Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Irix

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?

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)

And there are many recordings available who fall in Public Domain. The market is already flooded with cheap Bootlegs. You can buy them at the Department Store and on Amazon.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Irix

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?

Is this sort of like "if a tree falls in the forest", or "a bird in the hand is worth twice in the bush"?

It's more a question of the rightful owner of the recording and whether/how this recording has been published so far. See for instance the excerpt from the German copyright law - [iorr.org] .

Quote
hockenheim95

And there are many recordings available who fall in Public Domain. The market is already flooded with cheap Bootlegs. You can buy them at the Department Store and on Amazon.

Because most of such Bootlegs are live recordings from Radio/TV broadcasts where the copyright expires after 50 years.

It's academic in a sense...

At this Stage in the Stones career, and with many of we fans nearly as old as they are ...

If anybody wants to make any money out of the remaining stuff in the vaults...

...they need to get on with it

Quote
Irix

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?

if the artists (or whoever legitimately has/owns the recordings) fails to release them within 50 years after they were recorded they become public domain. It doesn't matter who (or if anybody at all) has access to the recordings. The copyright just expires after those 50 years. The only way to expand it is releasing the recording within that 50 years span.

Quote
slewan

It doesn't matter who (or if anybody at all) has access to the recordings.

Yes, but since no one other than the artist has access to the archive, the recording cannot become part of the public domain - because it's not accessible for the public.

Quote
slewan

The only way to expand it is releasing the recording within that 50 years span.

No, they could release the unused original recording also once after the 50 years timeframe - but the copyright span wouldn't be expanded.

On the other hand, remastered versions are considered as separate works for copyright purposes - but the changes must be substantial and creative.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-11-19 15:30 by Irix.

Quote
Irix

Quote
slewan

It doesn't matter who (or if anybody at all) has access to the recordings.

Yes, but since no one other than the artist has access to the archive, the recording cannot become part of the public domain - because it's not accessible for the public.

Quote
slewan

The only way to expand it is releasing the recording within that 50 years span.

No, they could release the unused original recording also once after the 50 years timeframe - but the copyright span wouldn't be expanded.

On the other hand, remastered versions are considered as separate works for copyright purposes - but the changes must be substantial and creative.

you're mixing up to things: a. the copyright and b. access to recordings.
the copyright expires after 50 years and the recordings become public domain (= no copyright anymore). Public domain refers to the copyright and not to the acctual access to the recordings (i.e. the tapes). Thus one can own the tapes but not the copyright.

Of couse, how ever has access to the recordings is allowed to release them (even if he never owned the copyright which is has now expire). But even if the ones who used to own the copyright release these recordings after the copyright epxired – anybody could copy them and sell them.

Quote
slewan

you're mixing up to things: a. the copyright and b. access to recordings.

No. The copyright expires 50 years after the production of the unused phonogram. But it cannot be brought into the public domain by someone else if they don't have access to the recordings (original tapes).

Quote
Irix

Quote
slewan

It doesn't matter who (or if anybody at all) has access to the recordings.

Yes, but since no one other than the artist has access to the archive, the recording cannot become part of the public domain - because it's not accessible for the public.

Quote
slewan

The only way to expand it is releasing the recording within that 50 years span.

No, they could release the unused original recording also once after the 50 years timeframe - but the copyright span wouldn't be expanded.

On the other hand, remastered versions are considered as separate works for copyright purposes - but the changes must be substantial and creative.

Why do you say "No" when you actually confirm what slewan stated?

Concerning releases by the artists after the 50 years timeframe - it's not a matter of copyright anymore, however, laws against unfair competition could apply, but only, as you've mentioned, mastering for release is "substantial and creative". Could be the case if Peter Jackson brings up the Beatles Starclub tapes to an enjoyable listening experience with his rather sensational audio technology used for the "Get Back"-series - for example.

Quote
retired_dog

Why do you say "No" when you actually confirm what slewan stated?

Because the copyright-expired original recording could be released exactly once/one-time by the artist. But then, as correctly stated by slewan above, anybody could copy them and sell them.

Quote
Irix

Quote
slewan

you're mixing up to things: a. the copyright and b. access to recordings.

No. The copyright expires 50 years after the production of the unused phonogram. But it cannot be brought into the public domain by someone else if they don't have access to the recordings (original tapes).

that's hair splitting

Quote
slewan

that's hair splitting

Wait for the lawyers from Universal/Sony/Warner Music ....

Seems to me somebody must have a "connection" to lawyers around here. It's unusual we haven't seen more leaks since those back a few years ago (forgot when).

Quote
Spud
It's academic in a sense...

At this Stage in the Stones career, and with many of we fans nearly as old as they are ...

If anybody wants to make any money out of the remaining stuff in the vaults...

...they need to get on with it

I have started to think that is the reason and realism behind not trying to save the copyrights for non-published recordings so far. There isn't really that much money involved to make them bother.

And if they now want to release something that has already entered Public Domain, say, a 1972 concert, they just make a fancy release of it, with a cool booklet and whatever, promote it big time, collect the money from die-hards who naturally will buy it loyally, and that's it. Mission accomplished. The next one. If now someone else wants to make a copy of it and sell it, well, go ahead and try to find your market to pick up whatever cents there are left...

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2024-11-19 22:16 by Doxa.

Quote
Irix

Quote
slewan

you're mixing up to things: a. the copyright and b. access to recordings.

No. The copyright expires 50 years after the production of the unused phonogram. But it cannot be brought into the public domain by someone else if they don't have access to the recordings (original tapes).

Well, does that mean that if I go and steal those recordings, I cannot release them officially? Or that I will be sued for robbery but not for making money for releasing the items?

- Doxa

-



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2024-11-19 22:45 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Well, does that mean that if I go and steal those recordings, I cannot release them officially?

Is this a serious question? Who spoke of stealing & robbery?


To answer your question below: in case that the original tapes were stolen or leaked, in my opinion they should remain under copyright if the theft/leak was within the 50-years copyright rule. Since the theft/leak was an illegal act, the stolen/leaked original tapes should be treated copyright-wise as unused recordings.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-11-20 22:55 by Irix.

Quote
Irix

Quote
Doxa

Well, does that mean that if I go and steal those recordings, I cannot release them officially?

Is this a serious question? Who spoke of stealing & robbery?

It is! And I spoke. I mean that's one way to get an access to the original tapes. Technically the content of the tapes might have entered The Public Domain, but do the people who happen to have the tapes in their possession (materially or digitally) have sort of right for controlling their release (Like The Stones in regard to their vaults)? Even in the case they are stolen/leaked?

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2024-11-19 23:24 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Irix

Quote
slewan

you're mixing up to things: a. the copyright and b. access to recordings.

No. The copyright expires 50 years after the production of the unused phonogram. But it cannot be brought into the public domain by someone else if they don't have access to the recordings (original tapes).

Well, does that mean that if I go and steal those recordings, I cannot release them officially? Or that I will be sued for robbery but not for making money for releasing the items?

- Doxa

most likely you will be sued for robbery and for making money by releasing this recording but not for copyright infringement (since the copyright has expired)

Quote
Doxa

...And if they now want to release something that has already entered Public Domain, say, a 1972 concert, they just make a fancy release of it, with a cool booklet and whatever, promote it big time, collect the money from die-hards who naturally will buy it loyally, and that's it. Mission accomplished. ...

- Doxa

That seems to have been the tactic employed for some time now...regardless of ageing copyright

Look at the credits in STRIPPPED. Like A Rolling Stone, Not Fade Away, I'm Free and Little Baby all had renewed copyrights.

Quote
GasLightStreet
Look at the credits in STRIPPPED. Like A Rolling Stone, Not Fade Away, I'm Free and Little Baby all had renewed copyrights.

that has nothing to do with the (new) EU copyright laws. In former days it was easy to renew copyrights after some time or in case artist transfered their right do another publisher.

Quote
GasLightStreet
Look at the credits in STRIPPPED. Like A Rolling Stone, Not Fade Away, I'm Free and Little Baby all had renewed copyrights.

This not the same kind of "copyright"

There are two copyright : the song and the recording.

To extreme simplification, the EU law is

The song's copyright last 70 years after the death of the author.

The recording's copyright last 70 years fron it first publication.

Oh.

Apparently it needs to be more complicated.

I mentioned the STRIPPED notes as an example of how copyright's are renewed. No idea what that means within the EU law then or now.