Forums

I’m definitely still following MLB. Yankees have done what they seem to do so often in the 2020s—get off to a hot start in the first two months of the season and then struggle to play .500 ball the rest of the way. I have a couple of friends and family members who are Brewers fans, so it’s been fun to see them enjoying the Crew’s remarkable ongoing surge. Also happy that the Dodgers aren’t on track to win 120 games or some such. Interestingly enough, only one team is above .600 (Milwaukee, .624) and only two teams are below .400 (the White Sox at .364 and Colorado bottoming out at .256). I don’t know how the parity compares to recent baseball history, but it seems pretty competitive for 2025 as we hit the season’s 3/4 mark.

Basically I agree with you almost all the way, mainly because this is a can of worms where sooner or later others might try to sneak their "art" into these laws too and nobody knows where to draw a line that will STAND.  Yet I think some of your examples are a bit far-fetched or off-target, such as destruction (on purpose or not) or loss. Because - no sale, no royalties due. It's as simple as that. And if an object remains unsold but is passed on through the generations (whichever way this occurs) then it's no royalty-inducing (recorded) sale either. As for rare or one-off classic cars - fair point, but is this ever enforceable on a wider level? Not nearly all of these are linked to any single designer who would qualify as an artist who would be entitled to royalties in the sense of the EU Directive, for example. But getting back to the topic of this thread,  I still fail to see how this could ever be invoked for any of the collectible records we are talking about. Even a pressing run of only 500 or 700 makes any of these highly "collectible" LPs mass products by comparison. A high-$$$ sale would relate to only one copy of a far larger number of copies of the "original" but not to THE "original" work of art, and these copies of the orignal pressing run all are the same and do not nearly meet the criteria of the "limited productions or signed works" outlined in the directive. "Signed works" (of art) typically would refer, for example, to printings of some drawing or picture specifically produced by or on behalf of the artist in a limited run identified as, for example, the x-th copy of a run of y copies (as in "5/50" next to the artist's signature on the object, for example). No record signed individually by an artist for the record owner at some later date would even remotely be covered by this. If it was about, say, one-off test pessings or acetates or metal masters of a (later) regular release, this might be different, but would such test pressings or acetates meet the "visual art" criteria? The only case where conclusions about whether records could ever be covered IMO would occur if collectible bibliophile books (either first printings or limited runs identified specifically as the "x-th copy of a total of y numbered copies" would somehow end up being covered under this Directive. Would my numbered copy of the "Kenton Era" 4-LP box set on Capitol all of a sudden become eligible for royalties to either the Kenton Estate or the (uncredited) designer of the cover and booklet if I were to sell it?  (Highly unlikely, given the condition of my copy of that set, but you get the idea )

Grateful Dead 60th Anniversary box set, “Enjoying the Ride” Deer Creek Music Center, Noblesville, IN (7/15/89) disc 2