In #10 Kosh's Shadow said: What is the copyright problem if I posted these on youtube, if any?
There are a number of possible issues; primarily, that you have not licensed the songs themselves.
Understand that sound recordings were not covered by federal copyright until very recently (I'd have to look up the date, but it's within the last 25 years or so). The copyright covered the written song.
I believe there was a transitional period in which a sound recording was accepted by the Copyright Office as a deposit copy to cover the song itself, as an increasing number of musician composers did not read music (the Beatles, famously, did not read music, though they certainly could have afforded to hire someone to transcribe their music for more-standard deposit copies).
In any event, there is little to no likelihood that there is an issue in putting these old-law (i.e., pre-1978 law) recordings on YouTube as far as the recordings themselves, i.e., these records of performance, are concerned. What is at issue is the copyright of the songs.
This is where it gets interesting. Prior to the current law taking effect in 1978, copyright term was limited to 28 years, renewable for another 28---a total term of 56 years. Irving Berlin, who lived to be 101, actually outlived a number of his early song copyrights---something that is not possible today.
So, when a song was written, and whether its copyright was renewed in timely fashion, is the determinant of whether an older song is even subject to copyright now, or is in the public domain. Anything written prior to 1923 is automatically in the public domain, and I believe that that has been moved forward to 1925 or 1926 by now (I have to double-check the extension dates). A song from that far back, like "Alexander's Ragtime Band," is in the public domain, and any recording made of it prior to the recent extension of copyright to sound recordings is also in the public domain.
Where it gets complex is trying to find out whether a song written and registered in, say, 1932 had its copyright renewed when the renewal came up in 1960, or if it lapsed into the public domain at that time through non-renewal. Had it been re-registered in 1960, the renewed copyright would have been automatically extended when the current law took effect; if it was not renewed, it is wholly public domain.
Meanwhile, most songwriters have assigned their song copyrights to ASCAP or BMI to administer; these collecting societies grant licenses and distribute the licensing fees to the songwriters or their estates.
So, the short-form summary goes something like this:
1) The sound-recordings on 78s, made under the prior law, are not covered by copyright; copyright only covered the written song at that time.
2) The songs which are recorded on them may be in the public domain, depending on a) when the songs were written, b) whether their old-law copyrights were renewed; if not, they fell into the public domain; if they were, did that bring the songs under the automatic extension of their term under the new law which took effect in 1978?
3) The question, then, comes down to what risks there might arise from ASCAP or BMI by posting these old sound recordings on YouTube. I would say that it is minimal, in that it is likely that the collecting societies have an arrangement with YouTube regarding licensing payment. I've never tried to post anything on YouTube, so I've never checked out their TOS, but it is likely that there is something about song rights therein; if you want to send it to me I'd be happy to discuss it. The stories from some years ago about people having to pay out large sums of money for "file-sharing" on Napster are a different thing; those people were actively and intentionally distributing sound recordings that would have been covered under the newer laws, and it was the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) that went after them. YouTube (a subsidiary of Google) likely has an agreement with the songwriters' organizations to share some of the ad revenue it acquires, which allows the posters there to upload songs---otherwise YouTube could not exist.
Even if there were a problem regarding a certain song, the likelihood is that such a post on YouTube would first be removed via a DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) letter/complaint, which basically says to the service provider, "Remove this or you will be liable." Such a complaint would likely be accompanied by a demand letter to the offending poster, saying "remove this or else." You'll note that many YouTube postings also contain disclaimers to the effect of "I do not own or claim copyright in this material." This is pretty much a gossamer protection, but it does appear to serve in many cases.
So: Let's talk about terms of service when you look them over. Meantime, there is some risk in posting songs, but the risk is clearly minimal, and the likeliness of pushback from the songwriter collecting societies relatively small and probably manageable.
lucius septimius
6/13/2021 6:49:49 AM
2
Reply to buzzsawmonkey in 1:
If you are making a documentary, how does it apply? I recall there is a provision dealing with something like "derivative" work (I can't remember the exact term - it's been 30 years since I looked at this).
buzzsawmonkey
6/13/2021 7:08:30 AM
3
In #2 lucius septimius said: If you are making a documentary, how does it apply? I recall there is a provision dealing with something like "derivative" work (I can't remember the exact term - it's been 30 years since I looked at this).
Excerpts of something for a documentary are usually covered by the doctrine of "fair use," which---in the statute---allows for use of material for purposes of commentary. "Fair use" also covers what is in effect royalty-free usage of material for the purpose of "education," which enables teachers to take material from various works without having to pay licensing fees to do so.
The concept of "fair use" has been grossly debased by the courts in recent years; the Supreme Court, in the case of Campbell v. Acuff-Rose, found that the 2 Live Crew obscene version of Roy Orbison's "Oh, Pretty Woman" was "transformative," and therefore fell within the doctrine of fair use. What this did, effectively, is to void the copyright creator's right to control the creation of derivative works, if the work was sufficiently "transformative" according to the hiccupings of a judge after a three-martini lunch. It is one of the most wide-ranging and obscene (and not discussed) examples of judicial activism in the last few decades. Nobody---including the judges---knows what "transformative use" means; it is entirely a matter of judicial whim.
Recently, the Second Circuit (NYC) found for a photographer who'd sued the Warhol estate for Warhol's use of the photographer's photo of the pop-star Prince. Vanity Fair had licensed the use of the photographer's pic of Prince as a photo reference, then hired Warhol to do an illustration based on the photo, which Warhol did. So far, so good---but Warhol then took his version of the photographer's image and created a series of those dreary photo-silkscreens for which he was so well known in his later years. The court found for the photographer on the basis that the images were "not transformative enough," i.e., saying that if he'd created a MORE derivative work he could have gotten away with it, while trampling all over the photographer's statutory right to control the creation of derivative works. The court SHOULD have found for the photographer on the basis that Warhol had exceeded the license which Vanity Fair originally acquired, permitting the use of the image as a photo reference for a single illustration.
Kosh's Shadow
6/13/2021 8:13:17 AM
4
Reply to buzzsawmonkey in 1:
Thank you. My wife was more concerned than I was. And I don't think DMCA applies to analog recordings. Digital copies of digital recordings are identical to the original. Analog copies lose some fidelity and add noise, and digital copies of analog media loses something, too.
Plus, digital copies can be easily made and distributed.
This is why the RIAA never really went after friends copying each others' records to tape. One copy was at best one lost sale, not potentially thousands. In fact, when we did this in college, we'd just buy different albums instead of all getting the same ones, so some bands that were not at the top had some sales, too.
Kosh's Shadow
6/13/2021 8:15:43 AM
5
Reply to buzzsawmonkey in 1:
And based on this, I'll concentrate on the older ones; at least one Mickey Katz 78 was released in 1960.
Lots of comedy records, too.
A bit later today I'll upload two Molly Picon recordings, Tzu Fiel and Farges Mich Nit. I have to produce them in a youtube format first.
buzzsawmonkey
6/13/2021 8:19:56 AM
6
In #5 Kosh's Shadow said: A bit later today I'll upload two Molly Picon recordings
You get the opportunity to Picon choose...
buzzsawmonkey
6/13/2021 8:22:25 AM
7
Reply to Kosh's Shadow in 5:
I figure I've probably replicated the old James Thurber comment---"this told me more about penguins than I wanted to know"---but I wanted to try and give a short tutorial on all the various aspects of the music biz. I'm fortunate in that I mostly deal with visual artists, not musicians
Occasional Reader
6/13/2021 8:53:02 AM
8
Official “Pride” (whatever the fuck that means) Twitter account sends out image of “sending the beautiful person below this tweet lots of #Pride”; which looks more like an image of, well, something ISIS would approve:
And the Iranians love to play games with gays - the game of Hangman, while in the "Palestinian =" territories, gays can get stoned. (Maybe that explains "Queers for Palestine" - they think it involves pot./)
JCM
6/13/2021 9:42:14 AM
10
Reply to Occasional Reader in 8:
An idea what they intended to represent?
JCM
6/13/2021 9:44:45 AM
11
I'll bet you didn't know, COVID is a system to deliver vaccines.... Joe said so!
Whatever since we don't know what covid is why worry, we should just pray to Saint Fauci for guidance.
Kosh's Shadow
6/13/2021 11:28:05 AM
14
In #13 JCM said: Whatever since we don't know what covid is why worry, we should just pray to Saint Fauci for guidance.
You must follow the Faucists, or your social score will suffer. That is, your social media accounts may be blocked. The real CCP-style social scores will come later.
So far, everything else I've digitized is already on youtube, and with more professional equipment than I can afford.
Kosh's Shadow
6/13/2021 3:52:11 PM
23
Reply to Kosh's Shadow in 22:
But I'm digitizing it to hear music my parents and grandparents listened to (and I did, as well - I remember the Mickey Katz songs), not with putting them on youtube as the goal.
Occasional Reader
6/13/2021 3:52:57 PM
24
In #19 Occasional Reader said: So, Netanyahu is out, Bennett is in.
I would love to believe a guy who is former Sayeret Matkal & Maglan has his head screwed on right, but who knows.
Any thoughts on this? Frankly I just don’t know quite what to make of a former IDF commando, Bibi confidant and “hardline rightist”, who forms a coalition government that includes an Israeli Arab Islamist party.
But then, Israel isn't going to accept a government that gives in to the minimal "Palestinian" demands of destroying the Jewish rule over Israel.
Their two states are two Arab/Muslim states, in one of which Jews might be allowed to live as dhimmis.
Kosh's Shadow
6/13/2021 4:17:07 PM
26
In #24 Occasional Reader said: Any thoughts on this? Frankly I just don’t know quite what to make of a former IDF commando, Bibi confidant and “hardline rightist”, who forms a coalition government that includes an Israeli Arab Islamist party.
The biggest problem will be in handling illegal Arab construction.
buzzsawmonkey
6/13/2021 4:21:10 PM
27
In #19 Occasional Reader said: So, Netanyahu is out, Bennett is in.
JCM
6/12/2021 6:18:38 PM
Kosh's Shadow
6/13/2021 8:13:17 AM