Analogue is not dead!

cornutt

Well-Known Member
#62
General rule in the U.S.: If it was published before 1920, you can assume it's in the public domain. Beyond that, you have to assume it's copyrighted unless you can have someone research it and prove that it's public domain. Works produced by or for the U.S. government cannot be copyrighted; that's the only general exception I know of.

(BTW, the terms allowed for copyrights now under U.S. law are so utterly ridiculous as to be Constitutionally dubious. A work for hire could have 120 years of protection, and a work created and published by an individual could conceivably enjoy 175 years of copyright, if the author lives long enough. By comparison, the term for most patents in the U.S. is 20 years.)
 

pygmalion

Well-Known Member
#63
General rule in the U.S.: If it was published before 1920, you can assume it's in the public domain. Beyond that, you have to assume it's copyrighted unless you can have someone research it and prove that it's public domain. Works produced by or for the U.S. government cannot be copyrighted; that's the only general exception I know of.

(BTW, the terms allowed for copyrights now under U.S. law are so utterly ridiculous as to be Constitutionally dubious. A work for hire could have 120 years of protection, and a work created and published by an individual could conceivably enjoy 175 years of copyright, if the author lives long enough. By comparison, the term for most patents in the U.S. is 20 years.)


IOW copy now and ask permission later?
 

opendoor

Well-Known Member
#64
German law makes any music production like a recording, public domain after 50 years.
..only if there was no post-production, filtering or restoration of the tracks. The latter extends the deadline anew, unfortunately.
...remastering/restoration creates a 'new' recording, and copyright attaches to the new version, regardless of the age of the source recording.... 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...
Really? I don't believe that to be true.
The legal situation isn´t clear, at all. The point is, whether any post-production is substantial or not: Filtering and noise reduction isn´t, but digitalization seems to be and creates a new fixation (master copy) which starts the period of protection anew.

So what counts is: which kind of hard copy do you have? If you got a vinyl or shellac disk, you are free, but if you got a CD, you aren´t.
 

sixela

Well-Known Member
#65
Digitisation does not create copyrights, but as I said the mere fact of selecting and ordering tracks on a compilation does. So a whole CD is definitely a new derived work unless it's just an unremastered copy of an LP (without any differences in the tracks).

Whether the different individual tracks in isolation are derived works is quite another matter, but one which the record companies have no incentive to clarify. But for the moment the point is moot, since most of the time in Europe the primary copyrights on the original track have not all expired.
 

Dance Ads