Re: [ARSCLIST] Brunswick Records rights/Universal

[Mike Richter <mrichter@xxxxxxx>]

Karl Miller wrote:

> While I am not an lawyer, don't quote me...but it was my understanding:
>
> Round one had Naxos being sued in Federal Court. The district court
> (Federal) in the State of New York granted summary judgment to Naxos. The
> reasons being cited included that even if Capitol had been given a license
> to issue the EMI recordings, that the UK copyrights expired and that EMI
> had lost ownership and did not have the right to sell license to Capitol
> or anyone else for that matter. Other aspects of the decision included the
> notion that "abandonment of copyright" (other companies had already issued
> some of the material and had not been sued)
> indicated that Capitol had no interest in the recordings, and further,
> that Naxos' reissues were an improvement on the recordings. I also find it
> interesting that the Federal court cited the notion that the original
> recordings were obsolete.

I'm afraid you have been seriously misinformed. The lower court's 
decision has been available and I commend it to you; it is surprisingly 
readable for such a document. I am not an attorney of any sort but I was 
interested enough to find the decision and to come to the following 
conclusions relative to your post - reported here from memory.

1. Yes, UK copyright had expired.

2. The relationship between EMI and Capitol is more complex and I do not 
believe it was addressed in the decision.

3. The "abandonment" was explicit in a formal letter from the president 
of Capitol to Yale with respect to sale of transfers from the Yale 
collection.

4. Naxos's improvement was part of the argument against Capitol's claim 
of damages. In essence, the judge found that since Capitol had the 
primary material, they could exploit Naxos's work if the market 
justified the investment and thereby come up with a superior product.

5. Neither the judgement of "obsolete" nor any other value measure was 
offered that I can recall. The decision was based on objective, legal 
points only.

What the federal appeals court asked of the New York Supreme Court was 
their position on the period of copyright in New York; the case was not 
turned over or remanded to the state court (I believe that would be 
impossible between jurisdictions) and I have not read the decision you 
cite, but have saved it for review. Neither do I have any insight into 
whether anyone will or has appealed further. I will say that the lower 
court's summary judgement was one of the most comprehensive and most 
clearly written I have seen. Unfortunately, that has little weight at 
this stage or beyond.

Note that the Supreme Court position on copyright could be accepted 
without compromising the district court's decision - for example, by 
regarding the positive act of abandonment as having the effect of 
placing the recordings in the public domain.

Mike
--
mrichter@xxxxxxx
http://www.mrichter.com/