Hardbopjazz Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 Has the stature of limitations run out on these Blue Note recordings of Horace Silver that they are now being put out by the Jazz Factory label? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzbo Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 Well, not "statute of limitations," but it has been more than fifty years since these 1952 Trio recordings and so the fifty year international copywrite no longer protects them . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 I just hate seeing this stuff ... I know it has been debated to death elsewhere ... But my gut tells me it is very bad law ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardbopjazz Posted May 17, 2004 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 What exactly does this mean? Does Horace Silver still get his royalties? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AfricaBrass Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 What exactly does this mean? Does Horace Silver still get his royalties? Nope! Not from these guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 (edited) No. These recordings are in the public domain in Europe and most other countries. Only the US have extended a few years ago copyright protection on sound recordings to 70 years. So these CDs are illegal in the US, although they are distributed by many respected US stores. Edited May 17, 2004 by Claude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardbopjazz Posted May 17, 2004 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 (edited) No. These recordings are in the public domain in Europe and most other countries. Only the US have extended a few years ago copyright protection on sound recordings to 70 years. So these CDs are illegal in the US, although they are distributed by many US online sellers. I saw this very CD at Tower Records. This is what made me post this question. Edited May 17, 2004 by Hardbopjazz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 What exactly does this mean? Does Horace Silver still get his royalties? Nope. I am not an attorney, but my understanding is that once the 50 year copyright expires, anyone can "legally" dub their favorite copy of HS Trio and sell it in Europe. All the better if it has been recently "RVG"'d ... I don't like it because it takes sales away from the legit companies who use the profits from re-issues to fund new releases and more re-issues. It's not like we are talking about some drug from which the manufactuer made a killing during the original patent term. Especially with RVG-treatment, some of this stuff probably has the potential to sell as well today as ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardbopjazz Posted May 17, 2004 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 The Jazz Factory must be having a field day with recordings over 50 years. This was the only one by them that I've seen. Are there others? If so, what ones? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardbopjazz Posted May 17, 2004 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 (edited) I've seen the Wynton Kelly Blue Note sessions for sale on line at Tower. I guess this is the same label. It doesn't say. Edited May 17, 2004 by Hardbopjazz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 (edited) once the 50 year copyright expires, anyone can "legally" dub their favorite copy of HS Trio and sell it in Europe. ... and in Japan, Australia, and most countries. I'm not aware of any other country than the US that has a 70 year copyright duration on sound recordings. 50 years is the world standard. This should not be confused with the 70 year protection (after the death of the author) on literary works, music compositions, artworks, software (!). In the music copyright regime, there are different rights for composers and performers. Edited May 18, 2004 by Claude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolff Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 This could get real confusing. Unless people are made aware of it they probably will not know what they are buying. How can the companies, that own the original tapes/liner notes/artwork and pay royalties, combat this? Seems like it get to be a real mess, real quick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shrdlu Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 A bad law! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 Which one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris olivarez Posted May 18, 2004 Report Share Posted May 18, 2004 I haven't seen one mention of Blakey in this thread. Chris is confused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDK Posted May 18, 2004 Report Share Posted May 18, 2004 It's not like we are talking about some drug from which the manufactuer made a killing during the original patent term. Especially with RVG-treatment, some of this stuff probably has the potential to sell as well today as ever. I don't mean to keep pummeling this deceased equine, but why is/should this be different from the drug company's drug patent term? Is it just because the drug company "made a killing" (profited greatly) from their product while most jazz doesn't sell that well? Or is creative product different from commercial product? For the record, I think this Jazz Factory release sucks, but I'm more than a bit perplexed by the inconsistent views expressed here and elsewhere. If it's okay for a patent to expire, why not a copyright? Or, conversely, if we desire an unlimited term on one, why not the other? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Posted May 18, 2004 Report Share Posted May 18, 2004 (edited) It's not like we are talking about some drug from which the manufactuer made a killing during the original patent term. Especially with RVG-treatment, some of this stuff probably has the potential to sell as well today as ever. I don't mean to keep pummeling this deceased equine, but why is/should this be different from the drug company's drug patent term? Is it just because the drug company "made a killing" (profited greatly) from their product while most jazz doesn't sell that well? Or is creative product different from commercial product? For the record, I think this Jazz Factory release sucks, but I'm more than a bit perplexed by the inconsistent views expressed here and elsewhere. If it's okay for a patent to expire, why not a copyright? Or, conversely, if we desire an unlimited term on one, why not the other? Some of the thinking on the 50 year expiration has been along the lines of "50 years is enough time for a record company/artist to profit off the music". My point was that for jazz titles that are steady sellers, there are still profits to be had and why should they go to the Jazz Factory's of the world versus the artist and their record company. Shorter expirations exist for patents simply because the product in all likelihood becomes obsolete in a much, much shorter period of time But even in that short period of time, the "artist/company" will undoubtedly recover/earn the vast majority of available profit. Not necessarily so with recorded music. Maybe not the greatest analogy, but I think 50 years is way too short for recorded music ... as is 70 years for that matter. Frankly, I see no reason why recorded music should ever enter the public domain ... Edited May 18, 2004 by Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolff Posted May 18, 2004 Report Share Posted May 18, 2004 (edited) Well, it's the first I've heard of this. One of the first things I thought of was the Beatles catalog. Still a fews years off, but the outcome will be interesting. I guess movie makers will be able to afford Beatles songs for their soundtracks. Maybe, they'll be forced to lease at an affordable rate to a company that can master their catalog correctly. WTF will Nancy Sinatra have to do??? These will be flooding the USA even if it's against the law. To answer my own earlier question, I guess Blue Note and many others will have a stamp on all their ceedees and SACD's. I'm sure it will include info on source, payment of royalties, etc.. How long are the liner notes, artwork/photos and labels/logos protected? Edited May 18, 2004 by wolff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Posted May 18, 2004 Report Share Posted May 18, 2004 While I can't say I like this, I agree with Ray's post. I believe 50 years is sufficient time to exploit the monies in a recording. A patent is only about 17 years and usually a company exploting a patent has to spend a lot of funds before the product ever sees the market so it's really a lot less than 17 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
couw Posted May 18, 2004 Report Share Posted May 18, 2004 Shorter expirations exist for patents simply because the product in all likelihood becomes obsolete in a much, much shorter period of time. you mean like Aspirin, the combustion engine, the Compact Disk... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brownie Posted May 18, 2004 Report Share Posted May 18, 2004 Let's face it, there is going to be lots and lots of these reissues. Legal in the EU. Not legal in the USA but obviously available there. There have also been reissues of pre-1954 BN sessions by Lou Donaldson, pre-1954 BN/Prestige sessions by Miles Davis, etc. This has already been discussed to death for the past few years. We all know who's going to be hurt but there is not much that can be done about it. The 50-year music copyright limit is a fact of life. I won't get those BN (and various other small labels) reissues. I already paid my dues. But I look forward to other reissues, like for instance more Errol Garner Columbia sides that Columbia has not managed to reissue properly up to now. Or great sessions from RCA and Decca that these companies have practically ignored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude Posted May 18, 2004 Report Share Posted May 18, 2004 (edited) Patents and copyright are very different in their effet. Copyright protects intellectual creations against copying, but permits others to create works that are similar, as long as these are not plagiarized (english?). Patents give an exclusive right on technical inventions, and prevent others from using the same inventions, even if they found the technical solution themselves (parallel inventions). So the monopoly is much more powerful, and limitation to 20 years is therefore justified. On copyright duration: The US copyright has been extended from 50 to 70 years very recently, in 1998. It is still a protection that is limited in time. In 20 years, when economically important recordings from the 50s enter the public domain in the US, the same discussion on copyright extension will start again. Edited May 18, 2004 by Claude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardbopjazz Posted May 18, 2004 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2004 Let's face it, there is going to be lots and lots of these reissues. Legal in the EU. Not legal in the USA but obviously available there. There have also been reissues of pre-1954 BN sessions by Lou Donaldson, pre-1954 BN/Prestige sessions by Miles Davis, etc. This has already been discussed to death for the past few years. We all know who's going to be hurt but there is not much that can be done about it. The 50-year music copyright limit is a fact of life. I won't get those BN (and various other small labels) reissues. I already paid my dues. But I look forward to other reissues, like for instance more Errol Garner Columbia sides that Columbia has not managed to reissue properly up to now. Or great sessions from RCA and Decca that these companies have practically ignored. I have to say I agree with you on this. There are many sessions sitting on the shelves somewhere that have no chance of being reissued. Maybe one of these labels will see a market for these sessions. But, they will have to somehow get a copy of these recordings in order to produce CD's from. I wouldn't think the companies that have these recordings would let them out for others to reissue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude Posted May 18, 2004 Report Share Posted May 18, 2004 (edited) They simply copy the music from the existing (OOP or not) CD. Definitive even chooses the best available remastering most of the time. That is unethical of course, but it is not illegal. Remastering and restoration work is generally not considered worthwile of copyright protection, or at least nobody seems to have tried to fight such copying in court. Such details are not written into copyright law but are left to jurisprudence. Check the chapter "COPYRIGHT IN REMASTERED SOUND RECORDINGS" in this article: Sound recordings and copyright Edited May 18, 2004 by Claude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EKE BBB Posted May 18, 2004 Report Share Posted May 18, 2004 Very interesting article, Claude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.