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...

Good question? Is Europe 1970 now out of copyright?
Or does pink Floyd do this because they know others have those tapes as well?

Maybe the Stones have very few taped shows.Either they didn’t tape them or the tapes were lost

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
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).

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).

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

They also released 1967 live cuts, Ed Sullivan-appearances and studio outtakes on iTunes.

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...

There's easy money to be made releasing dismal shows from 2012 but seriously...

Who knows? The Stones attitude to old releases seems so out of step with their peers I wonder who advises them.

If it's a business decision bc they think they're still relevant/releasing old stuff will make them look less relevant, they should think again and stop kidding themselves. They're old men with a dwindling fan base. Very few casual fans will even know about these ancient tours. Release the old stuff now.

I suppose one factor may be that you simply don't want to let it all out at once.

And ,to be fair , a lot of stuff has trickled out in recent years with the "Vaults" stuff etc...with most tours and time periods decently represented.

Also , if Mick & Keith want to retain at least some artistic control over the final released product , it requires them to commit quite a bit of their time to it.

They are arguably still quite an active live band...which, for the time being, will come first.

Quote
Whale

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).

So if on Jan 1st 2023 they release a 1792 show it's basically without copyright and they earn nothing on it?

I guess you meant 1972 (not 1792)…
It's European/EU law.
If they release 1972 stuff after Dec. 31, 1972 they can still make money with it – just by selling it (and finding someone who pays for). But anybody else can do the same.
To avoid such a situation they have to release the stuff in any form they want, for example: in very limited qualities (Bob Dylan released only 100 copies (CDRs!) of the fist volume of his 'copyright collection' – there was no advertisement or anything else. They just popped up in a few selected reorded stores shortly before new years eve), or putting the stuff online for just a couple of hours.

find out more about that EU law => [www.searchingforagem.com]

Quote
Whale

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).

So if on Jan 1st 2023 they release a 1792 show it's basically without copyright and they earn nothing on it?

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



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2022-12-22 15:38 by Doxa.

In Europe they should be public domain 70 years after the creator's demise. May well be different in the States.

Quote
Spud
I suppose one factor may be that you simply don't want to let it all out at once.

Yeah, coz they, like the vast majority of us, have so many more years left.

Rod

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
Doxa

Quote
Whale

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).

So if on Jan 1st 2023 they release a 1792 show it's basically without copyright and they earn nothing on it?

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

There is one other factor.

The money is in people 'buying' the releases. And the bootleg or unofficial market is just not the same as the official market.

I would think that part of the calculation is, ok so it goes into the public domain, so what. There's been bootlegs available for most stuff for years.

If it's material they want officially released, they'll do that, and sell to a small but dedicated fan base purchasing physical copies. They can even record new vocals or guitar parts to 'beef up' previously circulating unreleased material.

What they lose is a pittance and can be made up with one live show.

So in the end, it doesn't very much matter whether this material enters into the public domain or not. Unreleased 'B' material from 50 years ago is not a hot seller, and live shows can just be repackaged and the diehards will still buy them.

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.

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
GerardHennessy

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.

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."

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Whale

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).

So if on Jan 1st 2023 they release a 1792 show it's basically without copyright and they earn nothing on it?

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.

Isn't it also in UK broadcast-copyright, that it automatically expires 50 years after the first broadcast - [en.Wikipedia.org] - hence these public domain releases 'Live in 196x' or 'On Tour 196x' ?

Quote
doitywoik
In Europe they should be public domain 70 years after the creator's demise.

that's the copyright law for authors (fiction, science etc.). The copyright of music is extentend for 20 years if the stuff is being release within 50 years of its creation

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Whale

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).

So if on Jan 1st 2023 they release a 1792 show it's basically without copyright and they earn nothing on it?

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.

Cheers, R Dog! Same here, busy with Xmas preparations, but naturally this issue of first class importance passes all that...

Yeah, I was a bit unclear about my concern about UMG doing nothing. What I meant was that they weren't pushing The Stones with these releases - or if they have done, no public word about it. Of course, on their own they cannot do anything if the Stones are not willing (to deliver the stuff). But like they declared in their renewed contract in 2018 UMG will take care of their legacy, and I suppose the original deal in 2008 pretty much relied on their archive stuff (bonus albums, etc). It would have fitted to the picture. Surely they wouldn't have gained much money, but still something...

But from the point of view of the Stones/Prmotone, their passivity is indeed strange. I mean, had they extended the copyrights for all of these recordings, one might imagine that they would have more stuff to offer for their next contract with UMG or anyone.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2022-12-22 21:15 by Doxa.

Much more on this here: [iorr.org]

Quote
Send It To me

Quote
GerardHennessy

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.

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."

Really good example of what is becoming an increasingly typical comment from concert goers. And, just to show it is not confined to The Stones, I have been asked similar-type questions at Hawkwind and Status Quo gigs, where really well-known warhorse-category numbers such as Spirit Of The Age (Hawkwind) and Caroline (Quo) have mystified several people in nearby seats.

Gigs, concerts, whatever you like to call them, attract fans of THE EVENT almost as much as fans of THE BAND. And why not! Performer knowledge should never be a pre-requisite for attending. As long as we remember that in a 60,000 strong audience, anything up to 30% of those in attendance may be there simply out of curiosity, or to celebrity-spot, or to fill an otherwise uneventful week-end.