The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

I just became aware that Youtube removed the sound from Jazzgirl's upload of The Piccadilly Players' "I'm sorry Sally," released on Edison DD 52442. This is the first time that I've become aware of an Edison record being the subject of copyright infringement. This is really ****** up! Edison records are supposed to be in the public domain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CEP4SDjiFY



Rocky

According to information posted on The Talking Machine Forum anything before 1923 can be posted. I can't verify its accuracy. Here's the link:

http://victrolagramophones.proboards.co ... y&thread=7

I hope all the heirs to "I'm Sorry Sally" are getting their monthly royalty checks!

Bob

I happened upon the video exactly one hour after it was uploaded. How bizarre that Youtube silenced the music so quickly.

The record was recorded in early 1929--later than the 1923 cutoff for records in the public domain. However, I thought that Edison records were exempt.



Rocky

OK, apparently I don't fully understand the whole copyright infringement business. So why does youtube allow Jazzgirl's upload of Carl Fenton Orchestra "The Rainbow Man" July 3, 1929 Gennett 6906? Likewise I know I've viewed other uploads of songs recorded after 1923.
Don

Did they say who claims to own the copyright?
UMG & WMG seem to be the biggest problem with youtube videos.
I really can't work out all this copyright nonsence either. I've had 2 videos disabled- 1 Frank Sinatra & 1 Lena Horne, yet another song, Civilization by Danny Kaye & the Andrews Sisters, has been disabled on everyone elses video except mine?
I've been told it's because I'm in Australia, but then I thought because Youtube is American based, that all uploads fell under US law.

I didn't think they could touch any Edison recordings either, so I'm wondering if The Pickadilly Players recorded "I'm Sorry Sally" for another label, or if the score itself might still be under copyright?
Sometimes I wonder if sound quality plays a part in what goes & what stays. They seem to pick on good quality digital transfers alot more than videos like mine that are just a camera infront of a gramophone. Put a digital copy of Judy Garlands Trolley Song on youtube & it will be gone within the hour, yet mines been up for 18 months or something.

All I can say is there must be "someone" making money off the Pickadilly Players recording for it to be removed.
It seems that just about anyone can lay claim to expired copyrights though.
An American music publisher claimed the copyright for Waltzing Matilda, and when Australia performed it at the US olympics, the Oz government ended up having to pay the music publisher because we sang it on your soil

I think it's strange that they removed the video. I also thought that Edison Records were in the public domain... But I agree with gramophoneshane that it might have something to do with the sound quality, if it is a digital transfer or a camera in front of a phonograph.

I'm sure the sound recording is out of copyright, it's the use of that particular song that must have been the problem. One practice I've heard of YT doing of late, is adding ads to someone's posting as a condition of leaving it there; if they refuse the ads, off YT it goes. Why didn't they just add them to this clip (if they weren't there already)?

I think one of the most notorious is Warner Bros Music, who yank away their bits everywhere, regardless of whose recording is at play, whether the recording is by a WB Records artiste or someone else. Worst of all, there are the stories of someone having, say, a crude home video, only seconds long, of their two-year-old dancing along to a Prince song, the sound of which is the song playing on a crappy 'boom-box' (I still tend to call them 'ghettoblasters') across the room, yanked at Prince's (or his lawyers') insistence!

Even use of bits of an arrangement can get things snagged with respect to copyrights. There is the story (from 1967) of George Martin and his orchestra arrangement on 'All you need is love' where you hear the saxes, near the end, playing (very quickly) the intro riff you hear on Glenn Miller's version of 'In the mood', and Martin had to pay not the copyright holders of the song, as it was determined he didn't use any part of the song itself, but the copyright holders of the arrangement Miller used!

Not sure George Martin himself had to pay. I do remember something about Martin claiming that EMI was very nervous about the use of 'In The Mood.' Perhaps they were the ones that had to pay up.

Now, here is an interesting you tube video which is directly related to this issue and how to overcome it. I guess it must work....... Has anyone here tried this?

RJ

[youtubehd]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mDJ2zjET7A[/youtubehd]