50 Year Copyright Rule
Moderators: Moderator5, Moderator3, FECC-Moderator, Site Mechanic
-
Topic author - Posts: 11660
- Registered for: 20 years 11 months
- Location: Wellington, New Zealand
- Been thanked: 16 times
50 Year Copyright Rule
Does the 50 year Europe Copyright rule apply to film music?
For example the "different" versions of entire Jailhouse Rock soundtrack?
For example the "different" versions of entire Jailhouse Rock soundtrack?
When you get to the point where you really understand your computer, it's probably obsolete
-
- Posts: 963
- Registered for: 20 years 11 months
- Location: Netherlands
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 138 times
Re: 50 Year Copyright Rule
The rule goes the masters released 50 yrs ago. So any outtake released in 2003 for example, add 50 years to that. Which means that every master recording released till may 1958 is out of copyright.
"Right turn Clyde"
-
- Posts: 10029
- Registered for: 19 years 6 months
- Location: Coming in through the bathroom window, protected by a silver spoon, whilst sitting on a cornflake
- Been thanked: 5 times
- Age: 114
Re: 50 Year Copyright Rule
But does the rule apply to alternate versions that were in the movie although not released in audio format ? Jailhouse Rock sure has a few of those !!
-
- Posts: 185
- Registered for: 19 years
- Location: England
Re: 50 Year Copyright Rule
The CDPA (Copyright Designs & Patents Act) 1988 defines "recordings" as including films and videotapes, so an audio soundtrack can be considered as having exactly the same protection as a normal commercial sound recording.
The only diference is that the 50 year protection for the soundtrack recording runs from the end of the year in which the film was first screened to the public - unless the soundtrack was recorded prior to 1st June 1957 (as in "Jailhouse Rock"), in which case it runs from the end of the year in which it was recorded, disregarding when (or indeed even if) the film was ever released.
The only diference is that the 50 year protection for the soundtrack recording runs from the end of the year in which the film was first screened to the public - unless the soundtrack was recorded prior to 1st June 1957 (as in "Jailhouse Rock"), in which case it runs from the end of the year in which it was recorded, disregarding when (or indeed even if) the film was ever released.
-
- Posts: 10029
- Registered for: 19 years 6 months
- Location: Coming in through the bathroom window, protected by a silver spoon, whilst sitting on a cornflake
- Been thanked: 5 times
- Age: 114
Re: 50 Year Copyright Rule
Thanks for the clarification.
I hope I interpreted Kiwi's question correctly !!!
I hope I interpreted Kiwi's question correctly !!!
-
- Posts: 1116
- Registered for: 18 years 6 months
- Location: On top of the wardrobe
Re: 50 Year Copyright Rule
I saw Chuck Berry in the chip shop today and he was saying how pissed off he is at not getting any royalties on any of his pre-1957 recordings. I then bumped into Little Richard and he said exactly the same thing. Then I saw Fats Domino at the grocery shop and he too was bemoaning the fact that he gets no artist royalties on all those records he made between 1949 and 1957. Good job he wrote some of them (like Chuck and Richard), because at least he'll get writers' royalties.
In what other walk of life is anyone treated so badly because of some pathetic 'copyright' law? But I best not go on about it as the BPI police will be quick to jump in with a load of old fanny about how it's about time this stuff was in the public domain and leaches could ponce off it. So I'll say nothing.
Have a nice evening.
In what other walk of life is anyone treated so badly because of some pathetic 'copyright' law? But I best not go on about it as the BPI police will be quick to jump in with a load of old fanny about how it's about time this stuff was in the public domain and leaches could ponce off it. So I'll say nothing.
Have a nice evening.
-
- Posts: 107019
- Registered for: 20 years 11 months
- Location: United States of America
- Has thanked: 11700 times
- Been thanked: 33635 times
- Age: 89
Re: 50 Year Copyright Rule
Where in the hell do you live? Love Street?Tits McGhee wrote:I saw Chuck Berry in the chip shop today and he was saying how pissed off he is at not getting any royalties on any of his pre-1957 recordings. I then bumped into Little Richard and he said exactly the same thing. Then I saw Fats Domino at the grocery shop and he too was bemoaning the fact that he gets no artist royalties on all those records he made between 1949 and 1957.
.
Dr. John Carpenter, M.D.
Stop, look and listen, baby <<--->> that's my philosophy!
Dr. John Carpenter, M.D.
Stop, look and listen, baby <<--->> that's my philosophy!
-
Topic author - Posts: 11660
- Registered for: 20 years 11 months
- Location: Wellington, New Zealand
- Been thanked: 16 times
Re: 50 Year Copyright Rule
Thank you.davepenny wrote:The CDPA (Copyright Designs & Patents Act) 1988 defines "recordings" as including films and videotapes, so an audio soundtrack can be considered as having exactly the same protection as a normal commercial sound recording.
The only diference is that the 50 year protection for the soundtrack recording runs from the end of the year in which the film was first screened to the public - unless the soundtrack was recorded prior to 1st June 1957 (as in "Jailhouse Rock"), in which case it runs from the end of the year in which it was recorded, disregarding when (or indeed even if) the film was ever released.
That does answer the question.
So there is nothing to stop someone releasing all the Jailhouse Rock master recordings plus the film only versions, these with the overture would make a fine package.
When you get to the point where you really understand your computer, it's probably obsolete
-
- Posts: 29384
- Registered for: 20 years 11 months
- Location: Gravesend, UK
- Has thanked: 73 times
- Been thanked: 101 times
- Contact:
Re: 50 Year Copyright Rule
Hope you told them all that they're being ripped off !Tits McGhee wrote:I saw Chuck Berry in the chip shop today and he was saying how pissed off he is at not getting any royalties on any of his pre-1957 recordings. I then bumped into Little Richard and he said exactly the same thing. Then I saw Fats Domino at the grocery shop and he too was bemoaning the fact that he gets no artist royalties on all those records he made between 1949 and 1957. Good job he wrote some of them (like Chuck and Richard), because at least he'll get writers' royalties.
In what other walk of life is anyone treated so badly because of some pathetic 'copyright' law? But I best not go on about it as the BPI police will be quick to jump in with a load of old fanny about how it's about time this stuff was in the public domain and leaches could ponce off it. So I'll say nothing.
Have a nice evening.
The 50-year rule only applies in Europe.............................
Colin B
Judge a man not by his answers, but by his questions - Voltaire
Judge a man not by his answers, but by his questions - Voltaire
-
- Posts: 185
- Registered for: 19 years
- Location: England
Re: 50 Year Copyright Rule
More like Cloud Cuckoo Land!drjohncarpenter wrote:Where in the hell do you live? Love Street?Tits McGhee wrote:I saw Chuck Berry in the chip shop today and he was saying how pissed off he is at not getting any royalties on any of his pre-1957 recordings. I then bumped into Little Richard and he said exactly the same thing. Then I saw Fats Domino at the grocery shop and he too was bemoaning the fact that he gets no artist royalties on all those records he made between 1949 and 1957.
Today I got an e-mail from Wanda Feathers (Charlie's daughter) whom I'd previously asked if she minded me using some of her dad's old recordings under the 50 year rule. Her response was:-
I get the same story over and over again...I am somewhat familiar with the 50 year copyright law there. Sun and King Records
never paid my Dad anyway, I think it is great that you don't have to pay them anything now!
-
- Posts: 185
- Registered for: 19 years
- Location: England
Re: 50 Year Copyright Rule
Hello again Tit,Tits McGhee wrote:In what other walk of life is anyone treated so badly because of some pathetic 'copyright' law? But I best not go on about it as the BPI police will be quick to jump in with a load of old fanny about how it's about time this stuff was in the public domain and leaches could ponce off it. So I'll say nothing.
Have a nice evening.
You sure take a long time to say nothing!
To answer your question: in all other walks of life, actually; apart from composers, the Sound Recording Copyright is one of the longest terms of protection there is. If you discover a life-saving medicine, spending millions in R&D, you get just a fraction of the term to recoup that any half-arsed, ill-rehearsed musical performance does. Is that fair?
Incidentally, I think you'll find that it isn't the "pathetic copyright law" but the termination of it that is the cause of your latest apoplexy. Oh, and the word is "leeches" - you can find it in the dictionary like the word "illiterate".
Dave The Leech (ex-parasite)
-
- Posts: 1116
- Registered for: 18 years 6 months
- Location: On top of the wardrobe
-
- Posts: 10029
- Registered for: 19 years 6 months
- Location: Coming in through the bathroom window, protected by a silver spoon, whilst sitting on a cornflake
- Been thanked: 5 times
- Age: 114
Re: 50 Year Copyright Rule
How can you steal that which is yours by law already ?Tits McGhee wrote: thieves
-
- Posts: 29384
- Registered for: 20 years 11 months
- Location: Gravesend, UK
- Has thanked: 73 times
- Been thanked: 101 times
- Contact:
Re: 50 Year Copyright Rule
I've made this point before.davepenny wrote:Hello again Tit,Tits McGhee wrote:In what other walk of life is anyone treated so badly because of some pathetic 'copyright' law? But I best not go on about it as the BPI police will be quick to jump in with a load of old fanny about how it's about time this stuff was in the public domain and leaches could ponce off it. So I'll say nothing.
Have a nice evening.
You sure take a long time to say nothing!
To answer your question: in all other walks of life, actually; apart from composers, the Sound Recording Copyright is one of the longest terms of protection there is. If you discover a life-saving medicine, spending millions in R&D, you get just a fraction of the term to recoup that any half-arsed, ill-rehearsed musical performance does.
Is that fair? ...
A bricklayer might help build a toll bridge.
He gets paid for the hours he works; he doesn't get a 'royalty' every time someone pays to cross it !
Even the guy who invents something and patents it, only gets his 'rewards' [exclusively] for 15 years !
Why performers & composers should expect to get paid again & again in perpetuity is a mystery to me.
Colin B
Judge a man not by his answers, but by his questions - Voltaire
Judge a man not by his answers, but by his questions - Voltaire
-
- On Suspension Until Further Notice...
- Posts: 5095
- Registered for: 20 years 11 months
- Location: The Royal Borough
- Has thanked: 78 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Re: 50 Year Copyright Rule
No - some other bugger gets it - usually the government.ColinB wrote:A bricklayer might help build a toll bridge.
He gets paid for the hours he works; he doesn't get a 'royalty' every time someone pays to cross it !
Ray
-
- Posts: 29384
- Registered for: 20 years 11 months
- Location: Gravesend, UK
- Has thanked: 73 times
- Been thanked: 101 times
- Contact:
Re: 50 Year Copyright Rule
That reminded me of investments.Spellbinder wrote:No - some other bugger gets it - usually the government.
My financial adviser got me to invest in some unit trusts & other things.
He gets a small monthly or quarterly 'royalty' from the companies involved.
If I write to them & say he no longer represents me, he will cease to get it.
But it won't come to me !
They just stop paying it !
Where's the justice in that ?
My point is that the world is not a fair or just place, and composers & performers don't do so badly out of the royalty payment system.
Colin B
Judge a man not by his answers, but by his questions - Voltaire
Judge a man not by his answers, but by his questions - Voltaire
Re: 50 Year Copyright Rule
Last edited by Steve_M on Sat Jun 07, 2008 12:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 6013
- Registered for: 20 years 10 months
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 47 times
Re: 50 Year Copyright Rule
Steve- Your method might work if artists had the money to mount releases. However the idea behind expirations in copyright is that the free use of the work by the public general serves the greater use. This is why the period is so short in something like medicine. The results of music recordings being out there is less tangible but just as real. Make no mistake the legislation that exists in the United States and some other countries was not out of any sense of right or wrong. It was done because certain companies had the financial wherewithal, power and interests to make this law which protects their and their interests alone. As has often been said here, most of the time the artist isn't even getting paid and if he/she is it's only a fraction of what their contribution was worth to the recording. Imagine if a bank lent you money to build your house. You built and paid off the loan yet the bank retained ownership.
Anyhow all the small art projects, films, movies, senior dances that can use these songs are immeasurably better off because they don't have to pay the pennies that they have for the use of these songs.
Additionally, using Elvis' work to make the case is kind of a cheat because Elvis' songs still have a very strong demand with the greater public. The label is still releasing his songs on albums. In most cases, most of these songs would be lying now out of print, dormant in studio vaults because there is not a massive pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Certain Elvis releases can move 500,000 to 1 million copies mainstream. This is just not the case for most 50s artists.
For instance there is a currently a bootleg CD circulating of Dion and the Belmonts' 1966 reunion record originally released on ABC. It's basically a dub of the vinyl. It's never been on CD in any form and only track has ever been licensed for a compilation. The release that is out now is currently illegal. The owners of the masters could have quashed this release by releasing the record. But they never did. It simply does not matter to them. So it sits and many of the people who now heard this music would have never heard it without the intervention of these outsiders. When the recordings become PD and it becomes legal to hear this stuff, you see more and stuff like this come to the surface. In most cases, they would rather sit on it than release it.
For example using Dion again, ACE records wanted to release his albums on a series of CDs. They got deals with Dion's first record company Laurie and also his later work on Warner Brothers. Columbia records refused to sign the deal. Did they do a re-release of all Dion's stuff? No they issued a track here and there on compilations and most everything else remained in the vault. They would rather make no money than make a little money if it allows anyone else to make money off their product. It's like this throughout the industry.
In terms of Elvis the PD law will eventually provide more of these tracks that RCA keeps underwraps in the record stores. More importantly though it provides competition. In the stores, RCA is releasing crap like Love Elvis. The FTD label is releasing classier product but at two to three times the market rate for CDs. Even within the collector's label industry, the prices are double or near double the standard. If someone wants the previously released "Jailhouse Rock" sessions in a good package with good notes at an affordable price why shouldn't there be some competition? If anyone thinks some novice Elvis fan is going to fork over $35 to get a deluxe Jailhouse Rock they're delusional.
I am almost sure outtakes, if said party has access to them, are covered under the PD law as I have several PD collections that feature outtakes including one for Elvis' Sun days.
Anyhow all the small art projects, films, movies, senior dances that can use these songs are immeasurably better off because they don't have to pay the pennies that they have for the use of these songs.
Additionally, using Elvis' work to make the case is kind of a cheat because Elvis' songs still have a very strong demand with the greater public. The label is still releasing his songs on albums. In most cases, most of these songs would be lying now out of print, dormant in studio vaults because there is not a massive pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Certain Elvis releases can move 500,000 to 1 million copies mainstream. This is just not the case for most 50s artists.
For instance there is a currently a bootleg CD circulating of Dion and the Belmonts' 1966 reunion record originally released on ABC. It's basically a dub of the vinyl. It's never been on CD in any form and only track has ever been licensed for a compilation. The release that is out now is currently illegal. The owners of the masters could have quashed this release by releasing the record. But they never did. It simply does not matter to them. So it sits and many of the people who now heard this music would have never heard it without the intervention of these outsiders. When the recordings become PD and it becomes legal to hear this stuff, you see more and stuff like this come to the surface. In most cases, they would rather sit on it than release it.
For example using Dion again, ACE records wanted to release his albums on a series of CDs. They got deals with Dion's first record company Laurie and also his later work on Warner Brothers. Columbia records refused to sign the deal. Did they do a re-release of all Dion's stuff? No they issued a track here and there on compilations and most everything else remained in the vault. They would rather make no money than make a little money if it allows anyone else to make money off their product. It's like this throughout the industry.
In terms of Elvis the PD law will eventually provide more of these tracks that RCA keeps underwraps in the record stores. More importantly though it provides competition. In the stores, RCA is releasing crap like Love Elvis. The FTD label is releasing classier product but at two to three times the market rate for CDs. Even within the collector's label industry, the prices are double or near double the standard. If someone wants the previously released "Jailhouse Rock" sessions in a good package with good notes at an affordable price why shouldn't there be some competition? If anyone thinks some novice Elvis fan is going to fork over $35 to get a deluxe Jailhouse Rock they're delusional.
I am almost sure outtakes, if said party has access to them, are covered under the PD law as I have several PD collections that feature outtakes including one for Elvis' Sun days.
-
- Posts: 526
- Registered for: 16 years 4 months
- Has thanked: 350 times
- Been thanked: 71 times
Re: 50 Year Copyright Rule
Even if this expiration date didn't exist, the major labels have - on a consitant basis - screwed artists out of their royalties (particularly artists with recording contracts signed before 1975 or so).
So even if the expiration date was 100 years, many of these artists would only see a fraction of the money they deserved.
So even if the expiration date was 100 years, many of these artists would only see a fraction of the money they deserved.