For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Kingbeebuzz
In uk it’s 11.45pm
Quote
ChrisL
But Bob Dylan is American and he does it.
Also, it seems from that Abkco response that they would love to put the stuff out but the Stones won’t agree to it.
I wonder, if they hadn’t done a dump last year, could the Stones themselves put it out since it would be out of copyright? And could Abkco put it out for the same reason?
That way the Stones don’t share the money with Abkco and Abkco doesn’t need the permission from the Stones?
I have no idea how the copyright law works, so just wondering.
Quote
slewanQuote
Kingbeebuzz
In uk it’s 11.45pm
doesn't matter since the UK is no longer part of the EU – and it's all about the EU copyright law
Quote
slewanQuote
ChrisL
But Bob Dylan is American and he does it.
Also, it seems from that Abkco response that they would love to put the stuff out but the Stones won’t agree to it.
I wonder, if they hadn’t done a dump last year, could the Stones themselves put it out since it would be out of copyright? And could Abkco put it out for the same reason?
That way the Stones don’t share the money with Abkco and Abkco doesn’t need the permission from the Stones?
I have no idea how the copyright law works, so just wondering.
a. the point is not the nationality of an artist but the deadline set in the time zone of the copyright law that is relevant, i.e. the EU
b. in case recorded material is not commercially used within 50 after the year of the recording it becomes public domain in the EU (= everything recorded in 1970 is now public domain unless it has been already commercially used). Thus anybody is allowed to release it – including the original artists.
The crucial problem is: What counts as 'commercial use'. Bob Dylan chose a save option: Selling some very limited CDs is without any doubt commercial use. But I'm still not sure that what Abkco did counts as commercial use since they gave the stuff away for free (but I strongly advice anybody not to try whetcher Abkco's way was legally right or wrong)
Quote
retired_dogQuote
slewanQuote
ChrisL
But Bob Dylan is American and he does it.
Also, it seems from that Abkco response that they would love to put the stuff out but the Stones won’t agree to it.
I wonder, if they hadn’t done a dump last year, could the Stones themselves put it out since it would be out of copyright? And could Abkco put it out for the same reason?
That way the Stones don’t share the money with Abkco and Abkco doesn’t need the permission from the Stones?
I have no idea how the copyright law works, so just wondering.
a. the point is not the nationality of an artist but the deadline set in the time zone of the copyright law that is relevant, i.e. the EU
b. in case recorded material is not commercially used within 50 after the year of the recording it becomes public domain in the EU (= everything recorded in 1970 is now public domain unless it has been already commercially used). Thus anybody is allowed to release it – including the original artists.
The crucial problem is: What counts as 'commercial use'. Bob Dylan chose a save option: Selling some very limited CDs is without any doubt commercial use. But I'm still not sure that what Abkco did counts as commercial use since they gave the stuff away for free (but I strongly advice anybody not to try whetcher Abkco's way was legally right or wrong)
Copyright is only one aspect. Even with copyright out of the way, there's still the contractual obligations between artist and record company, leading to the strange result that while everybody else could release public domain recordings, the artists and their record companies could not do it because of the original contract that requires agreements to release previously unreleased material!
Quote
GazzaQuote
slewanQuote
Kingbeebuzz
In uk it’s 11.45pm
doesn't matter since the UK is no longer part of the EU – and it's all about the EU copyright law
The UK was still subject to EU regulations throughout 2020 even though we officially left on 31/1/20. The issue is releasing the material in the EU to renew the copyright (whether the UK is part of it or not) - which Sony did with Dylan's 1970 recordings.
Quote
GazzaQuote
slewanQuote
Kingbeebuzz
In uk it’s 11.45pm
doesn't matter since the UK is no longer part of the EU – and it's all about the EU copyright law
The UK was still subject to EU regulations throughout 2020 even though we officially left on 31/1/20. The issue is releasing the material in the EU to renew the copyright (whether the UK is part of it or not) - which Sony did with Dylan's 1970 recordings.
It's strange that ABKCO havent bothered putting out something this time around, considering there are quite a few live shows and studio recordings from 1970. Also strange as it would be there last chance to do this as the Stones were no longer on the label from 1971.
Quote
slewanQuote
retired_dogQuote
slewanQuote
ChrisL
But Bob Dylan is American and he does it.
Also, it seems from that Abkco response that they would love to put the stuff out but the Stones won’t agree to it.
I wonder, if they hadn’t done a dump last year, could the Stones themselves put it out since it would be out of copyright? And could Abkco put it out for the same reason?
That way the Stones don’t share the money with Abkco and Abkco doesn’t need the permission from the Stones?
I have no idea how the copyright law works, so just wondering.
a. the point is not the nationality of an artist but the deadline set in the time zone of the copyright law that is relevant, i.e. the EU
b. in case recorded material is not commercially used within 50 after the year of the recording it becomes public domain in the EU (= everything recorded in 1970 is now public domain unless it has been already commercially used). Thus anybody is allowed to release it – including the original artists.
The crucial problem is: What counts as 'commercial use'. Bob Dylan chose a save option: Selling some very limited CDs is without any doubt commercial use. But I'm still not sure that what Abkco did counts as commercial use since they gave the stuff away for free (but I strongly advice anybody not to try whetcher Abkco's way was legally right or wrong)
Copyright is only one aspect. Even with copyright out of the way, there's still the contractual obligations between artist and record company, leading to the strange result that while everybody else could release public domain recordings, the artists and their record companies could not do it because of the original contract that requires agreements to release previously unreleased material!
well, if the Stones wanted to release stuff from 1970 they are surely able to find someone who lends his or her name…
Quote
GasLightStreet
Releasing music on YouTube counts as publishing but it's not exactly commercial use - it's different than printing a million copies of a book, putting them in stores etc and no one buys one.
Quote
slewanQuote
GasLightStreet
Releasing music on YouTube counts as publishing but it's not exactly commercial use - it's different than printing a million copies of a book, putting them in stores etc and no one buys one.
I pointed that aspect out somewhere above. And I doubt that putting stuff on youtube for free (and just for some 1,5 days) counts as commercial use…
But as long a no one has the guts (plus lawyers and money) to challenge ABKCOs move by trying to make money with those recordings from 1969…
Quote
slewanQuote
GasLightStreet
Releasing music on YouTube counts as publishing but it's not exactly commercial use - it's different than printing a million copies of a book, putting them in stores etc and no one buys one.
I pointed that aspect out somewhere above. And I doubt that putting stuff on youtube for free (and just for some 1,5 days) counts as commercial use…
But as long a no one has the guts (plus lawyers and money) to challenge ABKCOs move by trying to make money with those recordings from 1969…
Quote
GJV
On the other hand a couple of bootleg labels have released this 1969 stuff last year.
If Abkco didn't put it on Youtube this probably would not have happened...
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
slewanQuote
GasLightStreet
Releasing music on YouTube counts as publishing but it's not exactly commercial use - it's different than printing a million copies of a book, putting them in stores etc and no one buys one.
I pointed that aspect out somewhere above. And I doubt that putting stuff on youtube for free (and just for some 1,5 days) counts as commercial use…
But as long a no one has the guts (plus lawyers and money) to challenge ABKCOs move by trying to make money with those recordings from 1969…
A lawyer might argue that releasing it on YouTube does constitute a commercial release since YouTube has commercials and the ABKCO was very likely taking advantage of the partner program and! Next to no one notices or is paying attention anyway.
Quote
MrEchoQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
slewanQuote
GasLightStreet
Releasing music on YouTube counts as publishing but it's not exactly commercial use - it's different than printing a million copies of a book, putting them in stores etc and no one buys one.
I pointed that aspect out somewhere above. And I doubt that putting stuff on youtube for free (and just for some 1,5 days) counts as commercial use…
But as long a no one has the guts (plus lawyers and money) to challenge ABKCOs move by trying to make money with those recordings from 1969…
A lawyer might argue that releasing it on YouTube does constitute a commercial release since YouTube has commercials and the ABKCO was very likely taking advantage of the partner program and! Next to no one notices or is paying attention anyway.
The EU copyright law does not ask for the material to be used commercially in order to secure the copyright, but states the material needs to be "lawfully published or lawfully communicated" to the public (source: Directive 2011/77/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011). Publication on YouTube would count as "lawful communication", I guess.
Quote
His Majesty
Interesting little side note:
When I had the 1968 Ruby Tuesday up on my Facebook page, ABKCO tried to get it taken down. I countered with info that it was from November 1968 and they had not released it(via youtube) until late 2019 thus it had fallen outside of the 50 year rule.
The video stayed up.