For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
So if on Jan 1st 2023 they release a 1792 show it's basically without copyright and they earn nothing on it?Quote
slewan
Bob Dylan has done this since 2012…
everything that hasn't been commercially used becomes public domain after 50 years (= 50 years after the end of the year of the recording).
Quote
slewan
Bob Dylan has done this since 2012…
everything that hasn't been commercially used becomes public domain after 50 years (= 50 years after the end of the year of the recording).
There were some Stones released to keep the copyright – some years ago Decca uploaded live material on youtube on new years eve and deleted it on the very next day
Quote
saltoftheearth
As it was all over the press, Pink Floyd has released many live recordings from 1972 to prevent them from fallin into public domain.
Why don't the Rolling Stones do this? Does that mean that they have lost the right s on the 1972 live recordings?
And/or can we hope that tehy will release live recordings of their greatest tours of all - 1973 throughout?
Just asking...
Quote
WhaleSo if on Jan 1st 2023 they release a 1792 show it's basically without copyright and they earn nothing on it?Quote
slewan
Bob Dylan has done this since 2012…
everything that hasn't been commercially used becomes public domain after 50 years (= 50 years after the end of the year of the recording).
Quote
WhaleSo if on Jan 1st 2023 they release a 1792 show it's basically without copyright and they earn nothing on it?Quote
slewan
Bob Dylan has done this since 2012…
everything that hasn't been commercially used becomes public domain after 50 years (= 50 years after the end of the year of the recording).
Quote
Spud
I suppose one factor may be that you simply don't want to let it all out at once.
Quote
DoxaQuote
WhaleSo if on Jan 1st 2023 they release a 1792 show it's basically without copyright and they earn nothing on it?Quote
slewan
Bob Dylan has done this since 2012…
everything that hasn't been commercially used becomes public domain after 50 years (= 50 years after the end of the year of the recording).
If I have understood it right, it is not the songs or the performances but the recordings of those (not commercially released within 50 years) that are in public domain. So that means that anyone can release the stuff in any form as one wants and gather the money, but needs to pay the mechanical royalties to those who have the rights for the songs and the performances. So, as song-writers, Mick and Keith will get their share if someone decides to release, say, 1792 show...
The result is that The Stones cannot control anyway the release of their live stuff or the alternative studio versions of commercially released songs (recorded now by the end of 1971, soon 1972) but Mick and Keith will get their song-writer royalties if someone releases that stuff.
It looks like that they don't give a shit. They probably do not see enough commercial value (Mick and Keith will get their mechanical royalties anyhow, and it's enough for them) or artistic value (in terms of controlling their legacy) in that stuff to do something about it. Probably they are just so used to the bootleg market that it's alright for them (they always seem to have a pretty emphatic attitude for it). No harm commercially or artistically if people now release that stuff legally. Dylan's people and Pink Floyd think otherwise. Another reason could be that the best stuff - something not circulated yet - is secured so well in their vaults that they trust that no outsider has access to it. They will release it some day or not.
What I find odd why their record company (UMG) has not done anything. But probably they don't see that huge commercial value there. Or it could be all up to the Stones: they are not into it: like I speculated, they don't want to release officially stuff they don't consider artistically or commercially worth of it. Let that go public domain, who cares... (The Stones vauts material, as we have seen, seem to be pretty profilic and commercial when when released officially.)
But of course we have to remember that this 50 years rule holds in EU and I think in Canada, but not all over the world. Most importantly, not in the huge US market.
Retired Dog could correct my likely errors and misunderstandings (once again)...
EDIT: Slewan already told the same things. Sorry for repetition.
- Doxa
Quote
DEmerson
re: 'They're old men with a dwindling fan base. Very few casual fans will even know about these ancient tours.'
When I travelled from Boston to Lyon this past summer to see my 41st Stones show, the one thing I sort of most remember thinking is - these guys are bigger than ever! While waiting to get my Lucky Dip tix, it was insane (some people were kinda losing their shit - and it didn't matter if you were 1st in line or not). I wound up in the rafters, but looking down on the PACKED stadium floor, I was actually happy to have a seat. I also recall getting lucky to see Mick come of his hotel before a Stockholm show a few years ago, and the streets were MOBBED with people, hoping just to catch a glimpse. This, some 50+ years after the world 1st saw The Rolling Stones. Maybe their record sales won't compete with the Taylor Swifts of the world - but 'dwindling fan base'? I don't think so.
Quote
GerardHennessyQuote
DEmerson
re: 'They're old men with a dwindling fan base. Very few casual fans will even know about these ancient tours.'
When I travelled from Boston to Lyon this past summer to see my 41st Stones show, the one thing I sort of most remember thinking is - these guys are bigger than ever! While waiting to get my Lucky Dip tix, it was insane (some people were kinda losing their shit - and it didn't matter if you were 1st in line or not). I wound up in the rafters, but looking down on the PACKED stadium floor, I was actually happy to have a seat. I also recall getting lucky to see Mick come of his hotel before a Stockholm show a few years ago, and the streets were MOBBED with people, hoping just to catch a glimpse. This, some 50+ years after the world 1st saw The Rolling Stones. Maybe their record sales won't compete with the Taylor Swifts of the world - but 'dwindling fan base'? I don't think so.
I agree with the original point. I do think The Stones have a dwindling fan base. A group of excited people going to a concert does not prove otherwise. I know many many people who know nothing about The Stones but will always go to see them on tour. Why? Because they know there will be a lot of other people there. And it is something interesting to do.
This is not unique to The Stones. I have known the same for The Eagles, Fleetwood Mac, Clapton, Dylan. Most of those in attendance are attracted to THE EVENT, not to the performer(s). And that is all okay. But its important we don't read too much into it.
I remember coming back into London from a Stones concert at Twickenham 14/15years ago. Most of those sitting around me on the train knew next to nothing about the band. A couple of people said they left the concert after Miss You. That is the song they mainly came to hear. Several others were very critical of the 'non-warhorse' numbers played. (The band were touring in support of A Bigger Bang). Other than Brown Sugar, Satisfaction, Start Me Up, Honky Tonk Women, and JJF they were uninterested. I was really surprised by just how many fellow travellers did not know Midnight Rambler, Sympathy, Street Fighting Mano, Get Off My Cloud, Ruby Tuesday or Tumbling Dice. And Sway, which was played superbly that evening, might as well have been played on Mars. NO ONE amongst the 12-15 people I was chatting to recognised it, and had nothing other than criticism for playing it.
So do The Stones continue to draw a crowd? Yes. Do they have a real, dyed-in-the-wool energised, committed, and knowledgeable fan base? No. But they do continue to see tickets. And that, sadly, is where their REAL strength now lies...
Quote
DoxaQuote
WhaleSo if on Jan 1st 2023 they release a 1792 show it's basically without copyright and they earn nothing on it?Quote
slewan
Bob Dylan has done this since 2012…
everything that hasn't been commercially used becomes public domain after 50 years (= 50 years after the end of the year of the recording).
If I have understood it right, it is not the songs or the performances but the recordings of those (not commercially released within 50 years) that are in public domain. So that means that anyone can release the stuff in any form as one wants and gather the money, but needs to pay the mechanical royalties to those who have the rights for the songs and the performances. So, as song-writers, Mick and Keith will get their share if someone decides to release, say, 1792 show...
The result is that The Stones cannot control anyway the release of their live stuff or the alternative studio versions of commercially released songs (recorded now by the end of 1971, soon 1972) but Mick and Keith will get their song-writer royalties if someone releases that stuff.
It looks like that they don't give a shit. They probably do not see enough commercial value (Mick and Keith will get their mechanical royalties anyhow, and it's enough for them) or artistic value (in terms of controlling their legacy) in that stuff to do something about it. Probably they are just so used to the bootleg market that it's alright for them (they always seem to have a pretty emphatic attitude for it). No harm commercially or artistically if people now release that stuff legally. Dylan's people and Pink Floyd think otherwise. Another reason could be that the best stuff - something not circulated yet - is secured so well in their vaults that they trust that no outsider has access to it. They will release it some day or not.
What I find odd why their record company (UMG) has not done anything. But probably they don't see that huge commercial value there. Or it could be all up to the Stones: they are not into it: like I speculated, they don't want to release officially stuff they don't consider artistically or commercially worth of it. Let that go public domain, who cares... (The Stones vauts material, as we have seen, seem to be pretty profilic and commercial when when released officially.)
But of course we have to remember that this 50 years rule holds in EU and I think in Canada, but not all over the world. Most importantly, not in the huge US market.
Retired Dog could correct my likely errors and misunderstandings (once again)...
EDIT: Slewan already told the same things. Sorry for repetition.
- Doxa
Quote
doitywoik
In Europe they should be public domain 70 years after the creator's demise.
Quote
retired_dogQuote
DoxaQuote
WhaleSo if on Jan 1st 2023 they release a 1792 show it's basically without copyright and they earn nothing on it?Quote
slewan
Bob Dylan has done this since 2012…
everything that hasn't been commercially used becomes public domain after 50 years (= 50 years after the end of the year of the recording).
If I have understood it right, it is not the songs or the performances but the recordings of those (not commercially released within 50 years) that are in public domain. So that means that anyone can release the stuff in any form as one wants and gather the money, but needs to pay the mechanical royalties to those who have the rights for the songs and the performances. So, as song-writers, Mick and Keith will get their share if someone decides to release, say, 1792 show...
The result is that The Stones cannot control anyway the release of their live stuff or the alternative studio versions of commercially released songs (recorded now by the end of 1971, soon 1972) but Mick and Keith will get their song-writer royalties if someone releases that stuff.
It looks like that they don't give a shit. They probably do not see enough commercial value (Mick and Keith will get their mechanical royalties anyhow, and it's enough for them) or artistic value (in terms of controlling their legacy) in that stuff to do something about it. Probably they are just so used to the bootleg market that it's alright for them (they always seem to have a pretty emphatic attitude for it). No harm commercially or artistically if people now release that stuff legally. Dylan's people and Pink Floyd think otherwise. Another reason could be that the best stuff - something not circulated yet - is secured so well in their vaults that they trust that no outsider has access to it. They will release it some day or not.
What I find odd why their record company (UMG) has not done anything. But probably they don't see that huge commercial value there. Or it could be all up to the Stones: they are not into it: like I speculated, they don't want to release officially stuff they don't consider artistically or commercially worth of it. Let that go public domain, who cares... (The Stones vauts material, as we have seen, seem to be pretty profilic and commercial when when released officially.)
But of course we have to remember that this 50 years rule holds in EU and I think in Canada, but not all over the world. Most importantly, not in the huge US market.
Retired Dog could correct my likely errors and misunderstandings (once again)...
EDIT: Slewan already told the same things. Sorry for repetition.
- Doxa
Doxa,
what can I say, you basically got it right. I have to cut it short due to Christmas preparations, so here we go:
"...it is not the songs or the performances but the recordings of those (not commercially released within 50 years) that are in public domain."
should read:
"...it is not the songs but the recordings of their performances of those (not commercially released within 50 years) that are in public domain."
Concerning UMG not doing anything is not odd at all - they're just their exclusive distributors, so they can just "release" (or better: distribute) what the Stones give them, or more precise: what they are contractually obliged to give them.
Plus, UMG would gain nothing if they would do it like Pink Floyd and others: Once their contract with the Stones expires, they would lose any distribution rights anyway.
So if there is someone to blame for "not doing anything", it is Promotone = the Stones themselves. If they care a shit about copyright extension of a given recorded performance, there's nothing UMG could do. And as you said: The public domain companies have to pay mechanical royalities to the songwriters, basically Jagger/Richards, anyway.
There's a lot more to say about all this, but time is short... But as I've said already, your general picture is pretty accurate.
Quote
Send It To meQuote
GerardHennessyQuote
DEmerson
re: 'They're old men with a dwindling fan base. Very few casual fans will even know about these ancient tours.'
When I travelled from Boston to Lyon this past summer to see my 41st Stones show, the one thing I sort of most remember thinking is - these guys are bigger than ever! While waiting to get my Lucky Dip tix, it was insane (some people were kinda losing their shit - and it didn't matter if you were 1st in line or not). I wound up in the rafters, but looking down on the PACKED stadium floor, I was actually happy to have a seat. I also recall getting lucky to see Mick come of his hotel before a Stockholm show a few years ago, and the streets were MOBBED with people, hoping just to catch a glimpse. This, some 50+ years after the world 1st saw The Rolling Stones. Maybe their record sales won't compete with the Taylor Swifts of the world - but 'dwindling fan base'? I don't think so.
I agree with the original point. I do think The Stones have a dwindling fan base. A group of excited people going to a concert does not prove otherwise. I know many many people who know nothing about The Stones but will always go to see them on tour. Why? Because they know there will be a lot of other people there. And it is something interesting to do.
This is not unique to The Stones. I have known the same for The Eagles, Fleetwood Mac, Clapton, Dylan. Most of those in attendance are attracted to THE EVENT, not to the performer(s). And that is all okay. But its important we don't read too much into it.
I remember coming back into London from a Stones concert at Twickenham 14/15years ago. Most of those sitting around me on the train knew next to nothing about the band. A couple of people said they left the concert after Miss You. That is the song they mainly came to hear. Several others were very critical of the 'non-warhorse' numbers played. (The band were touring in support of A Bigger Bang). Other than Brown Sugar, Satisfaction, Start Me Up, Honky Tonk Women, and JJF they were uninterested. I was really surprised by just how many fellow travellers did not know Midnight Rambler, Sympathy, Street Fighting Mano, Get Off My Cloud, Ruby Tuesday or Tumbling Dice. And Sway, which was played superbly that evening, might as well have been played on Mars. NO ONE amongst the 12-15 people I was chatting to recognised it, and had nothing other than criticism for playing it.
So do The Stones continue to draw a crowd? Yes. Do they have a real, dyed-in-the-wool energised, committed, and knowledgeable fan base? No. But they do continue to see tickets. And that, sadly, is where their REAL strength now lies...
FWIW, they played "Worried About You" at a show I went to and the woman next to me, a casual concertgoer, asked "What was that? I really liked that one."