Now THIS Just Takes the Cake!!

[syncopeter]

I posted a 1926 recording by Fred and Adele Astaire, made in London. Here in Europe it is clearly PD, but in the US people cannot watch it, even though the disc was never issued in the States.
By the way the copyright term has been extended from 50 to 70 years, but only for recordings made after 1960. This means that anything recorded before that is legally public domain, the recording that is. Lyrics and music are a completely different beast. Most post-1900 songs are still copyrighted, so technically you are trespassing the law publishing these without previous permit. However, most copyright owner have no problem at all when you post one of their songs.
The upside of all this is that any recording you make public that you have put any restoration to, albeit removing a single click, is copyrighted to you. So you can rightfully sue anyone that steals your restored title.
Sony Music is notorious for a) protecting their 'own' recordings and b) stealing other people's recordings for commercial purposes. Friends of mine own a small label specialised in unique new recordings of piano music of the 20s and 30s. By accident they found that 2 discs of them were available at a price via Spotify. They struggle for dear life to keep their little company afloat. Who put those recordings available for $10? Sony Music! Via a complex son of a daughter of a second cousin thrice removed construction Sony had stolen the original recordings and made them available to the general public at a price via Spotify. My friends issued a law suit to Sony demanding 10,000 GBP plus legal fees and I'm quite convinced they will win. They put an irremovable digital signature on each track, so they are sure that they are their recordings. Even converting to MP3 and then to WAV format again will not remove that signature.
The way Sony and to a lesser extent BMG, operate is nothing less than criminal.
They will never re-issue those recordings because they would sell less than 10,000 copies and therefore be not economical viable for such a moloch, yet they claim copyright on each and any of them.
Coming back to that Fred & Adele Astaire record. It is not currently available on any CD and probably will never be. Still Sony claims it is theirs, so I'm not allowed to publish it. I painfully restored the original 78, which quite probably was made in only 250 copies, to make it available to the general public. I don't earn a single penny from it, for me it is a labour of love.
If they pursue 10s of thousands early recordings will be unavailable to listeners. How stupid can you be?

[dd2u]

The upside of all this is that any recording you make public that you have put any restoration to, albeit removing a single click, is copyrighted to you.

That is a very debatable point. One UK legal opinion is that copyright exists in a creative act, but not in a slavish copy, or a technical act, or a straight restoration. By removing a click, you are removing an imperfection from a recording and making it closer to the original. In the eyes of the law, you are not doing anything creative at all, so you have not created anything that can be copyrighted to you. For example, see http://www.pagestore.net/mediarights.co.uk/ (though this has not been updated to reflect the recent 70 year ruling).

I stress that this is one legal opinion, and there are others. However, when record companies claim new copyright dates for new releases of old material, I believe they are being dishonest. Typesetting a document has a clear copyright legal precedent. Mastering a CD does not. (As they say, I am not a lawyer, and this advice is worth what you have paid for it.)


I think the actions of record companies, and YouTube, are shocking. It seems to me that, after the widespread piracy of music at the start of this century, some members of the industry have decided to act like pirates themselves. The law is incidental. Though national laws, and national licensing, on the international internet, can seem a little archaic.

I would like to see an international public domain enforced at 50 years after publication (all rights, all media), but I have more chance of seeing pigs flying. Then again, I am sure that Google would love to see this happen too, and they have deep pockets, which seems to be to way to get the law changed.


You may soothe your troubles by enjoying jackpaynefan's YouTube channel. I aspire to having a music room like this!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5uG0QqMQXA

http://www.youtube.com/user/jackpaynefan?feature=watch

[Valecnik]

The upside of all this is that any recording you make public that you have put any restoration to, albeit removing a single click, is copyrighted to you.

That is a very debatable point. One UK legal opinion is that copyright exists in a creative act, but not in a slavish copy, or a technical act, or a straight restoration. By removing a click, you are removing an imperfection from a recording and making it closer to the original. In the eyes of the law, you are not doing anything creative at all, so you have not created anything that can be copyrighted to you. For example, see http://www.pagestore.net/mediarights.co.uk/ (though this has not been updated to reflect the recent 70 year ruling).

I stress that this is one legal opinion, and there are others. However, when record companies claim new copyright dates for new releases of old material, I believe they are being dishonest. Typesetting a document has a clear copyright legal precedent. Mastering a CD does not. (As they say, I am not a lawyer, and this advice is worth what you have paid for it.)


I think the actions of record companies, and YouTube, are shocking. It seems to me that, after the widespread piracy of music at the start of this century, some members of the industry have decided to act like pirates themselves. The law is incidental. Though national laws, and national licensing, on the international internet, can seem a little archaic.

I would like to see an international public domain enforced at 50 years after publication (all rights, all media), but I have more chance of seeing pigs flying. Then again, I am sure that Google would love to see this happen too, and they have deep pockets, which seems to be to way to get the law changed.


You may soothe your troubles by enjoying jackpaynefan's YouTube channel. I aspire to having a music room like this!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5uG0QqMQXA

http://www.youtube.com/user/jackpaynefan?feature=watch

Did as you said and it DID sooth my troubles. I'd subscribed to jackpaynefan some time back. His music room is really outstanding.

[52089]

That is a very debatable point. One UK legal opinion is that copyright exists in a creative act, but not in a slavish copy, or a technical act, or a straight restoration. By removing a click, you are removing an imperfection from a recording and making it closer to the original. In the eyes of the law, you are not doing anything creative at all, so you have not created anything that can be copyrighted to you. For example, see http://www.pagestore.net/mediarights.co.uk/ (though this has not been updated to reflect the recent 70 year ruling).

I stress that this is one legal opinion, and there are others. However, when record companies claim new copyright dates for new releases of old material, I believe they are being dishonest. Typesetting a document has a clear copyright legal precedent. Mastering a CD does not. (As they say, I am not a lawyer, and this advice is worth what you have paid for it.)

That is also the current opinion in the US, although the case was about photography of public domain images, not sound recordings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_ ... Corel_Corp.

[Swing Band Heaven]

The only thing for sure is that it is a legal minefield with no clear answer.

BTW Jack Payne fan has an excellent collection and i've spent many hours listening to it.

[Paal1994]

This has happened to me, as well.
I posted a video in four parts of Al Jolson's last recordings.
They are all Stephen Foster songs, but still I got copyright claims...
I accepted them, but I can still dispute the claim. I am thinking of doing that after reading this thread.
I thought all Foster songs was supposed to be in the public domain...

Paal.

[FloridaClay]

I thought all Foster songs was supposed to be in the public domain...

Paal.

I am guessing that any claims (which could, or could not, be legitimate) would be with respect to the recordings rather than the music in this instance.

Clay

[Paal1994]

I understand. Thanks!
I was just a bit suspicious as Foster songs should be public domain. It was also some of the same companies mentioned in this thread.
If they try copyright some old cylinders or something, I'll take more action.

Paal.

[Valecnik]

I disputed close to 100 claims, (20 videos, 3 to six claims per video)with pretty good success. All claims have been released except five or six claims on three videos which remain pending.

[FloridaClay]

Apparently a lot of people are throwing claims at the wall to see if they stick, because, I gather, if you agree then they can hook ads to your YouTube videos and make money off your work. It is a big racket. I'd be surprised if anywhere near half the claims are legit.

Clay