The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

I'm reasonably familiar with the Sonny Bono Copyright Act and as far as I can determine, based on numerous sources, it did not affect the copyright status of sound recordings. If you can provide sources to the contrary, I would be most grateful.

52089 wrote:Also, not to be overly pedantic, but I assume by "associated copyright", you meant "associated US copyright".

This cross-conflict happens all the time, in both directions. By "reverse" example, Rhapsody in Blue is copyrighted in the USA because it was published after 1923 and properly renewed. However, it is PD in Europe because Gershwin is the sole named author and he died more than 70 years ago.

Thanks for asking about the term. I just looked it up and it is actually different from what I thought it was. I mean the ancillary coypright, thee German term (Leistungsschutzrecht) does not translate it well. I'll edit my earlier post.

Btw. this is an updated chart of the (quite chaotic) US terms of copyright. Although it is nicely put together, it exemplifies the messy status quo of its countless variations. Sound recordings is about half way down but compositions or texts are subject to additional rules:

https://copyright.cornell.edu/publicdomain

Thanks for the clarification. I will refrain from further comment as this thread is getting to be quite technical and diverting from its original intention.

A few posts back, someone asked for a "simple answer". I hope that poster now understands why a simple answer is nearly impossible in cases like this!

OK, so what is the actual point of all of this? I'm sure that no one is going to bother with pursuing a copyright claim against Donnie for making a dozen copies of an obsolete record...

The point is to better be safe than sorry. Why bother to take the risk for likely just a few bucks per record?

Well, I'm probably over-thinking this, but doesn't making copies tend to devalue the originals held by other collectors?

The only thing cooler than having a 1900s record player, is being able to buy brand-new records to play on it.

The only thing UNCOOL about new records, is trying to pay for them on my budget. So just do like it's the 1920s and buy one or two records a month.

Devaluing? Why, I think it'd be the other way round. The recordings are more treasured by us if we can hear them without having to take out a second mortgage! The fortunate few that own originals, are the reference standard. The rest of us can trade copies--but the originals, the real pressings, will always be higher in $$$ value.

I own quite a few rare records. Amazing what a dollar can get you...and to me they are still dollar records.

Gatyam wrote:Well, I'm probably over-thinking this, but doesn't making copies tend to devalue the originals held by other collectors?

It's already been done, and no.

Bluebird King Olivers don't devalue original Victor V38000 or 23000 King Olivers any more than red Columbia or 1930s Brunswicks devalue original Miff Mole or Trumbauer/ Bix OKehs. Why should these copies be any different?

I know there are people ranting about it, but I see reproductions of existing originals as items for regular use on period machines with the absence of any regrets, just unlike wearing down a precious original.

Just received my copy today and it sounds wonderful! (And for me, at least, were it not for this copy I doubt I'd ever get to hear "Take Me Out to the Ball Game" on my VTLA. Which is way better than hearing it on youtube.)