Storied Trove of 1930s Jazz Is Acquired by Museum

[kt66brooklyn]

When you are there can you listen to whatever you want to? And are there specified times to go?

They are open from 10 AM to 4 PM Monday through Friday. Call and make an appointment. They'll fit you in to a one or two hour time slot. I wound up staying for the entire afternoon because it was a slow day. They are located on East 126th street in Harlem, right next to the Metro North station.

[medjuck]

When you are there can you listen to whatever you want to? And are there specified times to go?

They are open from 10 AM to 4 PM Monday through Friday. Call and make an appointment. They'll fit you in to a one or two hour time slot. I wound up staying for the entire afternoon because it was a slow day. They are located on East 126th street in Harlem, right next to the Metro North station.

Thanks. And are there limits on what you can listen to?

[AllenLowe]

I'm actually going to be in NYC for a few days in mid-January, but don't know if I'll have time.

[kt66brooklyn]

When you are there can you listen to whatever you want to? And are there specified times to go?

They are open from 10 AM to 4 PM Monday through Friday. Call and make an appointment. They'll fit you in to a one or two hour time slot. I wound up staying for the entire afternoon because it was a slow day. They are located on East 126th street in Harlem, right next to the Metro North station.

Thanks. And are there limits on what you can listen to?

There are no limits on what you can listen to, though I'm not sure their listening iPod has all the tunes that have actually been processed, I think it only contains the tunes that have been 'cleaned up.' In most cases, the raw digital files are presented under the same heading as the corrected files. I quickly learned that the corrected files are the way to go. Doug Pomeroy really knows what he is doing.

I'm actually going to be in NYC for a few days in mid-January, but don't know if I'll have time.

Cool, are you playing a show? I meant to go last time you were in the city, but my mother fell ill (she's better now), so I'll have to wait till next time. BTW, I'm Jason, Ginger's friend.

Edited December 19, 2010 by smashingthirds

[kh1958]

ABA Journal article on copyright issues raised by the Bill Savory collection.

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/a_trove_of_historic_jazz_recordings_has_found_a_home_in_harlem_but_you_cant?utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tech_monthly

[Neal Pomea]

Thanks for the update. Looking at the comments section, some don't seem to understand or care what the waste of orphan works does to the culture.

[ejp626]

Thanks for the update. Looking at the comments section, some don't seem to understand or care what the waste of orphan works does to the culture.

They see it through their spectrum/filters, we see it through ours. If it means that 1000s of recordings can never be released because a designer might be screwed out of a couple of bucks on his forgotten poster, so be it. I find it sad that there doesn't seem to be a way to set up a repository to compensate right holders (if they ever come forward, as unlikely as that is) and get the material out.

[medjuck]

Sort of makes you think the European 50 years copyright on recordings is not too unreasonable. Or if you think it still screws artists, how about 70 years? That would make a lot of this material

available.

[Big Beat Steve]

Sort of makes you think the European 50 years copyright on recordings is not too unreasonable. Or if you think it still screws artists, how about 70 years? That would make a lot of this material

available.

THANK YOU SINCERELY, Medjuck, for getting A MODICUM of reason into this unnerving copyrights debate about (allegedly) shady labels who actually make OOP material AVAILABLE that otherwise would fare even worse than being "orphaned".

[Tom in RI]

I am sure its been alluded to on this board elsewhere, but I believe that we have Disney (among others) to thank for our Mickey Mouse treatment of copyright here in the USA.

[Dave James]

So I read the ABA article until I got about half way into the legalities and began to nod off. I certainly understand the concept of copyrights and the protections they afford, but let's say for the sake of argument that Shoenberg and the Jazz Museum say "screw it" and decide to release these recordings to the public via Mosaic or even their own label. Given that hypothetical, what are the risks they run, i.e. who or what could materialize 70+ years after the fact and take legal action against them? Certainly that group would include Savory's family members, although I'd think that eventuality would have been addressed as part of the purchase agreement. So, assuming that his family is not an encumbrance, would the potential exposure be limited to descendants of musicians who played on the recordings and descendants of the club owners who provided the venue where the recordings were made or is the playing field larger than this? Anyone know? Also, when we talk damages, would this potentially include those of a punitive nature in addition to those classified as real and actual? As we all know, so-called "punis" are where the real money is; what lays down the sort of scent that attracts the lawyers.

Edited April 28, 2011 by Dave James

[RDK]

I don't think Savory's family or the club owners would be a factor at all. If I understand things correctly, it'd be a straight copyright issue, meaning the various musicians involved and possibly the composers of the tunes that were covered.

I wonder if there's a way for the more magnanimous rights holders to somehow "bequeath" any of these specific works to the public domain so that they could be freely (or cheaply) distributed for the good of humanity?

[paul secor]

I don't think Savory's family or the club owners would be a factor at all. If I understand things correctly, it'd be a straight copyright issue, meaning the various musicians involved and possibly the composers of the tunes that were covered.

I wonder if there's a way for the more magnanimous rights holders to somehow "bequeath" any of these specific works to the public domain so that they could be freely (or cheaply) distributed for the good of humanity?

Or perhaps those who feel the need to hear these works could magnanimously contribute to a fund so that the creators (or their families) could be fairly compensated.

[Dave James]

I don't think Savory's family or the club owners would be a factor at all. If I understand things correctly, it'd be a straight copyright issue, meaning the various musicians involved and possibly the composers of the tunes that were covered.

Makes sense. That's raises another question; how composers are compensated for live recordings. I'm sure there are many live dates where set lists include songs that were written by folks who are no longer with us. That's certainly the case with the Savory archives. Wouldn't the royalties for these tunes go to the person or to the corporate entity that owns the rights to the song? If that's the case, it doesn't seem like compensation would be that big an issue. You simply pay the freight like you always do. The real fly in the ointment is the family. On the other hand, doesn't it seem logical to assume that any group of people who might benefit financially from the work of a long gone relative would have created some sort of entity to deal with that? In a macro sense, think along the lines of Elvis Presley Enterprises. If they had done so, then again, it would seem that there would be a workable way already in place to ensure that the appropriate remunerations were made. That would leave what I'll call the random carbon atoms, those folks who may have a dog in the fight but who have never taken the legal steps necessary to protect their interests. I'd have to wonder how big a potential problem that is. Many of those in this category might not even be aware of any familial relationship and those who were and who chose to make it an issue, could be "bought out", I would think, rather cheaply. This is all speculation on my part, but people, and especially lawyers (who I will gratuitously include in that category) are well known for making large mountains out of small molehills, the size of which become, at least in their minds, insurmountable.

Edited April 28, 2011 by Dave James

[medjuck]

Well the composers for sure, but you don't need to make a deal-- those fees are mandated by law. (Some songs are out of copyright.) But nobody has yet mentioned the radio stations or networks that originally broadcast the shows. Do they have any rights? What rights did they buy when the did the original broadcasts? Could the museum webcast the music? I was scoffed at elsewhere when I suggested this but I remember that it was possible to legally re-breoadcast "The Sound of Jazz" with permission from CBS, but I tried to help a legal DVD release and was told it was impossible because of the musicians' union. ie the musicians involved were paid for a broadcast (and maybe even re-broadcast) but not for a sale.

[Neal Pomea]

I wonder if there's a way for the more magnanimous rights holders to somehow "bequeath" any of these specific works to the public domain so that they could be freely (or cheaply) distributed for the good of humanity?

One company has in fact done this so far in the United States: the Edison Company.

Edit: I appear to be mistaken about this. Edison did bequeath its recordings to the National Park Service, but it is disputed that this constituted a relinquishing of copyright. http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2008/07/the-messy-messy.html

So the musicians of the 20s, 30s, and 40s performed and recorded (mostly) with the understanding that they would not even be copyrighted, much less copyrighted for so long, yet somehow it is fair for their recording companies' descendants and heirs to assert monopoly for well nigh 90 years? Because that's what we're talking about. We are not talking about the descendants of side men getting checks for music from so long ago. In some genres, all a musician got was a work for hire fee at the time of recording or payment from his bandleader. And if we in 2011 cannot somehow correct injustices that these musicians faced in the 20s, 30s,and 40s, then NO ONE MAY HEAR the music? That sounds like the deal to me.

Edited April 29, 2011 by Neal Pomea

[Big Beat Steve]

So how did they ever manage to legally release/reissue ANY other broadcast recordings from the 30s or 40s elsewhere? And there were/are PLENTY of these around. Entire labels were set up to release such decades-old live recordings. All shady? I doubt it.

That said, I never really understood the hullaballoo about those allegedly "unreleased" live recordings by Benny Goodmann that triggered this whole Savory thing in the first place. After all live recordings, airshot dubs etc. by the B.G. orchestra aren't really thin on the vinyl/CD ground and have not been for more than 30 years. What's the special deal about YET ANOTHER big band set list from some location date or one nighter broadcast here or there and dubbed by Mr Savory? What makes those who went after the Savory files so sure that exactly the Savory recordings are some sort of white elephant or missing link, unheard versions, radically differrently arranged or never commercially recorded tunes, undocumented line-ups etc. whereas all the other live/airshot recordings often tend to be (minor) "variations on a theme"?

I can very well understand the excitement about those newly discoverd live recordings by other bands/featured artists who have not too much of a preserved legacy of live/airshot/after hours recordings - but B.G.? Naw ..... Or is it sheeer idolatry of the kind that would welcome even the proverbial 10-CD set of "B.G. brushing his teeth"??

[paul secor]

I wonder if there's a way for the more magnanimous rights holders to somehow "bequeath" any of these specific works to the public domain so that they could be freely (or cheaply) distributed for the good of humanity?

One company has in fact done this so far in the United States: the Edison Company.

Edit: I appear to be mistaken about this. Edison did bequeath its recordings to the National Park Service, but it is disputed that this constituted a relinquishing of copyright. http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2008/07/the-messy-messy.html

So the musicians of the 20s, 30s, and 40s performed and recorded (mostly) with the understanding that they would not even be copyrighted, much less copyrighted for so long, yet somehow it is fair for their recording companies' descendants and heirs to assert monopoly for well nigh 90 years? Because that's what we're talking about. We are not talking about the descendants of side men getting checks for music from so long ago. In some genres, all a musician got was a work for hire fee at the time of recording or payment from his bandleader. And if we in 2011 cannot somehow correct injustices that these musicians faced in the 20s, 30s,and 40s, then NO ONE MAY HEAR the music? That sounds like the deal to me.

Taking that argument another way, because record companies screwed musicians in the 20s, 30s,

40's ... whenever, we should do the same thing today just because some people feel it's their right to hear some music?

And why should the the heirs of musicians who were screwed over by "humanity" - I'm not just talking record companies here - give up their rights for the good of "humanity".

[Dave James]

And why should the the heirs of musicians who were screwed over by "humanity" - I'm not just talking record companies here - give up their rights for the good of "humanity".

"Screwed over", of course, being a relative term. After all, at best, we're talking about grand children or great grandchildren. How screwable these folks are is worth questioning and worth discussing.

[Big Beat Steve]

And why should the the heirs of musicians who were screwed over by "humanity" - I'm not just talking record companies here - give up their rights for the good of "humanity".

"Screwed over", of course, being a relative term. After all, at best, we're talking about grand children or great grandchildren. How screwable these folks are is worth questioning and worth discussing.

True, it's highly relative.

And it can be debated what link there is between the grandchildren or great-grandchildren of those who CREATED the works of art that would merit royalties after all those decades. What have those great-grandchildren contributed to that act of artistic creativity of 70 or more years ago?

Besides, this entire "screwed" argument is rather silly if you look at where the real "screwing" occurred. A case in point (my favorite one): The way Count Basie was screwed out of a LOT of royalties by Dave Kapp for his DECCA recordings (his first major recording contract). To the best of my knowledge except for some moderate amount of compensation negotiated additionally by John Hammond after he became aware of how gullible, unwary Count Basie had been lured into an extremely unfavorable recording contract, no real royalties on an ongoing basis had ever been paid to him since. And how often have these studio recordings (which were and are a cornerstone of his discography and artistic accomplishments) been reissued and recycled? But have ANY of those who bemoan the fate of those who were scrwewed then and allegedly continue to be screwed today REFRAINED from buying these Count Basie recordings?

OTOH there still are those who have fancy ideas about what constitutes a "shady" reissue, e.g. in the case of those late 70s and 80s ROUTE 66 etc. labels run by Swedish Jonas Bernholm for the reissue of 40s/50s R&B. He took great pains in locating the original artists or their direct relatives and PREPAID ARTIST royalties for an album run of 1,000 to them even before those were sold. Though he explicitly (and for good reason) bypassed the label owners. To many of those R&B artists the payments made by Route 66 were the first decent royalties they had ever seen for their works from that period.

And still there are those who consider his labels a "shady" or "grey" or even "bootleg" affair.

In short, sorry to say - Paul Secor's "argument" just doesn't hold water.

[paul secor]

And why should the the heirs of musicians who were screwed over by "humanity" - I'm not just talking record companies here - give up their rights for the good of "humanity".

"Screwed over", of course, being a relative term. After all, at best, we're talking about grand children or great grandchildren. How screwable these folks are is worth questioning and worth discussing.

True, it's highly relative.

And it can be debated what link there is between the grandchildren or great-grandchildren of those who CREATED the works of art that would merit royalties after all those decades. What have those great-grandchildren contributed to that act of artistic creativity of 70 or more years ago?

Besides, this entire "screwed" argument is rather silly if you look at where the real "screwing" occurred. A case in point (my favorite one): The way Count Basie was screwed out of a LOT of royalties by Dave Kapp for his DECCA recordings (his first major recording contract). To the best of my knowledge except for some moderate amount of compensation negotiated additionally by John Hammond after he became aware of how gullible, unwary Count Basie had been lured into an extremely unfavorable recording contract, no real royalties on an ongoing basis had ever been paid to him since. And how often have these studio recordings (which were and are a cornerstone of his discography and artistic accomplishments) been reissued and recycled? But have ANY of those who bemoan the fate of those who were scrwewed then and allegedly continue to be screwed today REFRAINED from buying these Count Basie recordings?

OTOH there still are those who have fancy ideas about what constitutes a "shady" reissue, e.g. in the case of those late 70s and 80s ROUTE 66 etc. labels run by Swedish Jonas Bernholm for the reissue of 40s/50s R&B. He took great pains in locating the original artists or their direct relatives and PREPAID ARTIST royalties for an album run of 1,000 to them even before those were sold. Though he explicitly (and for good reason) bypassed the label owners. To many of those R&B artists the payments made by Route 66 were the first decent royalties they had ever seen for their works from that period.

And still there are those who consider his labels a "shady" or "grey" or even "bootleg" affair.

In short, sorry to say - Paul Secor's "argument" just doesn't hold water.

First - Steve, when you arrange to leave your worldly goods to "humanity" and not to your children or descendents, I'll give your "argument" some respect. After all, what connection will your descendents have to what you've done to accumutate your worldly possessions?

Under U.S. law, the descendents of the musicians who created the music we're speaking about have rights. Just because you want to hear that music, you have no absolute "right" to do so. Perhaps you have that right in your own mind, but not under the law. And, to use RDK's phrase, "humanity" - be it the record companies or society as a whole -didn't treat those musicians well, so why should "humanity" have the "right" to hear that music now, without the musicians' descendents receiving what is legally theirs?

Jonas Bernholm did pay the artists whose music he reissued a fee - 40 cents an LP. Then some other folks, not connected with Jonas Bernholm, reissued the Bernholm issues on CD and didn't pay the artists. That's what a friend of mine who was in contact with Jonas Bernholm was told by him. This was in the early 90's - before those recordings were 50 years old, and perhaps before the European 50 year law.

I'm not interested in getting into another argument about intellectual property, the rights of society, or whatever. There's a matter of U.S. law involved with these recordings. If a legal argument doesn't hold water for you, go ahead and break the law. Perhaps the law doesn't "hold water" for you.

And - to use your example - just because Count Basie was cheated out of royalties by Decca, does that make it legally right (I would even say morally right, even though you probably wouldn't) to sidestep the law in this case just because you want to hear some music?

Edited April 29, 2011 by paul secor

[Dave James]

I do find it amusing that the law extending copyright protection is named after Sonny Bono. Perhaps his only lasting political legacy.

[RDK]

It's easy, of course, to get sidetracked in hypotheticals, but nevertheless, putting aside financial considerations and the "needs of humanity," if there are really only two options here the music is either released unencumbered ("freely" or nearly) or it's held up in perpetuity due to unsurmountable legalities. If those are the only choices, which do you think is preferable? A musician is an artist and an artist is only as good as the work he creates. I have a hard time believing that any artist would want his or her legacy "locked away" and kept from the public for any reason, especially long after one's demise. The lesser of the two evils, imo, is to release the damn stuff.

[Big Beat Steve]

I agree with the gist of what RDK says.

Because if reasonable efforts are made I'd guess that a settlement with whatever heirs there may be could likely be reached.

After all this set of recordings ought to have "some" sales potential among collectors.

@Paul Secor:

We may have missed each other's points so I will try to clarify:

1) There ARE settlements and rules that would ensure that royalties are paid for a reasonable amount of time after the recordings have been made and after that the items go into public domain. I don't think the 50-year rule (as it still stands for the time being in Europe) nor the 70-year rule as it was (is?) customary in the U.S. would be all that abusive. And both would make the Savory recordings available.

2) I admit I really do not understand what this 95-year (and whatever other cutoff date after whichever key year used as a calculating basis in the past) rule mentioned in the link above is all about in all details insofar as music recordings are concerned. But if it is so that these have superseded the 70-year U.S. cutoff date then this did not come like a bolt from the blue nor because some philanthropic institution all of a sudden decided "we need to do something about those poor, penniless, overlooked artists who'd otherwise starve to death if no royalties went their way" but it is about BIG money on the part of those (Disney or whoever?) who dread that some "evergreen" that's still good for sales amd money might fall into the public domain and who therefore use the leverage they have to overturn a law (that had been considered acceptable for decades) now that the cutoff date threatens to hit THEIR stuff. Just like in the case of Cliff Richard or the Beatles and their efforts to overturn the European 50-year rule that now appropaches THEIR recordings. But is this about protecting overlooked, shortchanged, poor artists in need? Nonsense - it's about big (corporate) money. And they would not care about those artists really in need either. E.g. I have yet to hear positive proof about BMG, Sony or whoever holds the rights to the Savoy catalog now having worked out comprehensive royalty settlements with all the heirs of all those artists screwed out of their royalties by Herman Lubinsky way back ...

At any rate, reshuffling and rewriting laws RETROACTIVLEY (as in this case here) at one's personal whims just because "the powers that be" unite to accomplish this (or would this retroactive extension of copyright protection terms have been accomplished if, say, only the descendants of Charley Patton had demanded this?) is something that AT LEAST is debatable.

3) The Count Basie case: Just an example of why I feel that it really is a case of double standards if those who complain about "shady" or bootleg labels that "rip off" the artists on the other hand have no qualms about buying Count Basie Decca reissues that only grease the palms of the corporate owners of the Decca catalog but do not really give the ARTIST his due. If you are against ripping off the artists, be against it the whole way.

4) The Route 66 labels: Just an example of how even those who are not THAT "shady" are falsely accused in such debates.

In short, in this particular case I'd openly advocate trying to have these Savory recordings released by a European company, taking advantage of the 50-year cutoff date while that still lasts. Of course under the premise that a reasonable fund to compensate the artists ought to be set aside from the sales of the releases. That would only be fair ... But I can't see why the big corporations (radio in this case, maybe) ought have any leverage in witholding relase of this material on the grounds of protecting the artists ...I doubt it is the artists they'd be concerned about.

[bichos]

this is important for all european members of organissimo:

The disastrous Directive to extend the term of copyright protection for sound recordings to 70 years is back on the European Council's agenda. The FT called the proposal 'disgraceful' in an editorial in 2009. The evidence says the move is unwise. Yet without action it looks like the plans will soon become law. The economic evidence is stacked against the proposal. it will benefit only a small number of artists and businesses. Leading IP professors, the UK government's 'Gowers Review' of IP, and independent analysts commissioned by the EU have all said that extending the copyright term is unwise. It will result in large parts of our cultural history being locked up. This is a dreadful idea that will damage our cultural realm for the benefit of a vanishingly small number of people. For more go to http://www.cippm.org.uk/copyright_term.html

If you are interested in opposing this nonsense action write to your Member of European Parliament. Go to the following link, and send it off. All you have to do is to add your name and address to the prepared letter. It's important to do so!

http://action.openrightsgroup.org/ea-campaign/clientcampaign.do?ea.client.id=1422&ea.campaign.id=10257

sad, very sad...

keep boppin´

marcel