden gems have been released along the years (stuff like R&R CIRCUS, YA-YAS, ON AIR, LIVE 65 comes to mind).

So should we conclude that ABKCO did get the permission by the band for these youtube releases? If not, ABKCO is really testing waters here, or playing with fire actually...

My best guess is that the Stones are involved here: they also, like ABKCO, have an interest to protect their ABKCO era material. But they didn't allow a 'proper' release, and this is the crazy compromise they made. ABKCO doesn't gain any real profit, but the stuff neither entered Public Domain in EU, and thereby them having lost all of their control over it. And The Stones still have that veto right over it.

However, there is another twist here: if the story of the origin of the studio tapes holds true (made in this thread): ABKCO got the studio material due to CROSSFIRE HURRICANE, since the Stones needed a deal with the ABKCO for that (this also mean that the Stones just not only legally have veto rights over it, they physically own the recordings). What we have here is the stuff they didn't use in the movie. Did ABKCO used this opportunity - the deal for movie - in order to release the stuff? (This same point holds most likely to odd 1968 releases last year.)

Then, if the Stones really would like to protect all of their studio material, and as we know there is much, much more of that, why they didn't let it all released at the same token? Or did they, as they were doing preperations for CROSSFIRE HURRICANE, checked then all the vaults then, and came up with all the material they thought was worthy of release? And they don't care about the rest?

Lots of open questions...

Okay, back to Mathijs's interpretation of the first publishing right. I have no legal expertise here, but if what he believes is true, then there is no way ever to understand not just this odd release by the Stones, but neither many vault releases by acts like, say, Dylan or The Beatles we have seen lately (since 2012). (For example, some Dylan releases are similarly questioned for their 'official release' status). I don't think the answer 'let us get some easy money quick' can explain their publication. I believe the legaslation of EU has a bigger role there.

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2020-01-16 13:37 by Doxa.

<So should we conclude that ABKCO did get the permission by the band for these youtube releases? If not, ABKCO is really testing waters here, or playing with fire actually...>

I read somewhere (in Variety, perhaps?) that the tracks also were available briefly on the Stones's YouTube-channel. If true, you've got the answer right there...

ABKCO and the Stones have a shared interest: they both don't want all that stuff to become public domain.
If the Stones what to buy the rights from ABKCO in the future, there have to be such rights. If ABKCO just wants to do some damage to the Stones they'd let that stuff become public domain. If the want to sell the rights in the future they have to protect the copyright.
Thus my conclusion is: Even if ABKCO and the Stones usually don't agree – on that topic they had to agree (or other wise both sides were losing)