Tell Me :
Talk
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This has been discussed ad nauseam - [iorr.org] . See also the EU directive 2011/77 - (70 years protection of copyright) - [EUR-Lex.Europa.eu] .
From the German copyright law (complies with EU 2011/77):
"The right expires 70 years after the publication of the phonogram. If the phonogram has not been published within 50 years of its production, but has been used for the purpose of authorised communication to the public, the right shall expire 70 years after this date. If the phonogram has not been published within this period or has been used for authorised communication to the public, the right shall expire 50 years after the production of the phonogram." - [§ 85 (3)] - [www.Gesetze-im-Internet.de] .
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-11-13 19:40 by Irix.
Pink Floyd 1974 live concerts (like in the past years).
Everything owned by ABKCO expired. The Rolling Stones themselves don't care.
Or is protected for 70 years now.
I invented the airplane.
The Rolling Stones, also, have zero reason to care because they have zero control over it other than keeping things as is.
Of course they have control to save copyrights for the post ABCKO stuff. They could've released all 1973 soundboards last year but they didn't!
Those soundboards have zero to do with copyright control since they've never been released.
wrong. Every recording that has not been released 50 years after it was originally recorded becomes public domain.
But how should they become public domain when nobody except the artist has access to the archives?
Isn't that the wrong way round? If something has never been released, then copyright etc does not come into the picture.
As far as I can tell for something that HAS been released lapses (usually) after 50 years. I add the 'usually' because laws vary between jurisdictions.
My interpretation is therefore that all of the Rolling Stones singles up to and including "The Red Rooster" - released November 1964 - have lapsed. But tracks like "Cops & Robbers" recorded by then have not (yet?) lapsed. (I added the "yet?" as I'm not up to date with the miscellany of bonus tracks added to some re-releases). But as those re-releases are recent, the date of the re-release onto which a track has been piggy-backed is the date on which the copyright 'clock' starts.
Captain Corella
Is this sort of like "if a tree falls in the forest", or "a bird in the hand is worth twice in the bush"? (always thought that sounded vaguely sexual)
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
slewan
()
Date: December 28, 2023 20:51
Quote
retired_dogQuote
IrixQuote
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.
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
ds1984
()
Date: December 28, 2023 22:29
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.
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
slewan
()
Date: December 28, 2023 22:59
Quote
ds1984Quote
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…
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
ds1984
()
Date: December 29, 2023 01:00
Quote
slewanQuote
ds1984Quote
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?
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
slewan
()
Date: December 29, 2023 12:13
Quote
ds1984Quote
slewanQuote
ds1984Quote
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.
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: December 29, 2023 13:34
Quote
slewanQuote
ds1984Quote
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.
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
ds1984
()
Date: December 29, 2023 13:55
Quote
slewanQuote
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.
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
slewan
()
Date: December 29, 2023 14:35
Quote
ds1984Quote
slewanQuote
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
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
ds1984
()
Date: December 29, 2023 14:52
Quote
slewanQuote
ds1984Quote
slewanQuote
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.
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
slewan
()
Date: December 29, 2023 17:09
Quote
ds1984Quote
slewanQuote
ds1984Quote
slewanQuote
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.
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: December 29, 2023 19:37
Quote
slewanQuote
ds1984Quote
slewanQuote
ds1984Quote
slewanQuote
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.
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
slewan
()
Date: December 29, 2023 21:01
Quote
retired_dogQuote
slewanQuote
ds1984Quote
slewanQuote
ds1984Quote
slewanQuote
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.
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
ds1984
()
Date: December 30, 2023 02:18
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.
If they can do it without being sued or not.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-12-30 02:46 by ds1984.
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: December 30, 2023 04:28
Quote
slewanQuote
retired_dogQuote
slewanQuote
ds1984Quote
slewanQuote
ds1984Quote
slewanQuote
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.
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
slewan
()
Date: December 31, 2023 13:12
btw: today's the last chance to protect copyrights for stuff recorded in 1973 and not officially released yet.
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
sanQ
()
Date: January 13, 2024 10:20
Can anyone please reup Altamont from this release?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-01-14 04:26 by sanQ.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-01-14 04:26 by sanQ.
Why do the Stones not protect their EU copyright?
Posted by:
Nellcote1971
()
Date: November 13, 2024 17:34
I recently aquired a bunch of CD box-sets, which were predominantely published to protect the artists/companies EU copyright, which - we all know by now - expires after 50 years... e.g. Dylan Live 1966 36 CDs, Elvis Live 1969 11 CDs etc.
I'm well aware of the whole Abkco dispute so I'm specifically referring to anything post-1969: Why aren't we getting anything like this?
Appreciate any insight.
I'm well aware of the whole Abkco dispute so I'm specifically referring to anything post-1969: Why aren't we getting anything like this?
Appreciate any insight.
Re: Why do the Stones not protect their EU copyright?
Posted by:
Irix
()
Date: November 13, 2024 19:25
Quote
Nellcote1971
Appreciate any insight.
This has been discussed ad nauseam - [iorr.org] . See also the EU directive 2011/77 - (70 years protection of copyright) - [EUR-Lex.Europa.eu] .
From the German copyright law (complies with EU 2011/77):
"The right expires 70 years after the publication of the phonogram. If the phonogram has not been published within 50 years of its production, but has been used for the purpose of authorised communication to the public, the right shall expire 70 years after this date. If the phonogram has not been published within this period or has been used for authorised communication to the public, the right shall expire 50 years after the production of the phonogram." - [§ 85 (3)] - [www.Gesetze-im-Internet.de] .
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-11-13 19:40 by Irix.
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
ProfessorWolf
()
Date: November 15, 2024 18:49
oh it's that time of the year again when we revive this thread in hopes of a new years surprise
what's up this time the iorr sessions?
i'm sure we won't get anything but i'd love to be wrong
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-11-15 18:52 by ProfessorWolf.
what's up this time the iorr sessions?
i'm sure we won't get anything but i'd love to be wrong
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-11-15 18:52 by ProfessorWolf.
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
Irix
()
Date: November 15, 2024 19:45
Quote
ProfessorWolf
what's up this time the iorr sessions?
Pink Floyd 1974 live concerts (like in the past years).
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
hockenheim95
()
Date: November 15, 2024 20:13
Quote
ProfessorWolf
oh it's that time of the year again when we revive this thread in hopes of a new years surprise
what's up this time the iorr sessions?
i'm sure we won't get anything but i'd love to be wrong
Everything owned by ABKCO expired. The Rolling Stones themselves don't care.
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
Irix
()
Date: November 15, 2024 20:20
Quote
hockenheim95
Everything owned by ABKCO expired.
Or is protected for 70 years now.
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: November 16, 2024 22:32
Quote
hockenheim95Quote
ProfessorWolf
oh it's that time of the year again when we revive this thread in hopes of a new years surprise
what's up this time the iorr sessions?
i'm sure we won't get anything but i'd love to be wrong
Everything owned by ABKCO expired.
I invented the airplane.
Quote
hockenheim95
The Rolling Stones themselves don't care.
The Rolling Stones, also, have zero reason to care because they have zero control over it other than keeping things as is.
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
hockenheim95
()
Date: November 18, 2024 21:40
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
hockenheim95Quote
ProfessorWolf
oh it's that time of the year again when we revive this thread in hopes of a new years surprise
what's up this time the iorr sessions?
i'm sure we won't get anything but i'd love to be wrong
Everything owned by ABKCO expired.
I invented the airplane.Quote
hockenheim95
The Rolling Stones themselves don't care.
The Rolling Stones, also, have zero reason to care because they have zero control over it other than keeping things as is.
Of course they have control to save copyrights for the post ABCKO stuff. They could've released all 1973 soundboards last year but they didn't!
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: November 18, 2024 21:45
Quote
hockenheim95Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
hockenheim95Quote
ProfessorWolf
oh it's that time of the year again when we revive this thread in hopes of a new years surprise
what's up this time the iorr sessions?
i'm sure we won't get anything but i'd love to be wrong
Everything owned by ABKCO expired.
I invented the airplane.Quote
hockenheim95
The Rolling Stones themselves don't care.
The Rolling Stones, also, have zero reason to care because they have zero control over it other than keeping things as is.
Of course they have control to save copyrights for the post ABCKO stuff. They could've released all 1973 soundboards last year but they didn't!
Those soundboards have zero to do with copyright control since they've never been released.
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
hockenheim95
()
Date: November 18, 2024 21:56
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
hockenheim95Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
hockenheim95Quote
ProfessorWolf
oh it's that time of the year again when we revive this thread in hopes of a new years surprise
what's up this time the iorr sessions?
i'm sure we won't get anything but i'd love to be wrong
Yes, because they Stones themselves don't care...
Everything owned by ABKCO expired.
I invented the airplane.Quote
hockenheim95
The Rolling Stones themselves don't care.
The Rolling Stones, also, have zero reason to care because they have zero control over it other than keeping things as is.
Of course they have control to save copyrights for the post ABCKO stuff. They could've released all 1973 soundboards last year but they didn't!
Those soundboards have zero to do with copyright control since they've never been released.
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
slewan
()
Date: November 18, 2024 22:32
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
hockenheim95Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
hockenheim95Quote
ProfessorWolf
oh it's that time of the year again when we revive this thread in hopes of a new years surprise
what's up this time the iorr sessions?
i'm sure we won't get anything but i'd love to be wrong
Everything owned by ABKCO expired.
I invented the airplane.Quote
hockenheim95
The Rolling Stones themselves don't care.
The Rolling Stones, also, have zero reason to care because they have zero control over it other than keeping things as is.
Of course they have control to save copyrights for the post ABCKO stuff. They could've released all 1973 soundboards last year but they didn't!
Those soundboards have zero to do with copyright control since they've never been released.
wrong. Every recording that has not been released 50 years after it was originally recorded becomes public domain.
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
Irix
()
Date: November 18, 2024 23:55
Quote
slewan
Every recording that has not been released 50 years after it was originally recorded becomes public domain.
But how should they become public domain when nobody except the artist has access to the archives?
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
CaptainCorella
()
Date: November 19, 2024 01:11
Quote
slewan
wrong. Every recording that has not been released 50 years after it was originally recorded becomes public domain.
Isn't that the wrong way round? If something has never been released, then copyright etc does not come into the picture.
As far as I can tell for something that HAS been released lapses (usually) after 50 years. I add the 'usually' because laws vary between jurisdictions.
My interpretation is therefore that all of the Rolling Stones singles up to and including "The Red Rooster" - released November 1964 - have lapsed. But tracks like "Cops & Robbers" recorded by then have not (yet?) lapsed. (I added the "yet?" as I'm not up to date with the miscellany of bonus tracks added to some re-releases). But as those re-releases are recent, the date of the re-release onto which a track has been piggy-backed is the date on which the copyright 'clock' starts.
Captain Corella
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: November 19, 2024 06:16
Quote
IrixQuote
slewan
Every recording that has not been released 50 years after it was originally recorded becomes public domain.
But how should they become public domain when nobody except the artist has access to the archives?
Is this sort of like "if a tree falls in the forest", or "a bird in the hand is worth twice in the bush"? (always thought that sounded vaguely sexual)
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
BlueTurns2Grey , Dan , felipe1993 , grzegorz67 , kkhoranstoned , maumau , mickjagger1009 , StonyRoad , umakmehrd
Guests:
1374
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10