Would a Rachmaninoff Record be under copyright?

[marcapra]

Good luck. You can listen to some of mine, mostly Edison btw, here.

Valecnik, you have a great number of excellent videos on Youtube also!!! Good idea putting Public Domain at the bottom! I think Youtube must have a computer program that automatically challenges any music video put up.

[52089]

What I find absolutely ridiculous is that a half dozen companies will assert copyrights on recordings that are clearly in public domain, from 1906,7,8 etc.

In the USA, as noted earlier, a sound recording from 1906 is still covered by copyright until 2067.

Keep in mind, though, that Valecnik is in Europe, where the rules are different. In EU countries, all sound recordings made prior to 1963 had a 50 year copyright and are therefore now in the public domain. Sound recordings made in 1963 and later have a 70 year copyright, and therefore are still covered by copyright in the EU until at least 2033.

And again, those are the EU rules for sound recordings. The EU copyright on the underlying compositions follows a completely different rule - last author's life plus 70 years.

[marcapra]

So, are you saying that all videos of recordings made after 1906 without the permission of the copyright holder are in violation of copyright? If that's true, why do I see virtually thousands of music videos on Youtube?

[52089]

So, are you saying that all videos of recordings made after 1906 without the permission of the copyright holder are in violation of copyright? If that's true, why do I see virtually thousands of music videos on Youtube?

Actually, "1906" has nothing to do with it; I only used that date because of Valecnik's prior message. In the USA, unless a sound recording has been explicitly released into the public domain, it is still protected until 2067, regardless of when it was made (or technically, published).

Most of the sound recording copyright owners allow the use in the video, probably because the sound quality is not generally as good as the original, but many don't allow this, particularly for the more contemporary recordings. You'll also notice that many/most of those videos have links to buy the sound recording on iTunes/Google Play/etc., which may provide some revenue to the copyright holders.

There are also many cases where ownership of the recording's copyright is not clear due to bankruptcy, mergers, spinoffs, etc. For example, see the following article on the copyright status of Edison recordings:
http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2 ... messy.html

Complicating this further is the numerous companies that are attempting to claim copyright inappropriately. As Valecnik pointed out, six different companies can't all own the copyright to something!

Or, as Dave Barry put it:
This land is your land,
This land is my land,
One of us clearly
Has a fake deed to this land.

And of course, there's that wonderfully ambiguous term, "fair use"...

My larger point was the first point I made - there is a difference between copyright on a composition, and copyright on a sound recording. It is ridiculously easy to contest a copyright claim on an older composition, because (in the USA), anything published before 1923 (again, other than sound recordings) is public domain, period, but all sound recordings are still covered by copyright until 2067, at least in the USA. That means that contesting copyright on a sound recording is far more difficult.

[Henry]

I quote from the following source, third paragraph, last two sentences: "Current law provides that pre-1972 sound recordings may remain protected under state law until February 15, 2067. After that date they will enter the public domain." http://copyright.gov/docs/sound/

Note the word "may" and the phrase "under state law." "May" is permissive, not prescriptive; "under state law" means just that. IOW, Federal law allows the protection, but does not require it. Such requirement, where enacted, falls "under state law."

Now read carefully the entire third paragraph, and note especially the second sentence: "As a result, there are [sic: recte "is"] a variety of legal regimes governing protection of pre-1972 sound recordings in the various states, and the scope of protection and of exceptions and limitations to that protection is unclear."

It is clear from the above that there is no blanket Federal copyright protection of pre-1972 sound recordings.

Also relevant to the discussion is the following: http://www.pdinfo.com/copyright-law/pub ... rdings.php . See especially the last two paragraphs of that page.

I am not an attorney. Nevertheless, IMO one would have to research the laws of particular states to determine the copyright status of sound recordings made before Feb. 15, 1972.

[larryh]

It does seem then that nearly all old recordings made to you tube are under copyright according to what I am reading here. If so like some said why are some slipping though and others not. I see Rachmaninoff records on you tube by the hundreds, yet they must be the property of someone? I see edison rachmanioff pieces on you tube as well but I don't think I have yet found the Variations record although I didn't look very hard.. At this point I don't know if its worth being hassled should someone actually contest it farther.

Larry

Great information here for sure..

Valecnik I will look over yours when I get a chance here.

[52089]

I quote from the following source, third paragraph, last two sentences: "Current law provides that pre-1972 sound recordings may remain protected under state law until February 15, 2067. After that date they will enter the public domain." http://copyright.gov/docs/sound/

Note the word "may" and the phrase "under state law." "May" is permissive, not prescriptive; "under state law" means just that. IOW, Federal law allows the protection, but does not require it. Such requirement, where enacted, falls "under state law."

Now read carefully the entire third paragraph, and note especially the second sentence: "As a result, there are [sic: recte "is"] a variety of legal regimes governing protection of pre-1972 sound recordings in the various states, and the scope of protection and of exceptions and limitations to that protection is unclear."

It is clear from the above that there is no blanket Federal copyright protection of pre-1972 sound recordings.

Also relevant to the discussion is the following: http://www.pdinfo.com/copyright-law/pub ... rdings.php . See especially the last two paragraphs of that page.

I am not an attorney. Nevertheless, IMO one would have to research the laws of particular states to determine the copyright status of sound recordings made before Feb. 15, 1972.

Henry, you are entirely correct on all counts. Federal copyright does not apply to pre-1972 sound recordings. Please pardon me if I used "copyright" in this thread as shorthand for the myriad of state and even local anti-piracy laws that govern these rights. It's difficult to discuss this at a high enough level to be of use to a general audience while still being technically correct.

If you do some research on these laws, you will find that 1)virtually none of them have expiration dates, and 2) the scope of these laws, both intellectually and geographically, varies quite widely. It is entirely possible for a sound recording to technically be public domain in one jurisdiction (typically, but not exclusively a state), but protected in another. Since you cannot possibly (or at least practically) control what gets seen or distributed at so granular a level, it's best to assume that protection still applies.

In any case, with our hobby being so small, the "lost" royalties are negligible. It's still important that we contest the cases where copyright clearly does not apply to help ensure that this music is available to everyone.

And yes, I also post videos on YouTube under the name "TheseGoTo80". Mostly, but not entirely Edison stuff. The Noel Coward Victor record is the only active copyright claim, though nearly everything else had a claim at one time or another.

[Lucius1958]

This is the main reason I no longer post videos on YT.

They are, frankly, a haven for unscrupulous parties who fish for tenuous 'copyright' claims, and try to extort advertising revenue out of material that, under any rational definition, should properly be Public Domain.

Bill

[tinovanderzwan]

i posted the 1890 berliner doll cylinder and got a major claim they blocked my complete channel and i had to go through a set of multiple choice questions and some vids about what copygright is they where threatning me with ending my account and i had to fill in a legal document
i ofcourse did that but i think its quite odd for a 1890 recording
ontop of that its the recording that i had cleaned up so that it could be re-recorded on discs that will go with the replica's of the berliner doll
i told this in my counter claim and haven't heard from them since the claim was in november

i stoped my uploading of music and now do demonstation vids of phonographs on my 2nd channel that i also upload on facebook well no nasty things yet
im quite angry at yt pre 1925 music is a niche market and i don't think there's big bucks there its not like i'm uploading the newest of lady gaga!


tino