Jump to content

More on Pujol from Jazzwax


BillF
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Fortunately, in this instance at least, I don't live in the times when the likes of Morris Levy walked the Earth as surely then I would have gotten my ass kicked for speaking up like this.

But you'd not want to, because you'd have a contract with Roulette and a steady gig at Birdland with access to fairly chep dope. Might not be a big boat, but why rock it? :g

Actually, Mingus did speak up albeit not as precisely in public...remember his "gangsters run jazz" comment?

Hell, gangsters (of some form or fashion) run damn near everything.

All praise be to gangsters, for they give us our lives!

You might have a point Jim ;)

I guess the gangsters are still running things but it is certainly a different sort of gangster these days.

Do you really think EMI Japan stops paying Blue Note artists royalties the day the 50 years is up? I'm absolutely certain this is not the case but am happy to make some phone calls to double check.

I'd like to know too, but I assume they wouldn't, no more than would EMI Europe. Do you pay money you don't owe?

They are paying....like I said earlier, they believe their contract with the artist trumps the copyright laws.

I don't believe EMI Europe presses their own copies of say Blue Note reissues, they just import the American pressings. I guess if they decide to stop importing these and press their own copies so they don't have to pay royalties to the artists then you will have made your point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can also now happily tell you what the law is. Have a look here: http://www.copyright...7/92chap10.html

To save you reading it, when you import recorded media which are subject to copyright you pay 3% on the transfer price, the money basically goes to the Treasury, and then interested parties can claim it back. That's the law and if you pay the 3% you are covered. Pujol says he imports legally (this means he pays the 3%). Does anyone have evidence that he doesn't? Or that others do?

Um, this page adds another dimension to that: http://www.harryfox....blic/Import.jsp

But who says Pujol doesn't do this? On what evidence is Larry calling him a liar?

I think this might be sort of besides the point....

The question is whether the CDs that are being released in Europe because they are after the 50 year period can legally be sold here, a country that does not have the 50 year expiration date so this stuff is still copyrighted here.

I don't know the answer to that actually though I assume it is an issue.

That you pay 3% on the transfer price to sell your CDs here might not address the question of it's legality here.

Subject to copyright could mean legal copyright and then the question again is whether you can sell something in the US that according to US law is not legally copyrighted here.

I don't know the answer. This is why we have copyright lawyers and also why most don't waste their time on this sort of thing because it is cost prohibitive for most to pursue and that only helps the likes of Jordi et al stay in business.

Well, one thing you need to know is that copyright on material issued in the US issued before 1964 and after 1923 was copyright protected for 28 years from date of issue. That copyright was renewable for 28 years if an application was made in the year of its expiration and lodged at the Library of Congress. See where this is heading? Some stuff will never have been renewed, so copyright will have lapsed. And the rest, help me out, 2 x 28, I'm struggling... Do we care - well , not much, but more interesting than this thread is the catalogue where you can look up every single registration. Mad joy for the likes of us: http://www.copyright.gov/records/

What you say on previously unissued material such as extra tracks is kind of true but depends on recording date in relation to changes of law, so not as cut-and-dried as you think if you read the small print.

What you say on international copyright is unworkable - copyright is national, period. National courts could not in practice enforce copyright laws of all other nations, any more than they would enforce property laws or any laws of other nations. Nice try.

Are you a copyright attorney? There are reasons such a creature exists in the world and part of that reason is so one who actually needs expert advice on these issues can ask someone in the know instead of debating the issue with someone who has visited a few web-sites and thinks they have the definitive answers to these questions. You might think you know the definite, absolute answers to these things but I doubt you are correct in all these instances. The main issue with arguing the law in these instances is that no one has the time or resources to go after these people and challenge what you think are definite, clear cut laws. So the answer is, we'll never know for sure because there will never be a defining court case.

Also, are you saying that any recording made between 1923 and 1955 is in public domain in the US now?

Here's an example. Registered in 1956, re-registered in 1984 (28 years) and according to my calculation, set to expire in 2012, after which it becomes PD.

http://cocatalog.loc...114181959&SID=3

Since you seem to enjoy doing this research, this link begs a certain question?

What do you think you are looking at here?

Is this a copyright on a sound recording or a copyright on a composition?

Are there different laws regarding a copyright of a sound recording then a copyright on a composition?

Different "expiration" dates?

Edited by david weiss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what would be fun...

Set up shop in Andorra, or Spain or wherever, and start selling copies of Fresh Sound, etc. reissues online, at cost. some colorful but cheapass generic packaging and documentation just to keep the cost waaaay down. Send out emailers to all possible outlets offering them the same deal. Total wholesale operation, no profit sought at all. Eat the postage, even, just to get the product out there.

But before doing so, we'd need a line in Vegas on the over/under on when it would be before we had some "visitors"....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you seem to enjoy doing this research, this link begs a certain question?

What do you think you are looking at here?

Is this a copyright on a sound recording or a copyright on a composition?

Sound recording.

Are there different laws regarding a copyright of a sound recording then a copyright on a composition?

Yes, completely different and independent of each other.

Different "expiration" dates?

Absolutely different, yes. The composition is copyright for a period of x years from the death of the composer (where x depends on prevailing law at the time, same as for books). The recorded performance is 28 years from issue plus renewal period (I admit I am hazy about how long the second renewal period is).

Do you really think EMI Japan stops paying Blue Note artists royalties the day the 50 years is up? I'm absolutely certain this is not the case but am happy to make some phone calls to double check.

I'd like to know too, but I assume they wouldn't, no more than would EMI Europe. Do you pay money you don't owe?

They are paying....like I said earlier, they believe their contract with the artist trumps the copyright laws.

I don't believe EMI Europe presses their own copies of say Blue Note reissues, they just import the American pressings. I guess if they decide to stop importing these and press their own copies so they don't have to pay royalties to the artists then you will have made your point.

EMI Europe do press their own copies, yes, just as they issued the so called euromosaics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are there different laws regarding a copyright of a sound recording then a copyright on a composition?

Different "expiration" dates?

Yes there are. I'm speaking from a Swedish perspective and I'm no expert in US copyright law, but I believe the basic rules apply to most developed countries, most of which have signed the Rome convention. A sound recording is covered by a couple of different basic rights with different terms: authors' rights (a certain number - usually 50 or 70 - years after the author's - or composer's - death), performers' rights (a given number of years after the performance was published) and producers' rights (as for perfomers, but more complicated, at least regarding the US).

This is Wikipedia, not the law, but it does give a hint (see espescially under "phonogram producers"): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Related_rights

Again, I'm no copyright attorney, though I am however a lawyer.

EDIT to say that I'm way behind David, but I'll leave the post as it is.

Edited by Daniel A
Link to comment
Share on other sites

EMI Europe do press their own copies, yes, just as they issued the so called euromosaics.

The "Euro Mosaics" (the ones with Argo/Mercury/Norgran/Clef/Verve material) were issued by Universal, not EMI. This was before the former bought the latter, of course :)

Edited by J.A.W.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main issue with arguing the law in these instances is that no one has the time or resources to go after these people and challenge what you think are definite, clear cut laws. So the answer is, we'll never know for sure because there will never be a defining court case.

It is only not economically worthwhile to pursue supposed copyright infringement if you think you might not win and be awarded all your costs. If it were clear cut someone would take it on a conditional fee basis, I suspect.

In any case, we are talking about companies like EMI and Sony who can afford it - we know they have spent a lot of money on lobbying for copyright changes in Europe (they won!) and it is clear that they prefer to concentrate on the issue of illegal file sharing. They are right in terms of their business model and this stuff we are talking about is peanuts.

I am not saying things are clear cut, by the way, and I am only doing initial research to try and get some facts sorted out.

I also think that CDs are a dead issue - I am in a way surprised that the (angelic) Cuscuna and (demonic) Pujol have kept the hard-copy thing going as long as they have. Incidentally BNs go in store here for 3 UKP, about $5 and less than a third of the price of a Pujol reissue. And of course no-one has to buy either.

EMI Europe do press their own copies, yes, just as they issued the so called euromosaics.

The "Euro Mosaics" (the ones with Argo/Mercury/Norgran/Clef/Verve material) were issued by Universal, not EMI. This was before the former bought the latter, of course :)

Oops my bad. But those Universal ones are made in Europe, I should remind people (I know you know). There was also at least one Warner (Ellington).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, one thing you need to know is that copyright on material issued in the US issued before 1964 and after 1923 was copyright protected for 28 years from date of issue. That copyright was renewable for 28 years if an application was made in the year of its expiration and lodged at the Library of Congress. See where this is heading? Some stuff will never have been renewed, so copyright will have lapsed. And the rest, help me out, 2 x 28, I'm struggling... Do we care - well , not much, but more interesting than this thread is the catalogue where you can look up every single registration. Mad joy for the likes of us: http://www.copyright.gov/records/

What you say on previously unissued material such as extra tracks is kind of true but depends on recording date in relation to changes of law, so not as cut-and-dried as you think if you read the small print.

What you say on international copyright is unworkable - copyright is national, period. National courts could not in practice enforce copyright laws of all other nations, any more than they would enforce property laws or any laws of other nations. Nice try.

Unfortunately for your argument, in 1976, the US revised copyright law (the so called "Micky Mouse Law") to automatically extend all copyrights to their "full term", which, in the case of sound recordings is 75 years from the date of publication.

See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf. At the bottom of page 3:

"Federal copyright could also be secured before 1978 by the act of registration in the case of certain unpublished works and works eligible for ad interim copyright. The 1976 Copyright Act automatically extends to full term (section 304 sets the term) copyright for all works, including those subject to ad interim copyright if ad interim registration has been made on or before June 30, 1978.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, one thing you need to know is that copyright on material issued in the US issued before 1964 and after 1923 was copyright protected for 28 years from date of issue. That copyright was renewable for 28 years if an application was made in the year of its expiration and lodged at the Library of Congress. See where this is heading? Some stuff will never have been renewed, so copyright will have lapsed. And the rest, help me out, 2 x 28, I'm struggling... Do we care - well , not much, but more interesting than this thread is the catalogue where you can look up every single registration. Mad joy for the likes of us: http://www.copyright.gov/records/

What you say on previously unissued material such as extra tracks is kind of true but depends on recording date in relation to changes of law, so not as cut-and-dried as you think if you read the small print.

What you say on international copyright is unworkable - copyright is national, period. National courts could not in practice enforce copyright laws of all other nations, any more than they would enforce property laws or any laws of other nations. Nice try.

Unfortunately for your argument, in 1976, the US revised copyright law (the so called "Micky Mouse Law") to automatically extend all copyrights to their "full term", which, in the case of sound recordings is 75 years from the date of publication.

See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf. At the bottom of page 3:

"Federal copyright could also be secured before 1978 by the act of registration in the case of certain unpublished works and works eligible for ad interim copyright. The 1976 Copyright Act automatically extends to full term (section 304 sets the term) copyright for all works, including those subject to ad interim copyright if ad interim registration has been made on or before June 30, 1978.

This is the part I was talking about which complicates the basic outline on page 3:

Works Originally Created and Published or Registered

before January 1, 1978

Under the law in effect before 1978, copyright was secured

either on the date a work was published with a copyright

notice or on the date of registration if the work was registered

in unpublished form. In either case, the copyright

endured for a first term of 28 years from the date it was

secured. During the last (28th) year of the first term, the

copyright was eligible for renewal. The Copyright Act of 1976

extended the renewal term from 28 to 47 years for copyrights

that were subsisting on January 1, 1978, or for pre-1978

copyrights restored under the Uruguay Round Agreements

Act (URAA), making these works eligible for a total term of

protection of 75 years. Public Law 105-298, enacted on October

27, 1998, further extended the renewal term of copyrights

still subsisting on that date by an additional 20 years, providing

for a renewal term of 67 years and a total term of protection

of 95 years.

Public Law 102-307, enacted on June 26, 1992, amended

the 1976 Copyright Act to provide for automatic renewal of

the term of copyrights secured between January 1, 1964, and

December 31, 1977. Although the renewal term is automatically

provided, the Copyright Office does not issue a renewal

certificate for these works unless a renewal application and

fee are received and registered in the Copyright Office.

I was referring above to the fact that some 1964 copyrights would have lapsed since these are NOT or not necessarily automatically renewed. What I didn't manage to understand was what the renewal term was. That isn't properly covered in this document - it was covered better in the document I was reading but that was very technical and also not complete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was referring above to the fact that some 1964 copyrights would have lapsed since these are NOT or not necessarily automatically renewed. What I didn't manage to understand was what the renewal term was. That isn't properly covered in this document - it was covered better in the document I was reading but that was very technical and also not complete.

The material you quote is about musical compositions, not sound recordings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the EU, the Copyright Directive (2006/116/EEC) set the length of the producers' and performers' rights to 50 years (although this is about to be prolonged to 70 years as has been mentioned in other threads). In the US, a combination of several different acts defines the protection. It may seem a bit trivial to post links to Wikipedia, but it is actually a good starting point that often provides links to relevant laws: Public domain in the US

The "Bono Act" is outlined here: Bono Act

Edited by Daniel A
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was referring above to the fact that some 1964 copyrights would have lapsed since these are NOT or not necessarily automatically renewed. What I didn't manage to understand was what the renewal term was. That isn't properly covered in this document - it was covered better in the document I was reading but that was very technical and also not complete.

The material you quote is about musical compositions, not sound recordings.

Hm yes it may be thought the 28 year renewal does apply to recordings.

While the lather about thieves irritates me, I think the issue around copyright is more interesting from the point of view of history than of private property. To me the issues are not just about preservation but about access. In the end the role of custodianship will be performed by libraries or in the future entities having a library-like function, and this will happen regardless of the perceived relative importance of any particular work - ALL will be archived. But outside this and slightly prior to it, there is an aspect of soft reception where access is important for reputation and for the weight likely to be given to phenomena by cultural historians. Things are only remembered if they are accessible and history tends to weight things according to their supposed dissemination (among other factors). There is a transition around technology which goes in this direction of course, and that goes alongside a transition from collectors to scholars, who like it or not are the key cultural mediators as over time all other parties fall away. I know what it is like to have a copyright taken away by law. Copyright is only ever granted by law, of course, it does not inhere in any way, either ethically or legally. For me, any article or book chapter of mine can be copied and disseminated free to students with no payment to me. It's educational, apparently. Is my loss of revenue offset by the potential gain to my reputation (uh, or collapse thereof)? Is it even clear that I lose money, overall? And isn't there just a public gain in me having my stuff dished out for free which maybe my publishers might not like but why would I care (I make a few points on the wholesale price of a book, nothing usually on journal articles, a flat rate usually on chapters in edited books)? When people tell me they have been looking at something I did twenty years ago I am delighted to talk with them about it and even a bit amazed, and I really don't worry about revenue. This is digressive but I am getting to a point about cultural goals, and as a scholar with an early C20th specialism I know what copyright issues can do for questions of cultural mediation in relation to print (check out my colleague Paul Saint-Amour's recent books). So apart from the fact that I object to the vituperative language about Pujol and co (whose products I avoid, btw) the extent that I am interested in the law is more about the contestation between the holders of certain lucrative copyrights and the destiny of all the rest. Jim says PD stuff (I guess he means European PD) should be given away free. Some musicians give away recordings free in order to secure greater objectives. Who did more for Dogon A.D. - Tim Berne when he distributed it for free at his own cost, or JLH when he pressed a limited CD? And as I said, due to a specific exemption in law around education, my own otherwise very current copyrights are invalid when my stuff is used for educational purposes (my work has no other purpose). Still here? That's it from me for now.

Edited by David Ayers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the end the role of custodianship will be performed by libraries or in the future entities having a library-like function, and this will happen regardless of the perceived relative importance of any particular work - ALL will be archived.

I am very skeptical that this will happen, or even if it does, that it will be sustained. "Preservation" does not remain "objective" for long...

Jim says PD stuff (I guess he means European PD) should be given away free.

Jim was making a bit of a dramatic point, but actually, these PD things should be allowed to be given away for free (and once composer/publishing copyrights enter the PD, they surely could be with no possible legal fallout) as a counter-balance to consumers paying for issues of the material that have had no improvements/value-added/whatever. Once upon a time, this was all but impossible. Now, it's not.

And please, once and for all, understand this - my issue with Pujols is not that he's a "thief" (at least not consistently, it's pretty well-established that he is at times, but not always). It's that he's a con-man who sells brings product to market without improving it one iota. It may be legal as hell, but it's still a con-job, and those who buy the product not knowing this (which is by no means everybody) are being played for fools. That too is legal, but "the law" quite often serves to protect those with no ethics from those who have no sense. And no, I'm not ok with that. And yes, I do advocate being proactive in protecting one's self from being conned.

Who did more for Dogon A.D. - Tim Berne when he distributed it for free at his own cost, or JLH when he pressed a limited CD?

More? Relative to the respective time frames? The correct answer, of course, is "neither". And who will be doing more for it (notice, we're talking about the music itself, not the musician(s), you mention the album itself, not anybody involved with it) once all the copies are sold - JLH, who did his part quite nicely, or the people who will no doubt make lossless files available - at no cost - in some form or fashion so that the discourse can continue? It's a continuum of good deeds being done. Sometimes "the law" facilitates the good deeds, sometimes it hinders it. But thankfully, good (or good enough) things still get done until even better things get done, and even while bad things go on.

And once the whole thing goes PD, should there be any - will there be any - ethical justification for some schmuck issuing a xerox of the JLH release and not compensating anybody because they're not "legally" compelled to do so, or for anybody actually buying it just because they "like objects"? That should all be gone by then, but hell, it should be mostly gone by now, and it's not. Here's to hope, right?

Sorry to hear that you're getting screwed, btw. Seriously. Maybe JLH can put you in touch with a publisher who does with writing what he does with music.

In the meantime, imagine how pissed off you'd be if people were just xeroxing your work and then charging their students for it! Maybe once it goes PD, they'll do just that.

And that would suck.

Edited by JSngry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was referring above to the fact that some 1964 copyrights would have lapsed since these are NOT or not necessarily automatically renewed. What I didn't manage to understand was what the renewal term was. That isn't properly covered in this document - it was covered better in the document I was reading but that was very technical and also not complete.

The material you quote is about musical compositions, not sound recordings.

Hm yes it may be thought the 28 year renewal does apply to recordings.

Oops. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I was referring above to the fact that some 1964 copyrights would have lapsed since these are NOT or not necessarily automatically renewed. What I didn't manage to understand was what the renewal term was. That isn't properly covered in this document - it was covered better in the document I was reading but that was very technical and also not complete.

The material you quote is about musical compositions, not sound recordings.

I thought so....I just implied this was the case in my response but good to know this is the case.

Also, the link he gave us to the Tony Fruscella copyright page had Fruscella as the one copyrighting said article so that would mean a composition not the recording as that would have been copyrighted by Atlantic Records I assume.....

I'm glad the "legal" aspects of this debate have petered out but I have one remaining question as I don't really know much about blogging/web-site etiquette......

This Jazz Wax web-site that posted this interview removed all the negative comments about Jordi in the comments section but kept the positive ones. Is this normal or is this a bit of a breach of ethics for the sort of medium?

I guess whoever did the piece and runs the web-site has the right to do whatever he wants but it does seem to be misrepresenting things a bit. That can't really be cool, can it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i found it disturbing, too... although i would think the rules of blogging mean that the blogger has full control over content so i would guess it's in line with netiquette, but reveals a lot about the blogger in question who is the solely responsible jerk here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 years later...
Sorry for reviving this old thread, but for @jazzcorner , I wanted to extend the discussion a little bit. He is over at the Steve Hoffman forums going on & on about how great Jordi Pujol is. I cannot call out any of his BS there unless I want to risk getting the boot. So here we are...
Since this thread stopped getting posts, the EU has extended copyright to 70 years in 2011. This means that everything Blue Sounds (Fresh Sound, Lone Hill, Blue Moon, etc.) is selling that was recorded after 1952 is in violation of EU copyright law. That's the facts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2022 at 4:37 AM, bresna said:
Sorry for reviving this old thread, but for @jazzcorner , I wanted to extend the discussion a little bit. He is over at the Steve Hoffman forums going on & on about how great Jordi Pujol is. I cannot call out any of his BS there unless I want to risk getting the boot. So here we are...
Since this thread stopped getting posts, the EU has extended copyright to 70 years in 2011. This means that everything Blue Sounds (Fresh Sound, Lone Hill, Blue Moon, etc.) is selling that was recorded after 1952 is in violation of EU copyright law. That's the facts.

I seem to recall that there was another discussion about the Keynote box they reissued but can’t seem to find the discussion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/25/2022 at 10:29 AM, Brad said:

I seem to recall that there was another discussion about the Keynote box they reissued but can’t seem to find the discussion. 

If you type "Keynote Box" in the search box you'll find a couple of discussions of it.

 

 

 

gregmo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23.6.2022 at 1:37 PM, bresna said:
Since this thread stopped getting posts, the EU has extended copyright to 70 years in 2011. This means that everything Blue Sounds (Fresh Sound, Lone Hill, Blue Moon, etc.) is selling that was recorded after 1952 is in violation of EU copyright law. That's the facts.

Wrong. When the EU copyright laws were revised in 2012 to extend the copyright period to 70 years instead of 50 one key element of the new copyright law was that this extension did NOT apply retroactively. I.e. whatever had exceeded the 50-year copyright period by the effective date of this new EU law in 2012 and was in the P.D. then (i.e. everything prior to that same day in 1962) was going to REMAIN in the public domain.
(No, can't be bothered to search online for links to the relevant legal texts but they are out there on the EU websites, e.g. EurLex).

Interesting to re-see this thread after all these years. I did not even remember I had let myself get THAT involved in all that. :D I must have calmed down some since ... but basically IMO it's still this (in line with some of the points raised by David Ayers): Feel free to blast Pujol but as long as his reissues are recordings prior to that date in 1962 (or as long as he DID acquire the rights to recordings past that cutoff date) they are legal by the laws of HIS country. If you don't like that and blame those who sell them outside the applicability of the EU copyright laws, OK - so tell DG, for example, to remove them from their offerings (or else ... ), but OTOH, don't be hypocritical enough either to (for example) buy Japanese reissues that state explicitly on their packagings "Not for sale outside of Japan" (such as the run done by or for Solid Records a couple of years ago). ;)

 

Edited by Big Beat Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...