gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
639656 Posts in 25560 Topics by 3632 Members - Latest Member: stinkynimrod November 16, 2018, 02:11:52 AM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: General Copyright Extension Question  (Read 981 times)
superunison
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 63



View Profile
« on: October 16, 2018, 04:03:12 PM »

If these releases are intended to extend the copyright of these songs, what's to stop me from HYPOTHETICALLY pressing up an album that featured something like "Visions" a track not released on any of these? I don't have the time or money to do anything like that. This is purely something I was just curious about.
Logged
ChewBecca
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 41



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: October 17, 2018, 12:16:16 PM »

Good question because should that not mean that theoretically someone can cover anything that was booted but not rereleased on these extensions? Maybe maybe not?

Logged

Sometimes you make choices sometimes choices make you

“Luke, come join the dark Side it is fun we have cookies! Love, Dad”
ForHerCryingSoul
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 281



View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 17, 2018, 04:44:03 PM »

Aren't the Masters still owned by the record company? So if you were to do that, you would still have to give credit to the writer. For example, Darian when he released do you have any regrets, a song that came from the unreleased sweet insanity project by Brian...
Logged
Needleinthehay
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 128


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: October 18, 2018, 01:00:43 AM »

AFAIK, the copyright extension releases are only because of UK law about the 50 years. So, that would only apply to the UK.
Logged
ChewBecca
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 41



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: October 18, 2018, 11:59:38 AM »

So by that do you mean the copyright will still expire in the United States?
Logged

Sometimes you make choices sometimes choices make you

“Luke, come join the dark Side it is fun we have cookies! Love, Dad”
DonnyL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1689



View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: October 18, 2018, 12:31:48 PM »

Copyright law in the US is author's life +70 years, and the copyright is fixed upon creation of the work regardless of publication. The law is a bit different prior to 1978, but it's something similar at this point.

I'm not familiar with the UK law, but this 50 year thing seems to be related to extending the copyright of the *sound recording* (not the underlying musical composition):

"Under the 1988 Act, copyright in a sound recording expires either (a) 50 years after the recording is made, or (b) if the recording is published during that period then 50 years from the publication, or (c) if during the initial 50 years the recording is played in public or communicated to the public then 50 years from that communication or playing to the public, provided the author of the broadcast is an EEA citizen. Otherwise, the duration under the laws of the country of which the author is a national applies, unless such a duration would be longer than offered in UK law, or would be contrary to treaty obligations of the UK in force on 29 October 1994.

As of 1 November 2013, the copyright on sound recordings not yet in the public domain was extended from 50 to 70 years.[23]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_Kingdom

Still seems a bit murky to me ... Capitol seems to be releasing these unsurpassed masters-style recordings as a general precaution.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2018, 12:53:05 PM by DonnyL » Logged

BJL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 226


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: October 18, 2018, 04:46:00 PM »

I am not a copyright lawyer, but I have an interest in copyright law and I think I understand the issue here.

So first off, the copyright extension releases are driven by a provision in UK law, so it has nothing to do with copyright in the United States. However, in the world of the internet, if a document goes into the public domain in one country, it is very hard to keep it from being viewed in other countries. After all, if a British person can legally share an album online, then it is much harder to stop an American from listening to it, even if it is still in copyright there. And of course, if you do release it in the UK, then not releasing it in the rest of the world too is just asking people to download it illegally.

Second, there is a distinction in copyright law between the copyright in the sound recording – that is the right to the actual recorded performance – and the right in the underlying song itself. This is why musicians always have two companies, a publishing company and a record label. The publisher handles the ownership of the song, the record company handles the ownership of the recording. To release a record, of course, you need permission from both rightsholders. (This is how Murry could sell the publishing to all Brian’s tunes without effecting the ownership of the Beach Boys actual recordings).

In 2013 the copyright in a sound recording was changed in Britain from 50 years to 70 years after the date that the recording was “fixed” – or recorded. However, this extension only occurs if the sound recording has been published within the original 50 years. Hence, the online releases we’ve all been enjoying.

So to answer your original question, if “Visions” was not released *in the UK* within 50 years of its recording, then the sound recording is in the public domain in the UK (though still under copyright in the US). However, the underlying composition – the song itself – is not. So in order to print up your record and sell it *in the UK*, you would have to secure the right to release the song from the publishing company that owns it, but you would not have to secure the right to the recording itself from the label, cutting the owner of the recording out of any profits.

As a side note, because the underlying copyright in the song is not effected, this has no effect whatsoever on your ability to cover the song, since to cover a song you only need permission from one company, the publisher of the song, and not the label that owns the recording. 
Logged
c-man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4110


View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: October 18, 2018, 08:29:02 PM »

Very helpful - thanks, guys.
Logged
Fall Breaks
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1218


How it really got to my soul


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: October 18, 2018, 09:40:45 PM »

So What's the deal with all the repackaged and renamed releases of e.g. the Surfin' Safari and Surfer Girl albums that have been popping up the last few years?
Logged

"I think people should write better melodies and sing a little sweeter, and knock off that stupid rap crap, y’know? Rap is really ridiculous" -- Brian Wilson, 2010
gfx
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.929 seconds with 21 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!