[78-L] European Sound Recording Copyright Extension

[Cary Ginell]

No, regarding Lead Belly. Alan Lomax made sure to copyright Lead Belly's arrangements of his folk adaptations; they are still controlled by TRO (The Richmond Organization). Whether Lead Belly saw any of the royalties for his work is uncertain to me.

Understand that the Life + 70 rule concerns post-1978 copyrights only. Anything prior to that is subject to the 28 + 28 + 19 year rule. 

Cary Ginell

> From: jcenderman at solcon.nl
> To: 78-l at klickitat.78online.com
> Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 17:56:12 +0200
> Subject: [78-L]  European Sound Recording Copyright Extension
> 
> I assume there are composer copyrights on many pre-1961 recordings.
> If such copyrights would end 70 years after a composer's death, there have to be
> royalties for any tune by a composer who died after 1940.
> Do radio stations or CD producers pay a general fee, or do they have to list all composers
> for the tunes played?
> I assume a Leadbelly recording of a folk song is totally free, as is Armstrong's 1928 recording 
> of Joe Oliver's West End Blues, but how about playing an Armstrong recording of a
> Carmichael tune or Ellington playing his own compositions?
> 
> han enderman
> ===
> >>> On 13/09/2011, Alan Bunting wrote:
> >> The law (when eventually implemented) will NOT be retrospective so Mr.
> >> Lennick and I can continue to supplement our meagre incomes with a few
> >> more transfers and restorations. Â
> >> Alan Bunting
> >> Â
> >> Here's the offical answer from the UK Intellectual Property Office: Â
> >> In response to your query, the directive provides that the extended
> >> term for sound recordings and performers' rights (i.e. the 70 year
> >> period) applies to fixation of performances and phonograms which are
> >> still protected by the term directive on the date the amending
> >> directive must be transposed and any such fixations created
> >> subsequently. So the directive extends copyright/performers' rights
> >> protections for works where the rights are still in force on the
> >> transposition date in the directive but it does not revive copyright.
> Don Cox wrote:
> 
> > That is a relief.
> >
> > Really, most of the material that the owners neglect and that is worth
> > reissuing dates from before 1962.
> >
> --
> I agree,
> And I forwarded the UK Intellectual Property Office reply to my boss 
> (head of Swedish Radio's music channel) who, in an interview a few days 
> ago, falsely interpreted the EU decision as putting all recordings 
> between 1961 and 1941 under copyright, thereby creating difficulties for 
> the channel to play Jussi Bjoerling and other stuff of the period.
> For me, producing and hosting a programme with perhaps 75 per cent 
> pre-1960's music, mostly popular and jazz, the copyright extension means 
> very little. And European radio stations can continue to play as much as 
> they like from the 78 rpm era, but will have to be careful with all 
> recordings from 1964 or so, depending on when the EU decision is 
> ratified and the law becomes active.
> The thing is: in Europe radio stations pay for performance rights. In 
> order to minimize the cost for these many public radio stations, like 
> BBC, NRK, DR, SR, WDR, BR, Deutsche Welle etc., use unprotected 
> recordings or their own live recordings to fill the play lists. The 
> unprotected recordings are rarely old ones, having passed into PD, but 
> modern US productions. The bizarre logic here is: US radio stations 
> don't pay royalties to record companies and artists, so why should we...
> Kristjan
> 
> <<<
> _______________________________________________
> 78-L mailing list
> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l