Discussion in 'Videos' started by sixela, Mar 25, 2013.
Long Live Analog!!!
Long Live Digital!!!
D'Arienzo con Echague didn't release a lot on vinyl, though, did they?
That's for the main copyright, but you also do have neighbouring rights (also called related rights). But these are (at least in Europe) limited to 50 years after the performance (still, late d'Arienzo, Caló and Pugliese are sometimes late enough to be affected.)
I wasn't clear in some of my other posts (and even wrong if I reread them), but if the performers actually agreed for the performance to be recorded, then the neighbouring rights are those of the phonographical companies. In the EU, these expire 50 years after recording. They can revert to performers but the terms for performers' (neighbouring) rights aren't longer than those for phonographical companies.
The copyright for the authors can last for quite a bit longer even in the EU, given that the protection only expires 70 years after the death of the authors. "Jamás Retornarás" was written by Caló and Maderna and grabbed in 1942, but Caló died only in 1972, and that plus 70 years is 2042...
Oh, if you want 'the horse's mouth' as far as the EU is concerned about terms:
No. Directive 2011/77/EU amended 2006/116/EC, as I have already shown.
Ah, you're right. Missed that. I'll edit.
Do I read it correctly if phonographical companies' neighbouring rights expire after 50 years, but then revert to the performers for an extra 20 years (but counting from 1st of Jan after the recording, not their deaths, as for authors)?
Obviously, that means that one of the statements I made earlier is wrong - performers' rights _are_ now longer than those granted to record companies.
I don't have a clear understanding of the relationship between the copyright in the artistic work (the music & lyrics) and in any particular recording of that work (which will usually, but not always, be held by the record company, unless it has reverted to the performers under 'use or lose' provisions). I can readily see that the artists are entitled to revenues from further publication, performances and recordings, as the copyright to the work itself extends for their whole lifetime, and then some, but I'm not sure that I can see that they, or anyone else, retain rights over a particular recording once the copyright in the sound recording has expired.
Taking 70 years as a typical recording copyright, does that mean that today anyone could produce their own editions of material originally released up to 1942?
I was speaking, today, to PPL (the UK body that licenses the performers' copyright in recorded music played here in public) as my own licence is renewable this month, and I asked them about this. They were clear that remastering/restoration creates a 'new' recording, and copyright attaches to the new version, regardless of the age of the source recording. They agree that a collector with access to historical copies of recordings in the public domain can freely make their own new versions, but that copyright subsists in any source taken from CD as none can be older than 1983, as the digitization of the analogue source created a 'new' recording. Interesting.
So if you own a vinyl copy of a recording made prior to 1943, you can do with it what you will, but if you have a CD of the same recording, the copyright still applies?
I think he meant that if you have a pre-1943 copy (so, arguably, not vinyl, usually taken to date only from 1948), you can do what you like, but whether the transfer of analogue material from one format (shellac 78s) to another (vinyl LPs) would represent remastering/restoration such as to start a new copyright material - I just don't know. It must be possible to transfer material entirely without equalisation, filtering, compression or any other processing, and I don't see how a new recording would come into being in that case, but how anyone being accused of infringing copyright could 'prove' that all they had was a faithful copy of a public domain recording is anyone's guess ...
Oops. You're right about vinyl. Mom doesn't often let anybody near her 78s, so I'd forgotten. Older recordings are on totally different material (and very heavy.)
The whole thing sounds rather complex but, if I were a collector of vintage tango recordings, I'd probably try to iron out what's allowed and what's not. It's possible that original recordings of the Golden Age will be up for grabs and soon.
Having taken a look at this:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf(dealing with US law relating to copyright in derivative works), I'm less convinced about the concept of any automatic creation of a new work, just by format-shifting or minor processing, but have you ever met a poor lawyer?
The recording, unfortunately, contains both copyrights and neighbouring rights. The copyrights still apply, even though a contract with a record company usually means that the record company gets a license to copy the work (offset by some form of consideration).
But to copy anything that Caló has written you need some license from Caló's estate in some form or another.
But if the original work is in the public domain, you have actually acquired those new copyrights if you're doing the transfer.
The problem with CDs is that they get encumbered both by the originall copyrights and new copyrights on the derived work due to the sweat of the brow of whoever makes a true derivative work.
To be honest, it's an untested area of copyright law in most countries -- in theory, mere restoration does not create new copyrights, even though some things do create copyrights (to give just one example, the exact way in which tracks are selected and arranged on a record are the result of an original creative process and create a new original work, just like ordering non-copyrightable words in a book creates a copyrightable novel, so if you play tracks of a new compilation that are ordered differently from any other existing record, new copyrights are definitely involved).
Many record companies still slap copyright notices onto things that have no content on which they really own valid copyrights, just as a deterrent, and if you ask PPL and Sabam you will also get a biased answer. Or they'll slap a copyright notice which doesn't say exactly what is subject to new copyrights, like the ordering of tracks on a record that contains many tracks.
The point is moot, though, given that the original copyrights expire so late.
You don't have to prove anything: it's the copyright holder who has to prove that they hold copyrights on a derivative work (in other words, that there is an expression of an original creative process that is copyrightable). That's why the US media companies have effectively lobbied to get high statutory damages written into law, so that they can deter people from ever testing the real boundaries of the law. They have deep pockets and you don't and even for cases in which you're almost sure to win the statutory damages make the small chance of losing, but losing a lot (and the record companies don't even have to prove damages!) unpalatable.
I think Neighbouring (or Related) Rights, are Copyrights. Wikipedia has a helpful article:
I would expect to need the estate's consent to record a new version of Yo Soy El Tango, with me, not Podestá, singing, in a lavish presentation folder, including the sheet music, but that isn't quite the same thing as me running off ten copies of the 1941 public domain recording of Podestá singing it, for distribution to friends as an Easter gift. If there was no significant change to the original so as to create a copyright derivative work in my source recording (compared with the very first commercial pressings from 1941), and I don't make any significant change to the copy in producing my own, then I doubt I'm infringing anyone's rights, or creating any new ones.
Edit: 1941, not 1942.
Neighbouring rights: Rome convention
Copyrights: Bern convention.
They're related (hence the name 'related rights') but they're not identical.
Tough luck on 'running off ten copies of the 1941 public domain recording'. The point is that that recording, by the fact that copyrights haven't expired, is not public domain. Copyrights are just that: you have _no_ right to copy it without a license from the copyright holders. In Caló's case, those copyrights don't expire until 2042.
Note that in EU law an author cannot transfer copyrights to a company (which is why it's possible to talk about a term linked to the death of the authors), he/she can only give the company an exclusive license.
In the US, things are different, and that's why the terms are linked to date of publication, performance, recording or announcement. But given the terms are longer in the US, that won't save you either, in this particular case.
Doesn't mean you can't make copies at all (since there are copyright exceptions and since, for DJs, the local equivalent of the PPL sells DJ licenses which let DJs make copies in other formats of everything they have a legal license to for a fixed fee.)
Separate names with a comma.