Being curious I jumped to the net and this is what I found

•Published from 1923 to 1963 - When published with no notice - now in public domain

•Published from 1964 to 1977 - When published with notice - copyright protection lasts 28 years for first term; automatic extension of 67 years for second term for a total of 95 years.

•Created before 1/1/1978 but not published - copyright notice is irrelevant - copyright protection lasts for the life of author and 70 years or 12/31/2002, whichever is greater

•Created before 1/1/1978 and published between 1/1/1978 and 12/31/2002 - notice is irrelevant - copyright protecion lasts the life of author and 70 years or 12/31/2047, whichever is greater

•Created 1/1/1978 or after - When work is fixed in tangible medium of expression - notice is irrelevant - copyright protecion lasts for the life of author and 70 years based on the the longest living author if jointly created or if work of corporate authorship, works for hire, or anonymous and pseudonymous works, the shorter of 95 years from publication, or 120 years from creation.


As Mick and Keith are still alive we'll have to wait at least 70 years to place offical stuff here.

I guess I won't live to see that happen.

For which country is this valid? It is very different in each country!

Quote
midnrambler
For which country is this valid? It is very different in each country!

I found about the same text in dutch language, but honestly don't know what english speaking countries hold on to the text above.

Copyright varies for every form of 'created' work. In other words, film is different from literature, which is different from songwriting, which is different from performance copyright, etc. Performance copyright seems to be the issue on this site regarding the prohibition of posting recorded music for which copyrights are officially and legally held.
In addition, copyright varies for each of the various types of created 'works' from country to country. England and the U.S. have different copyright laws. In some cases, the copyright term is shorter in England. This is just an example.
Bear in mind that copyright laws change from time to time. Also, sometimes the law has allowed works in the public domain to be put back into protected copyright status.
It is difficult to speak about "copyright" without knowing the country involved, the type of artistic creation, when it was created, etc.

[www.iorr.org] looks very official to me (lots of studio takes)

It only gives me more and more confusion about what is official and what is not.


To extend the question;

Why is there no copyright on live performances of the stones.

Selling bootlegs is illegal, but trading the same stuff on the net is free.





Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-05-16 18:58 by stonesmuziekfan.

There is no copyright on live performances, but the numbers are protected by copyright. That means, that if Stones play a number not protected by copyright, you can record it and SHARE, not sell. I have read tons of stuff about copyright,and its very confussing.Legaly there a BIG diff. between bootleging and piracy. Piracy is copying and share/sell off. stuff, and bootleging is to share NOT SELL not off. stuff. Depending of artist/recordcompagny and country, the rules are very different. One thing is for sure, anywere around the world, - its not legal to sell or buy bootlegs!When it comes to bootlegs most companys and artists dosnt care a shit - some do - very much - ex. Metallica and Paul McCartney -they are extrem. greedy - complete idiots!
So - it,s a jungle out there! But I would,nt be afraid of the stones , they dont seem to bother that much - as long as we dont seel bootleg. (Mick loves bootlegs!)

Cheers Bo