I think Joe Buzzard operates under the radar by only releasing very obscure
stuff on labels that were never acquired. The question is, do the heirs of
the artists have any claim on the material (perhaps not because as I
understand it, a lot of blues and country performers were paid a performance
wage for recordings and signed over all perpetual rights to the recording
companies)? If the heirs have no claims and the recording companies are
defunct, and were never acquired as intellectual property, then I'd say the
material is in the public domain which is why Buzzard can keep on releasing
it. I have a few of his compilation cassettes and I'm glad he's made this
stuff available. Plan B would be to travel the backroads of the south and
try to get to attic-fulls of 78's before he does. I'll take plan A.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message ----- From: "Steven C. Barr" <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 10:11 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] 78's and PD, was Curatorial Responsibility, formerly
Copyright of treasures
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Fine" <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>what
> Does anyone have any idea what percentage of commercially-produced 78's
are
> now in the PD?
In the US of A, exactly 0.00%. I don't know if the copyright laws placed
them under Federal copyright until 2067, or simply left the various state
laws (most of which have NO terms and thus no expiry dates) to protect
them. There are some 78's, such as Grey Gull, where the existing copyright
holder "died intestate" (the company went broke without selling their
masters or copyrights) which are functionally p.d. -- that is, there
is no one qualified to sue infringers!
> When, for instance, CBS/Sony re-issues Duke Ellington 78's as
> multi-CD collections, are those now re-copyrighted for 50+ years? And> about that guy Joe Buzzard down in Maryland -- is he just flying underthe> radar or is it perfectly legit for him to reissue all of his obscure blues, > country and bluegrass 78's? He comes off as a somewhat goofy collector, but > I get the sense he's a very shrewd business man too, and I wouldn't be > surprised if his venture is pretty profitable even though it seems > labor-intensive. I've read several interviews with him, but he never > squarely addresses the copyright issue except to say he's never been pursued > or prosecuted. > As far as current reissues, this won't matter until 2068; nothing is p.d. in the US of A until then. In other venues, I suspect it would be a matter of proving that the processing used to prepare the reissue might make those separate musical entities (which is how lawyers get rich!). As far as small-scale private reissues, I would assume that it is simply a case of their not seriously threatening the business of the valid copyright holders (so don't try reissuing Elvis!)
The record companies fought this battle once, in the late forties (see Record Changer). A number of companies started reissuing dubs of jazz rarities, and they sold well. The copyright holders, such as CBS (which held the rights to a lot of stuff via ARC) took exception...and two things happened. First, CBS filed suit (against a party who had reissued some Armstrong sides...since Armstrong had a contract calling for royalties on record sales, which the indie guy wasn't paying, the court acted...), and then, having discoved there was gold in them thar vaults, they started reissing the stuff themselves!
However, the US record industry is in a fightin' mood these days, what with all the digital piracy of current product...so I dunno as I would want to cross them...
Steven C. Barr
-- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/123 - Release Date: 10/6/2005