Storied Trove of 1930s Jazz Is Acquired by Museum

[Rooster_Ties]

I wish there was a way for artists and their heirs to absolutely get their due for a legitimate period of time, while obscure and practically "abandoned" recordings might also be able to see some new light of day as well, and within some reasonable time-frame (much quicker than is traditionally the case now).

Somewhere someone suggested that copyrights be REQUIRED to be renewed every 30 years (for up to, say 60 years -- which would then require only ONE renewal before something would fall into public domain). But then for anything NOT renewed at the 30-year mark, such things would fall into the public domain automatically. That would open up the possibility of reissuing one hell of a lot of "abandoned" material.

Also, I think the renewal process should be easy, and very inexpensive too (for copyright holders) -- so there would be practically no reason that holders would have for not renewing (other than complete oversight). Of course that would put the onus on holders to re-up their holdings, but I think the value to society would be immense. Think of how much stuff has been created and produced before 1980 (about 30 years ago) that is otherwise technically unavailable.

I'm not saying this proposal is flawless, and there may be some unintended consequences I'm not thinking of -- and I'd welcome more discussion.

Edited April 30, 2011 by Rooster_Ties

[JSngry]

Flexi-discs on cereal boxed. That's the way to go. I wanna see Coleman Hawkins on a box of freakin' Wheaties before I die.

[Chuck Nessa]

I think I saw his dna on a box, back in the day.

[RDK]

Flexi-discs on cereal boxed. That's the way to go. I wanna see Coleman Hawkins on a box of freakin' Wheaties before I die.

You can make it happen Jim!

http://www.etsy.com/listing/72833026/custom-wheaties-box-with-your-image-or?ref=cat2_gallery_23

[Big Beat Steve]

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

Done, Marcel.

Thanks for making us aware of this intiative.

I will forward this "call for action" to my collecting friends (most of them in the rockabilly, R&B and country music field where there are LOTS of "abandoned" or "orphan" recordings that would definitely NOT benefit from any such extended copyright "protection" initiated by the bigwigs). Hope they will all act really fast too.

[gmonahan]

I wish there was a way for artists and their heirs to absolutely get their due for a legitimate period of time, while obscure and practically "abandoned" recordings might also be able to see some new light of day as well, and within some reasonable time-frame (much quicker than is traditionally the case now).

Somewhere someone suggested that copyrights be REQUIRED to be renewed every 30 years (for up to, say 60 years -- which would then require only ONE renewal before something would fall into public domain). But then for anything NOT renewed at the 30-year mark, such things would fall into the public domain automatically. That would open up the possibility of reissuing one hell of a lot of "abandoned" material.

Also, I think the renewal process should be easy, and very inexpensive too (for copyright holders) -- so there would be practically no reason that holders would have for not renewing (other than complete oversight). Of course that would put the onus on holders to re-up their holdings, but I think the value to society would be immense. Think of how much stuff has been created and produced before 1980 (about 30 years ago) that is otherwise technically unavailable.

I'm not saying this proposal is flawless, and there may be some unintended consequences I'm not thinking of -- and I'd welcome more discussion.

Rational, logical, wise. It'll never pass.

gregmo

[ejp626]

I wish there was a way for artists and their heirs to absolutely get their due for a legitimate period of time, while obscure and practically "abandoned" recordings might also be able to see some new light of day as well, and within some reasonable time-frame (much quicker than is traditionally the case now).

Somewhere someone suggested that copyrights be REQUIRED to be renewed every 30 years (for up to, say 60 years -- which would then require only ONE renewal before something would fall into public domain). But then for anything NOT renewed at the 30-year mark, such things would fall into the public domain automatically. That would open up the possibility of reissuing one hell of a lot of "abandoned" material.

Also, I think the renewal process should be easy, and very inexpensive too (for copyright holders) -- so there would be practically no reason that holders would have for not renewing (other than complete oversight). Of course that would put the onus on holders to re-up their holdings, but I think the value to society would be immense. Think of how much stuff has been created and produced before 1980 (about 30 years ago) that is otherwise technically unavailable.

I'm not saying this proposal is flawless, and there may be some unintended consequences I'm not thinking of -- and I'd welcome more discussion.

Rational, logical, wise. It'll never pass.

gregmo

It's not that different from the old copyright regime in the US, but that wasn't good enough for our corporate overlords...

Probably next change will be that work for hire will be 75 years after the death of the person/entity commissioning the work, not the creator.

[brownie]

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

Done, Marcel.

Thanks for making us aware of this intiative.

I will forward this "call for action" to my collecting friends (most of them in the rockabilly, R&B and country music field where there are LOTS of "abandoned" or "orphan" recordings that would definitely NOT benefit from any such extended copyright "protection" initiated by the bigwigs). Hope they will all act really fast too.

Added my name to the list.

[Big Beat Steve]

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

Sadly, it seems like we are a bit late with all this:

After having signed teh petition and mailed ti out via the site, I received the following mail from one of the German MP's of the EP:

However, I cannot support your request. The issue currently discussed in the European Parliament, notably in the legal affairs committee, does not touch upon the copyright extension from 50 to 70 years but is rather a necessary technical adaptation. The European Parliament adopted its position on the term of protection of copyright and related rights already on 23 April 2009 by a large majority of MEPs being in favour of the extension. In view of the transition to the 7th legislative term, the plenary agreed in September 2009 to resume the work on the text adopted in first reading by the Parliament and is still awaiting a Common Position in the Council.

Therefore, from a legal point of view it will not be possible to re-open the discussion on a file already reaffirmed by the Parliament after the elections. The request Mr Engström is not supported by the FDP in the European Parliament. I therefore trust your understanding that I will not sign this request.

Looks like the "powers" in the Council are the ones to turn to at this point.

[bichos]

yes, i got the same answer.

keep boppin´

marcel

[mgraham333]

A good explanation about why we'll likely not hear this until Congress addresses orphaned works.

ABAJournal (American Bar Association)

[bichos]

A good explanation about why we'll likely not hear this until Congress addresses orphaned works.

ABAJournal (American Bar Association)

yes, look at post #130.....

keep boppin´

marcel

[mgraham333]

A good explanation about why we'll likely not hear this until Congress addresses orphaned works.

ABAJournal (American Bar Association)

yes, look at post #130.....

keep boppin´

marcel

thanks - that was useful for the people that didn't read through all 6 pages of posts

[medjuck]

This LA Times story seems relevant to the topic:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-library-congress-packard-20110508,0,3320526.story