NEW, NEVER HEARD, DIZZY & BIRD FROM UPTOWN

[Chuck Nessa]

Trade that info (though it is not mine to share) for a copy of your 1040.

Chuck - let me ask RT's question this way - have sales met or exceeded expectations? Hopefully the latter!

Exceeded a bunch.

[Christiern]

I'm no copyright expert, but I wonder if the European 50 year copyright law applies to recordings that were never issued? I guess these guys think so.

I don't think it matters to "these guys," they are thieves.

[catesta]

What a shame.

[Spontooneous]

What Rosco said. Ted Kendall's British, isn't he? So the British copyright claim on his work might give you some traction against these thieving MFs.

[AllenLowe]

I think they've got the early show on that CD - Bird came out and spun a few plates on sticks, Dizzy sawed a woman in half (for real - but than, we know what Dizzy was like) - and Max beat up a volunteer from the audience -

[catesta]

I sent them an email.

[catesta]

Here is the email response I received today.

Dear Chris--

Thanks for the message, and the comments, which we will pass onto our buyers. We are only just listing the product as one of many offered by one of our distributors -- and to date we have not even seen the finished product, nor heard any other information about it other than the title. Please keep in mind that in the course of an average month, we are offered hundreds of products from our suppliers, and we often know little about them other than a title, artist, and cost price. We examine each product thoroughly when it arrives here, and are always willing to listen to any claims about authenticity, but in this case, we know nothing about this release other than what we have listed, so I'm not really sure we should be "ashamed" of ourselves.

We will approach the distributor with your comments, and see what they have to say.

Sincerely,

Rick Wojcik

Dusty Groove America

dga@dustygroove.com

[RDK]

By the way, it's been my understanding that a mastering (or remastering) cannot itself be copyrighted.

[Fer Urbina]

By the way, it's been my understanding that a mastering (or remastering) cannot itself be copyrighted.

Completely top of my head, but didn't British label Avid copyright their remastered version of Benny Goodman's 1938 Carnegie Hall concert?

Also, the European 50-year threshold applies from the release or the recording year?

F

[Chuck Nessa]

I understand Bear Family won a judgment against JSP for something like "theft of their work".

[Stereojack]

I understand Bear Family won a judgment against JSP for something like "theft of their work".

I've heard that too, and I do know that the Carter Family sets issued by JSP (dubbed right off Bear Family's set) were deleted.

[RDK]

Glad to hear that. Whether the law's changed or simply now enforced, it only seems fair not to steal someone else's work.

[John L]

Also, the European 50-year threshold applies from the release or the recording year?

F

My understanding is that it applies to the recording year. That gives great incentives for record producrers to seek out previously unreleased material!

[Fer Urbina]

My understanding is that it applies to the recording year. That gives great incentives for record producrers to seek out previously unreleased material!

I thought these rights apply (and expire after 50 years in the EU) to the actual records. I mean, in the EU you could reissue the Goodman Carnegie Hall concert if your source were the 1950 LP, but if you used any of the CD reissues by Columbia you'd have to ask Sony for permission?

About the Bear Family/JSP affair, this is within the EU. Are there any similar cases between European and American companies?

What is amazing is that the record industry seems to have been a legal quagmire from the very day Edison came up with the idea of preserving sound.

F

[EKE BBB]

My understanding is that it applies to the recording year. That gives great incentives for record producrers to seek out previously unreleased material!

I thought these rights apply (and expire after 50 years in the EU) to the actual records. I mean, in the EU you could reissue the Goodman Carnegie Hall concert if your source were the 1950 LP, but if you used any of the CD reissues by Columbia you'd have to ask Sony for permission?

...

F

Article on the EU Directive 93/98 (from http://www.screenonline.org.uk/tv/id/1051647/ ):

This Directive is aimed at harmonising the periods of copyright throughout the European Union where different states provide different periods of protection.

Although the minimum term established by the Berne Convention on Copyright is 50 years post mortem auctoris (since the death of the author), a number of states have chosen to provide for longer periods. In Germany the period of literary dramatic musical and artistic works is 70 years pma, in Spain 60 years (or 80 years for copyrights protected under the Spanish law of 1879 until its reform in 1987). In France the period is 60 years pma or 70 years for musical compositions.

In addition to the differences in the term of rights post mortem auctoris, further discrepancies arise in protection accorded by different member states through wartime extensions. Belgium has provided a wartime extension of 10 years, Italy 12 years, France six and eight years respectively in relation to the First and Second World Wars. In France, a further period of 30 years is provided in the case of copyright works whose authors were killed in action - such as Antoine de Saint-Exupéry.

The Directive also provides that rights of performers shall run from 50 years from the date of performance or if later, from the point at which the fixation of the performance is lawfully made available to the public for the first time, or if this has not occurred from the first assimilation of the performance. The rights of producers of phonograms run 50 years from first publication of the phonogram, but expire 50 years after the fixation was made if the phonogram has not been published during that time. A similar provision applies to the rights of producers of the first fixations of cinematographic works and sequences of moving images, whether accompanied or not by sound. Rights of broadcasting organisations run from 50 years from the first transmission of the broadcast.

The Directive provides that the person who makes available to the public a previously unpublished work which is in the public domain, shall have the same rights of exploitation in relation to the work as would have fallen to the author for a term of 25 years from the time the work was first made available to the public. The Directive applies to all works which are protected by at least one member state on I July 1995 when the Directive came into effect. As a result of the differing terms in European states, many works which were treated as being in the 'public domain' in the United Kingdom will have their copyright revived. Works by Beatrix Potter. James Joyce and Rudyard Kipling are all works which will benefit from a revival of copyright. The provisions relating to the term of protection of cinematographic films are not required to be applied to films created before 1 July 1994. Each member state of the European Union's required to implement the Directive. The precise manner of implementation and the choice of transitional provisions, are matters which each state is free to determine.

Directive 93/98 was implemented in the United Kingdom by the Rights in Performances Regulations 1995/ 3297 which took effect from 1 January 1996. The term of copyright protection for literary dramatic musical or artistic works expires at the end of the period of 70 years from the last day of the calendar year in which the author dies. Copyright in a film expires 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the death occurs of the last to die of the principal director, the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogue or the composer of the music specially created for and used for the film. The period of copyright previously applying to films under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 ended 50 years from the first showing or playing in public of a film, and the effect of the implementation of Directive 93/98 is to create a significant extension of the period in which a film copyright owner has the exclusive economic right to exploit a film. If. as anticipated, the United States of America also extends the duration of the copyright period applying to films. the value of intellectual property rights in audiovisual productions may increase significantly.

In Spain, Directive 93/98 was applied by means of REAL DECRETO LEGISLATIVO 1/1996, de 12 de abril, por el que se aprueba el texto refundido de la Ley de Propiedad Intelectual, regularizando, aclarando y armonizando las disposiciones legales vigentes sobre la materia [bOE 22.04.1996]

[EKE BBB]

Here´s the complete text of the Directive:

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriSer...93L0098:EN:HTML

[couw]

so, when was the Uptown disc published? AMG and Amazon say it was June 21st, so that would be within the 50 year limit, albeit narrowly, placing the rights with the producer for another 50 years.

[John L]

so, when was the Uptown disc published? AMG and Amazon say it was June 21st, so that would be within the 50 year limit, albeit narrowly, placing the rights with the producer for another 50 years.

The rights of producers of phonograms run 50 years from first publication of the phonogram, but expire 50 years after the fixation was made if the phonogram has not been published during that time.

That is a bit difficult to understand. What is the "fixation" in the case of the Bird-Diz recording. Obviously, this recording has existed already for 50 years. Therefore, by one type of logic, it could already legally be circulated in the EU wihtout compensation of musicans or their families. If someone had owned the tape in France, held it privately for 50 years, and then released it, the release date wouldn't seem to count as any sort of "fixation" that would grant copyright for another 50 years. Does the fact that Chuck made it a first US legal issue (by compensating the artists' families) mean that it should be recognized as such in Europe?

[AllenLowe]

here's the ethical question - it is one thing to duplicate certain performances in a seperate release where certain historical periods may coincide. It is ANOTHER to take a project from A-Z and merely reproduce it as your own work or with another cover - it's like if I re-published Shakespeare (hey that's public domain, isn't it?) and promoted it as my own work -

[Fer Urbina]

The rights of producers of phonograms run 50 years from first publication of the phonogram, but expire 50 years after the fixation was made if the phonogram has not been published during that time.

That is a bit difficult to understand. What is the "fixation" in the case of the Bird-Diz recording.

I'm not really versed in law, but if a *phonogram* is the actual physical *thing* containing the music (be it an acetate, a master tape or a CD or whatever), the actual acetates produced in 1945 and used by Uptown would not be liable for producer's rights in the EU, but the actual CDs published by Uptown (© 2005) would, right?

Ethics are rather clear. Any lawyers in the room?

F

[AllenLowe]

well, I play one on TV (public access) -

[brownie]

The Definitive release to be out soon seems to include additional material (from other dates)...

CHARLIE PARKER - DIZZY GILLESPIE Town Hall Concert, New York City, June 22, 1945

75 minutos. Incluye 10 temas extras grabados en la radio y en directo. Tras la magnífica edición en Uptown, aparecen nuevas cintas para este concierto...

At least, they acknowledge the source of their Town Hall concert theft

Edited February 26, 2006 by brownie

[wolff]

How do these Mother Fuckers sleep at night. Just a bunch of pricks making CDR's and laughing all the way to the bank. And, the support these outfits receive on this board makes me puke.

When will you EU dumb fucks wise up. Create something on your own, and if you can't, do not sell it in the USA.

What I have just posted will not register with 80% of you, oh well.......

Thank God for the ethical USA companies that license and market quality products, not CDR's made in a college dorm room. LMAO

To all of those at Uptown, I'm ashamed I could not do more to stop these EU criminals and wannabees.

Edited February 26, 2006 by wolff

[ep1str0phy]

The rights of producers of phonograms run 50 years from first publication of the phonogram, but expire 50 years after the fixation was made if the phonogram has not been published during that time.

That is a bit difficult to understand. What is the "fixation" in the case of the Bird-Diz recording.

I'm not really versed in law, but if a *phonogram* is the actual physical *thing* containing the music (be it an acetate, a master tape or a CD or whatever), the actual acetates produced in 1945 and used by Uptown would not be liable for producer's rights in the EU, but the actual CDs published by Uptown (© 2005) would, right?

Ethics are rather clear. Any lawyers in the room?

F

Edit because whatever I was talking about had nothing to do with the producer's particular situation (and is thusly not germane to the present conversation). Publication refers to registration with the proper authorities; unless those acetates were cleared later in the 40's (or whenever if the publication fell into the 50-year timeframe), the rights have expired. "Phonogram" is a somewhat anachronistic term--phono records are just "tangible copies of works that can be reproduced" (paraphrasing, of course).

Edited February 26, 2006 by ep1str0phy

[Clunky]

When will you EU dumb fucks wise up. Create something on your own, and if you can't, do not sell it in the USA.

What I have just posted will not register with 80% of you, oh well.......

is that well reasoned comment directed at all EU citizens or just those in charge of Definitive et al.