Quote
retired_dog

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.

the are using 'phonogram' to make sure that every kind of audio recording is includes (records, tapes, audio files, and whatever might be developed in the future) and, as you pointed out correctly, any person who made a recording is referred to as a producer of a phonogram. Note that it doesn't matter – (only) for the question of copyright expiration – whether the recording was/is made legally or illegally.

Quote
slewan
Note that it doesn't matter – (only) for the question of copyright expiration – whether the recording was/is made legally or illegally.

Well in case of unlawful fixation the artist has the moral right to prevent the tape to be published.

Unlawful fixation is not the point of the law about "copyright duration"

By definition an unlawful fixation can't be copyrighted.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-12-28 22:32 by ds1984.

Quote
ds1984

Quote
slewan
Note that it doesn't matter – (only) for the question of copyright expiration – whether the recording was/is made legally or illegally.

Well in case of unlawful fixation the artist has the moral right to prevent the tape to be published.

Unlawful fixation is not the point of the law about "copyright duration"

By definition an unlawful fixation can't be copyrighted.

absolutely right. But my point was/is that not about the copyright but about the copyright expiration. After the copyright has expired/has been lost it doesn't matter from what kind of source the phonograph comes from – anybody can publish, sell, broadcast it…

Quote
slewan

Quote
ds1984

Quote
slewan
Note that it doesn't matter – (only) for the question of copyright expiration – whether the recording was/is made legally or illegally.

Well in case of unlawful fixation the artist has the moral right to prevent the tape to be published.

Unlawful fixation is not the point of the law about "copyright duration"

By definition an unlawful fixation can't be copyrighted.

absolutely right. But my point was/is that not about the copyright but about the copyright expiration. After the copyright has expired/has been lost it doesn't matter from what kind of source the phonograph comes from – anybody can publish, sell, broadcast it…

You mean an UNlawful fixation can become lawful?

Quote
ds1984

Quote
slewan

Quote
ds1984

Quote
slewan
Note that it doesn't matter – (only) for the question of copyright expiration – whether the recording was/is made legally or illegally.

Well in case of unlawful fixation the artist has the moral right to prevent the tape to be published.

Unlawful fixation is not the point of the law about "copyright duration"

By definition an unlawful fixation can't be copyrighted.

absolutely right. But my point was/is that not about the copyright but about the copyright expiration. After the copyright has expired/has been lost it doesn't matter from what kind of source the phonograph comes from – anybody can publish, sell, broadcast it…

You mean an UNlawful fixation can become lawful?

of course not.
but once the copyright has expired the question of lawfully recorded or not has become irrelevant.
The logic behind this is: Once the copyright has expired, you can no longer infringe it



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-12-29 13:32 by slewan.

Quote
slewan

Quote
ds1984

Quote
slewan
Note that it doesn't matter – (only) for the question of copyright expiration – whether the recording was/is made legally or illegally.

Well in case of unlawful fixation the artist has the moral right to prevent the tape to be published.

Unlawful fixation is not the point of the law about "copyright duration"

By definition an unlawful fixation can't be copyrighted.

absolutely right. But my point was/is that not about the copyright but about the copyright expiration. After the copyright has expired/has been lost it doesn't matter from what kind of source the phonograph comes from – anybody can publish, sell, broadcast it…

Absolutely wrong! While § 85 UrhG deals with the rights of producers of phonograms (=phonographic sound recordings), the rights of the Performing Artists are ruled separately, namely in § 77 UrhG.

Both rights - so-called "neighboring rights" exist independently from each other.

For example: If you make a sound recording, you enjoy the rights according to § 85 UrhG - the rights of a producer of a phonogram - for this sound recording, no matter if it's a cheap cassette recording or an expensive studio recording. You enjoy these rights no matter what you actually record - the sound of the wind, birds voices or the performance of a musician ("performing artist"). You also enjoy these rights according to § 85 UrhG no matter if the musician agreed to record him or not.

As the rights of the mentioned musician are dealt with separately in § 77 UrhG, this musician of course can forbid the duplication and distribution of your recording - that's what musicians normally do in cases of bootlegging... But, and this is an important "but", the musician can't take your recording and copy and distribute it himself because this would violate your rights according to § 85 UrhG as the producer of the phonogram. What he can do is just confiscate your tape because you hurt his first fixation right according to § 77 UrhG, keep it for his private listening pleasure or destroy it - but not duplicate and distribute it, at least not without your permission.

The paragraphs I mentioned are of course those of the German Copyright Law ("Urheberrechtsgesetz"), but the system of different entities enjoying different rights independently from each other is the same at least in the EU.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2023-12-29 13:51 by retired_dog.

Quote
slewan

Quote
ds1984
You mean an UNlawful fixation can become lawful?

of course not.
but once the copyright has expired the question of lawfully recorded or not has become irrelevant.
The logic behind this is: Once the copyright has expired, you can no longer infringe it

I would say if such a case happened, doing commercial exploitation of unlawful fixed work after 50 years, would end in front of a court.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2023-12-29 14:05 by ds1984.

Quote
ds1984

Quote
slewan

Quote
ds1984
You mean an UNlawful fixation can become lawful?

of course not.
but once the copyright has expired the question of lawfully recorded or not has become irrelevant.
The logic behind this is: Once the copyright has expired, you can no longer infringe it

I would say if such a case happened, doing commercial exploitation of unlawful fixed work after 50 years, would end in front of a court.

it obviously doesn't – think about all the 50+ years old bootleg recordings that are being sold legally

Quote
slewan

Quote
ds1984

Quote
slewan

Quote
ds1984
You mean an UNlawful fixation can become lawful?

of course not.
but once the copyright has expired the question of lawfully recorded or not has become irrelevant.
The logic behind this is: Once the copyright has expired, you can no longer infringe it

I would say if such a case happened, doing commercial exploitation of unlawful fixed work after 50 years, would end in front of a court.

it obviously doesn't – think about all the 50+ years old bootleg recordings that are being sold legally

All of the phonogram I know have been sourced from :

1) lawful communication to the public (broadcast).
2) lawful tape fixation (private copy)
3) the fixation has entered the public domain.

In the nineties famous record chain in France, the FNAC, has been selling bootleg for several years.
Then you could think these record were lawful.
They weren't, the chain was sent to court and was fined.

I can see the same with Amazon now.
Well one day they will be caugh.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2023-12-29 15:27 by ds1984.

Quote
ds1984

Quote
slewan

Quote
ds1984

Quote
slewan

Quote
ds1984
You mean an UNlawful fixation can become lawful?

of course not.
but once the copyright has expired the question of lawfully recorded or not has become irrelevant.
The logic behind this is: Once the copyright has expired, you can no longer infringe it

I would say if such a case happened, doing commercial exploitation of unlawful fixed work after 50 years, would end in front of a court.

it obviously doesn't – think about all the 50+ years old bootleg recordings that are being sold legally

All of the phonogram I know have been sourced from :

1) lawful communication to the public (broadcast).
2) lawful tape fixation (private copy)
3) the fixation has entered the public domain.

In the nineties famous record chain in France, the FNAC, has been selling bootleg for several years.
Then you could think these record were lawful.
They weren't, the chain was sent to court and was fined.

I can see the same with Amazon now.
Well one day they will be caugh.

well, in the 90s it was legal to sell bootlegs because of a 'hole' in EU law (which for some reason didn't protect recordings of US broadcasts from being sold in Europe) – I still remember the piles of the Rolling Stones' Live at Atlantic City in regular record stores. The Stones' lawyers were unable to ban them.

After the expiration of a copyright there's no way to sue anybody who's selling stuff that is now public domain. Based on what kind of law could such a person be prosecuted?

After the copyright expires, the case is somewhat similar to the cases in which the statute of limitations under criminal law has expired.

Quote
slewan

Quote
ds1984

Quote
slewan

Quote
ds1984

Quote
slewan

Quote
ds1984
You mean an UNlawful fixation can become lawful?

of course not.
but once the copyright has expired the question of lawfully recorded or not has become irrelevant.
The logic behind this is: Once the copyright has expired, you can no longer infringe it

I would say if such a case happened, doing commercial exploitation of unlawful fixed work after 50 years, would end in front of a court.

it obviously doesn't – think about all the 50+ years old bootleg recordings that are being sold legally

All of the phonogram I know have been sourced from :

1) lawful communication to the public (broadcast).
2) lawful tape fixation (private copy)
3) the fixation has entered the public domain.

In the nineties famous record chain in France, the FNAC, has been selling bootleg for several years.
Then you could think these record were lawful.
They weren't, the chain was sent to court and was fined.

I can see the same with Amazon now.
Well one day they will be caugh.

well, in the 90s it was legal to sell bootlegs because of a 'hole' in EU law (which for some reason didn't protect recordings of US broadcasts from being sold in Europe) – I still remember the piles of the Rolling Stones' Live at Atlantic City in regular record stores. The Stones' lawyers were unable to ban them.

After the expiration of a copyright there's no way to sue anybody who's selling stuff that is now public domain. Based on what kind of law could such a person be prosecuted?

After the copyright expires, the case is somewhat similar to the cases in which the statute of limitations under criminal law has expired.

Yes, of course, different topics altogther: Legal loophole vs. public domain after copyright expiration.

Honestly, that's why it's a waste of time to discuss this any further because there's always someone like ds 1984 who throws different things together like apples and oranges and confuses matters even more instead of getting to the point.

Have fun with further (fruitless) discussions, but I'm out.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
slewan

Quote
ds1984

Quote
slewan

Quote
ds1984

Quote
slewan

Quote
ds1984
You mean an UNlawful fixation can become lawful?

of course not.
but once the copyright has expired the question of lawfully recorded or not has become irrelevant.
The logic behind this is: Once the copyright has expired, you can no longer infringe it

I would say if such a case happened, doing commercial exploitation of unlawful fixed work after 50 years, would end in front of a court.

it obviously doesn't – think about all the 50+ years old bootleg recordings that are being sold legally

All of the phonogram I know have been sourced from :

1) lawful communication to the public (broadcast).
2) lawful tape fixation (private copy)
3) the fixation has entered the public domain.

In the nineties famous record chain in France, the FNAC, has been selling bootleg for several years.
Then you could think these record were lawful.
They weren't, the chain was sent to court and was fined.

I can see the same with Amazon now.
Well one day they will be caugh.

well, in the 90s it was legal to sell bootlegs because of a 'hole' in EU law (which for some reason didn't protect recordings of US broadcasts from being sold in Europe) – I still remember the piles of the Rolling Stones' Live at Atlantic City in regular record stores. The Stones' lawyers were unable to ban them.

After the expiration of a copyright there's no way to sue anybody who's selling stuff that is now public domain. Based on what kind of law could such a person be prosecuted?

After the copyright expires, the case is somewhat similar to the cases in which the statute of limitations under criminal law has expired.

Yes, of course, different topics altogther: Legal loophole vs. public domain after copyright expiration.

Honestly, that's why it's a waste of time to discuss this any further because there's always someone like ds 1984 who throws different things together like apples and oranges and confuses matters even more instead of getting to the point.

Have fun with further (fruitless) discussions, but I'm out.

I don't consider this discussion to be fruitless. ds1984 might sometimes mix some things together that are different but he tries to understand the law and its consequences and is open to arguments.


To understand laws is not an easy task in case one is not used to read law and/or used to juridical thinking, of course.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-12-29 21:04 by slewan.

I'd like to see if a commercial exploitation in Europe of The Beatles Live at Stowe School by an established reissue label - such as for example Bear Family Records - will see the light.

If they can do it without being sued or not.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-12-30 02:46 by ds1984.

Quote
slewan

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
slewan

Quote
ds1984

Quote
slewan

Quote
ds1984

Quote
slewan

Quote
ds1984
You mean an UNlawful fixation can become lawful?

of course not.
but once the copyright has expired the question of lawfully recorded or not has become irrelevant.
The logic behind this is: Once the copyright has expired, you can no longer infringe it

I would say if such a case happened, doing commercial exploitation of unlawful fixed work after 50 years, would end in front of a court.

it obviously doesn't – think about all the 50+ years old bootleg recordings that are being sold legally

All of the phonogram I know have been sourced from :

1) lawful communication to the public (broadcast).
2) lawful tape fixation (private copy)
3) the fixation has entered the public domain.

In the nineties famous record chain in France, the FNAC, has been selling bootleg for several years.
Then you could think these record were lawful.
They weren't, the chain was sent to court and was fined.

I can see the same with Amazon now.
Well one day they will be caugh.

well, in the 90s it was legal to sell bootlegs because of a 'hole' in EU law (which for some reason didn't protect recordings of US broadcasts from being sold in Europe) – I still remember the piles of the Rolling Stones' Live at Atlantic City in regular record stores. The Stones' lawyers were unable to ban them.

After the expiration of a copyright there's no way to sue anybody who's selling stuff that is now public domain. Based on what kind of law could such a person be prosecuted?

After the copyright expires, the case is somewhat similar to the cases in which the statute of limitations under criminal law has expired.

Yes, of course, different topics altogther: Legal loophole vs. public domain after copyright expiration.

Honestly, that's why it's a waste of time to discuss this any further because there's always someone like ds 1984 who throws different things together like apples and oranges and confuses matters even more instead of getting to the point.

Have fun with further (fruitless) discussions, but I'm out.

I don't consider this discussion to be fruitless. ds1984 might sometimes mix some things together that are different but he tries to understand the law and its consequences and is open to arguments.


To understand laws is not an easy task in case one is not used to read law and/or used to juridical thinking, of course.

It's not only that. Copyright Law is extremely complex with the rights of songwriters, performing artist, phonogram producers, broadcasters (to name just a few), national law and international treaties that even a "normal lawyer" can confuse things and likely advises you to go to a specialist copyright lawyer. Add to that the fact that there are specialist copyright courts and judges to get the idea that it's really not for amateurs who lack even safe knowledge and understanding of the basic structure of copyright laws to discuss the more specialist topics where even specialist lawyers and judges may have different views!

Besides, what's the point? If someone here plans to start a professional public domain label - well, better go to a specialist lawyer who indeed costs a lot of money but will take the time to explain the topics one might be interested in - and can save you from a lot of inevitable trouble one is facing if one tries the cheaper route as a self-made copyright "expert".



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023-12-30 04:34 by retired_dog.

btw: today's the last chance to protect copyrights for stuff recorded in 1973 and not officially released yet.

Can anyone please reup Altamont from this release?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-01-14 04:26 by sanQ.