Slashdot Mirror
Copyright Time Bomb Set To Go Off
In September we discussed one isolated instance of the heirs of rights-holders filing for copyright termination. Now Wired discusses the general case — many copyrights from 1978 and before could come up for grabs in a few years. Some are already in play. "At a time when record labels and, to a lesser extent, music publishers, find themselves in the midst of an unprecedented contraction, the last thing they need is to start losing valuable copyrights to '50s, '60s, '70s and '80s music, much of which still sells as well or better than more recently released fare. Nonetheless, the wheels are already in motion. ... The Eagles plan to file grant termination notices by the end of the year.... 'It's going to happen,' said [an industry lawyer]. 'Just think of what the Eagles are doing when they get back their whole catalog. They don't need a record company now... You'll be able to go to Eagles.com (currently under construction) and get all their songs. They're going to do it; it's coming up.' ...If the labels' best strategy to avoid losing copyright grants or renegotiating them at an extreme disadvantage is the same one they're suing other companies for using, they're in for quite a bumpy — or, rather, an even bumpier — ride."
The copyrights aren't expiring. There's a provision in the Copyright Act of 1978 that allows the original artist (or their heirs) to terminate a copyright they sold and take it back after 35 years. Seriously, it's in TFA.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
The Copyright Act includes two sets of rules for how this works. If an artist or author sold a copyright before 1978 (Section 304), they or their heirs can take it back 56 years later. If the artist or author sold the copyright during or after 1978 (Section 203), they can terminate that grant after 35 years. Assuming all the proper paperwork gets done in time, record labels could lose sound recording copyrights they bought in 1978 starting in 2013, 1979 in 2014, and so on. For 1953-and-earlier music, grants can already be terminated.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
I thought when the copyrights expire the works pass on to the public domain and everyone has full permission to do anything they want with it.
Yes, that's true.
So why/how would the heirs get the copyright for themselves?
Because the copyrights are not expiring. I'd explain, but you could just RTFA, which would explain it all. I know this is slashdot, but nobody is here to copy and paste the article for you. Don't be such a lazy ass.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I wonder if the same applies to book publishing contracts.
From the article (which no one bothered to read):
This isn’t just about music. “It’s every type of copyright,” said Bernstein. “It doesn’t distinguish between the types of copyright."
So it would appear indeed that this would be the same for books, movies, music, etc. Maybe even software? I mean, why not? It'd be impossible to track down the original developers and offer them equal rights to the code but this will have to be dealt soon. And hopefully not in the way they have traditionally dealt with software and copyright.
My work here is dung.
If you are speaking Latin, the plural of campus is campi. If you are speaking English, it's campuses.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/campus
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Plural_of_campus
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/campi
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-151248.html
http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-cobuild/campus
Both are valid. Campuses is standard, campi is not.
*shrugs*
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
How with this affect any games, movies, etc. that currently have authorization to use the music? Could this be used to require guitar hero, etc. to stop distribution of current versions because the original creator of the music doesn't want it in the game?
It won't. A licensed use of a song can't be retroactively unlicensed just because the copyright changed hands. Once it's licensed, it's licensed.
However, if the game companies want to use some of the same songs in future versions of the game, they may find themselves negotiating with different people this time, who may have different terms, or may even decide against licensing altogether.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
The second option is to re-record sound recordings in order to create new sound recording copyrights, which would reset the countdown clock at 35 years for copyright grant termination. Eveline characterized the labels’ conversations with creators going something like, “Okay, you have the old mono masters if you want — but these digital remasters are ours.”
Labels already file new copyrights for remasters. For example, Sony Music filed a new copyright for the remastered version of Ben Folds Five’s Whatever and Ever Amen album, and when Omega Record Group remastered a 1991 Christmas recording, the basis of its new copyright claim was “New Matter: sound recording remixed and remastered to fully utilize the sonic potential of the compact disc medium.”
You know damn well if you tried this yourself, the RIAA would be all over your ass
What you are describing is called "work made for hire" and in those cases the employer is considered the author. So for example, developers working for a software company could not come back 35 years later and cause trouble because it would be the software company that is legally considered the author and not the developer.
See 17 USC 101 (definition of what qualifies as "work made for hire") and 17 USC 201(b) (about how "work made for hire" relates to authorship).
Last November, a Congressional aide named Mitch Glazier, with the support of the RIAA, added a "technical amendment" to a bill that defined recorded music as "works for hire" under the 1978 Copyright Act.
He did this after all the hearings on the bill were over. By the time artists found out about the change, it was too late. The bill was on its way to the White House for the president's signature.
That subtle change in copyright law will add billions of dollars to record company bank accounts over the next few years -- billions of dollars that rightfully should have been paid to artists. A "work for hire" is now owned in perpetuity by the record company.
Under the 1978 Copyright Act, artists could reclaim the copyrights on their work after 35 years. If you wrote and recorded "Everybody Hurts," you at least got it back to as a family legacy after 35 years. But now, because of this corrupt little pisher, "Everybody Hurts" never gets returned to your family, and can now be sold to the highest bidder.
Over the years record companies have tried to put "work for hire" provisions in their contracts, and Mr. Glazier claims that the "work for hire" only "codified" a standard industry practice. But copyright laws didn't identify sound recordings as being eligible to be called "works for hire," so those contracts didn't mean anything. Until now.
The works you see by the same author released by seperate companies are in the public domain.
Anyone can print the original words of Shakespeare, Dickens, Bronte, Dumas. Anything publisher specific (layout, annotations, et cetera) is exclusive to that publisher. The same goes with compositions. Anyone can record works by Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, as the sheetmusic is in the public domain, but whoever releases it is whoever cut the recording deal with the orchestra.
That's because the performance recording is copyrighted, not the source material itself. Subtle, but important, difference.
RTFA
No copyrights are being terminated, only the assignment of them to the recording labels is being terminated. The copyrights will revert to the original authors/composers/recordists (if the proper paperwork is filed)