"If a work of art (book, recording) has been off the market for a long time - maybe 20 years - you should have the right to reissue it on your label and pay royalties."
That's your opinion. Do the laws agree?
John - Route 66 (and Jonas Bernholm's associated labels) made agreements with the leaders involved and issued the records. (By the way, Bernholm could have been sued by the labels involved, though it probably wasn't worth their while to do so.) Coming to an agreement with the estates of the artists involved in the Savory collection would be a different deal partly because there was probably no one musician designated as leader. And there may not have been signed contracts - in which case, who owns that music? Certainly not you and not I and not someone who just decides to issue it.
"Major works of art." Who decides what are major works of art and what are "minor" works of art? Should "major works" be susceptible to being released over any objections because someone says they're "major", but "minor" works are not?
If a "major" (as opposed to "minor") writer holds the rights to his works and doesn't want them reissued, or even perhaps issued for the first time, does someone have the right to issue them because they decide that they're "major" works?
Ornette Coleman supposedly has a trove of tapes of unreleased concert and rehearsal performances, plus i believe he owns the master tapes of previously released records such as Crisis and Ornette at 12. If someone got hold of those tapes (either while Ornette is still with us, or after his passing, if Denardo or someone else inherited them) would that person have the right to issue them simply because they might be regarded as "major works"?
There are a lot of issues involved here, at least for me - perhaps not for you.