|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
88.97.21.18
In Reply to: RE: Here's what U.S. law says. posted by Rick W on February 07, 2017 at 14:37:54
The circular refers to "works" . Although I am no expert on US copyright law, in most countries copyright "works" does not include sound recordings (which have their own separate copyright provisions), but are musical compositions, literary works etc. In fact the circular refers to the period of protection in relation to the author's death which supports this view.
It may be worth pointing out that where a sound recording has entered the public domain this does not necessarily mean that a subsequent re-issue is completely free of copyright as the copyright owner of the musical work may still require payment.
Follow Ups:
US copyright law for sound recordings, at least historical ones prior to 1972, is a mess imho, thanks to the terrible Capitol v, Naxos decision. We've discussed this here before. Below is a decent scholarly discussion.
Many thanks for that fascinating link. From an outsider's perspective copyright law in the USA has always seemed out of step with the rest of the world and somewhat obtuse. One thinks of the journeys of Dickens or Gilbert and Sullivan to the USA during the 19th century that had, in part, the purpose of lobbying for the improved protection of their creative works. Dicken's comparative lack of success on his first trip may have influenced his generally rather sour view of the States in "American Notes".The uniqueness of copyright law in the USA has certainly provided hazards for the protection of its own citizens' rights abroad. For example much of international copyright law depends to some extent upon reciprocity and/or international agreement. For just about all of my time working in the area of copyright in sound recordngs our lawyers had to rely upon the "doctrine of simultaneous publication" for USA originated recordings where the infringement of secondary rights was at issue. That is we needed to rely upon the fact that the same recording had been published in Canada at the same time with its protection in the UK arising from that event rather than from across the border.
Edits: 02/10/17
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: