Music recordings in the public domain
- February 14, 2006 @ 8:17pmBHBDT says:I did some research on the web and I got this link from the Smithsonian it is from a Symposium from the University of Texas about Copyright Law and Audio Preservation
" There is one other category of works that may be in the public domain: works whose copyrights have been abandoned or waived. Before 1989, when copyright notices were required to claim federal protection, failure to affix the proper notice for publication resulted in the works becoming public domain. U.S. recordings published between 1972 and 1989 may be in the public domain if they were published or otherwise widely distributed without the proper notice. Also, works published between 1923 and 1964 had to be renewed at the end of their 28-year terms. If the copyright owners failed to renew the copyrights, those works would now be in the public domain. By some estimates, as many as 95% of copyright owners did not renew their copyrights."
Wouldn't this mean especially in the last part if you did a professional search and they didn't renew there copyright they basically lost it, naturally the composition had to be composed before 1923, also in several of my readings on several websites they said there is a difference between phonorecords and sound recordings does this mean that the sound recording is the master tape and a phono record is a record, tape or cd?? - February 15, 2006 @ 11:09amwilliamsonl says:In regards to the first part of your question about whether a copyright has expired, I am going to refer you to Online Books at U Penn http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/renewals.html
which has a good report about how to see if a copyright has been renewed. You may be aware that a complete search cannot be done online as copyright office records only go back to 1978 online. And with music there is a copyright on both the music and the recording itself. If an orchestra records Bach today, there may be no copyright on the music itself, but there is a copyright on the performance.
Circular 56 of the copyright office defines the difference between a sound recording and a phonorecord http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ56.html#what
Basically, a phonorecord is the physical object while the definition for a sound recording is a bit more complicated. - February 15, 2006 @ 11:35amMFakouri says:Hi, BHBDT.
Here are a few long quotes to build upon williamsonl's response.
PUBLIC DOMAIN DATES
Public domain dates aren’t straightforward. If a composition was published before 1923, it is in the public domain. If it was published later, it may or may not be in the public domain. To figure things out, I would use this chart (linked at the upper right of this page) as a guide:
http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Domain.htm
The information you received from the Symposium corresponds to what is stated in this guide.
Here is information about searching copyright records to find out if copyright was renewed http://www.copyright.gov/records/. (I haven’t used this service, but other Copyright Advisory Network users have and know more about this process.)
….
DEFINITIONS
For help with definitions, I consulted the United States Copyright Office website (www.copyright.gov) and found the following:
“Sound recordings are “works that result from the fixation of a series of musical, spoken, or other sounds, but not including the sounds accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work.” (http://www.copyright.gov/register/sound.html)
"Copyright in a sound recording protects the particular series of sounds that are “fixed” (embodied in a recording) against unauthorized reproduction and revision, unauthorized distribution of phonorecords containing those sounds, and certain unauthorized performances by means of a digital audio transmission. The Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995, P.L. 104-39, effective February 1, 1996, created a new limited performance right for certain digital transmissions of sound recordings.
Generally, copyright protection extends to two elements in a sound recording: (1) the performance and (2) the production or engineering of the sound recording. …
A sound recording is not the same as a phonorecord. A phonorecord is the physical object in which works of authorship are embodied. The word “phonorecord” includes cassette tapes, CDs, LPs, 45 r.p.m. disks, as well as other formats. (http://www.copyright.gov/register/sr-definition.html)”
And…
Sound recording:
A sound recording is a work that results from the fixation of a series of musical, spoken, or other sounds, regardless of the nature of the material objects in which they are embodied. A sound recording does not include the sounds accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work. Copyright in a sound recording protects the particular series of sounds embodied in the sound recording. Copyright registration for a sound recording alone is not the same as registration for the musical, dramatic, or literary work recorded. The underlying work may be registered in its own right apart from any recording of the performance. (http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/definitions.html)
Phonorecord:
A material object in which sounds are fixed and from which the sounds can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. A phonorecord may include a cassette tape, an LP vinyl disk, a compact disk, or other means of fixing sounds. A phonorecord does not include those sounds accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work. (http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/definitions.html)
I hope this information is helpful.
-mf - February 15, 2006 @ 12:37pmBHBDT says:First off thanks very much for both of your detailed reponses, so i guess it is safe to say, if let's take a open reel tape issued with Beethoven's 5th and released in 1958 that if I had a professional search company come back to me and say the copyright is not been renewed therefore it is in the Public Domain??
- February 16, 2006 @ 2:01pmwilliamsonl says:Provided that all possible copyright holders have been investigated,you should be okay. But be aware that there could be multiple copyright holders. The original composition is of course public domain, but there could be copyright claims by an arranger, the performer, and the publisher to name the most common. If you use a professional service, I would assume they would check that none of these had been renewed.
- February 23, 2006 @ 4:24pmRDavis says:I'd like to contribute a note of caution to this discussion before BHBDT assumes that the 1958 recording is in the public domain. Sound recordings fixed before 1972 were protected by state copyright law and state common law, NOT federal copyright law. Unlike federal copyright law, the state laws do not have expiration dates.
NPR did a very interesting story on this recently: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5139522. And for more in-depth discussion of the issue, see the following report recently issued by the Council on Library and Information Resources: http://www.clir.org/pubs/abstract/pub135abst.html. - February 24, 2006 @ 8:32amBHBDT says:Thanks for the links really a lot of info, the thing that confuses me is all of the articles refer to "sound recordings" and according to the copyright office there is a distinct difference between a sound recording & phono record.
"A sound recording is not the same as a phonorecord. A phonorecord is the physical object in which works of authorship are embodied. Throughout this circular the word "phonorecord" includes cassette tapes, CDs, LPs, 45 r.p.m. disks, as well as other formats."
So does the word "sound recordings" mean master tape??
It's really hard to distinguish. - February 24, 2006 @ 9:32amRDavis says:I am by no means an expert on the intricacies of copyright law and sound recordings, but I'd say a master tape is most definitely a "sound recording" as described in the definition that MFakouri provided above.
I think the distinction that they're trying to make here is that a "phonorecord" is one type of manifestation of a sound recording, in a given format--CD, LP, etc. But when they refer to "sound recordings" they're being more general in their discussion.
A record company produces a "sound recording," and then they produce and distribute multiple "phonorecords" made from that recording. You can see where it's necessary to make the distinction when you consider something like the first sale doctrine. According to first sale, I can buy a "phonorecord" of a Sony Music "sound recording" and then later sell that particular phonorecord to a used record store. My rights to do this extend only to the particular "phonorecord" I've purchased--not to the original "sound recording" produced by Sony, obviously. So I can sell my used CD, but I can't make a hundred copies of that CD and sell them as well--I could only do that if my rights under first sale extended to the sound recording (which they don't), and not to the single phonorecord I've purchased.
Anyway, I hope this clarifies things a bit, rather than obfuscate further!
[quote]...the thing that confuses me is all of the articles refer to "sound recordings" and according to the copyright office there is a distinct difference between a sound recording & phono record...
So does the word "sound recordings" mean master tape??
It's really hard to distinguish.[/quote] - February 25, 2006 @ 6:13amBHBDT says:Hate to drag this out but if you read into one of the articles from NPR it classifies "works" as many things books, writings,etc. and sound recordings, and the article also has a "Term for Works Created and Published before January 1, 1978" graph.
and it say's "1923–1963-If the copyright was renewed in the 28th year, the work is protected for a total of 95 years from publication. If the copyright was not renewed, the work is in the public domain".
And then further down in the article it classifies sound recordings almost in a different catagory not even mentioning the one stipulation that was introduced in the beginning of the article???
The reason I'm dragging this out is that I think that some of the rules in copyrighting in older recordings is unfair, many great older recordings won't even see the light of day because of some of ridiculous laws, this one loophole is hardly mentioned?? - February 27, 2006 @ 7:57amCOvalle says:The term listed in the article is accurate, but there are some qualifications. The status of pre1972 sound recordings, in particular, has some difficulties because of a case in New York which stated that such sound recordings could be protected by common law. Of course, that case is not settled law across the country at this point in time. The CLIR article that RDavis linked to (remove the "." from the URL) has a very good discussion on the subject.
You are correct- many great older recordings will not see the light of day because of these laws. Some of this may change when the law is next updated, particularly the uses of "orphan works."
[quote]Hate to drag this out but if you read into one of the articles from NPR it classifies "works" as many things books, writings,etc. and sound recordings, and the article also has a "Term for Works Created and Published before January 1, 1978" graph.
and it say's "1923–1963-If the copyright was renewed in the 28th year, the work is protected for a total of 95 years from publication. If the copyright was not renewed, the work is in the public domain".
And then further down in the article it classifies sound recordings almost in a different catagory not even mentioning the one stipulation that was introduced in the beginning of the article???
The reason I'm dragging this out is that I think that some of the rules in copyrighting in older recordings is unfair, many great older recordings won't even see the light of day because of some of ridiculous laws, this one loophole is hardly mentioned??[/quote] - February 27, 2006 @ 1:30pmBHBDT says:I read some where that Naxos is scheduled to bring the ruling to the Supreme Court and according to a lot of law makers the decision will be over turned, should be interesting.
Posting to the forum is only available to users who are logged in.