Log In
Register
8.04pm
18 May 2016
Offline
I sure wish copyright didn’t exist.
The following people thank sgtpepper63 for this post:
William Shears Campbell8.42pm
1 November 2013
Offline
That would mean the Beatles wouldn’t make money and wouldn’t make as much music.
The following people thank Starr Shine? for this post:
William Shears Campbell
2.50am
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Online 
sgtpepper63 said
I sure wish copyright didn’t exist.
Why?
It protects so much and so many.
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:
William Shears Campbell, Bullion"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
3.21pm
12 December 2019
Offline What else do you think has been the main motivation behind UMG offering all this rehashed product during this past decade (when the time lapse -under the old rules- was about to eclipse 50 years?): remastering the old material with a digital fingerprint to become, in essence, a “new” recording…so their legal department can (herein) nickel-and-dime every ounce of blood from the golden goose of all musical catalogs.
Now that it’s known what extensive damage the 2008 Universal fire did to their own library of master recordings (encapsulating, for example, the back catalogs of the vintage labels: Decca, MCA, Brunswick, Dunhill, A&M, Impulse, Command, Westminster, Motown, Geffen, MGM; among others)…they, certainly, couldn’t anymore proclaim some sort of prime and boutique treatment given-over to a future repackage of stuff they’d [once physically] controlled (because the public will have realized such a claim would be a total fraud; as, the “originals” most likely no longer exist).
There was a time actually, in the U.S., prior to 1972 regarding music-related copyright laws; when the situation was the totally opposite and -by current standards- so ridiculously lax that, it was considered: once a consumer purchased a sound recording, all the royalties issues of it were dealt with and paid for AND…the private consumer’s “ownership” of the physical media containing the recording was seen in a separate legal context from thinking the consumer was somehow expected to bear “responsibility” for the usage of the recording’s contents as well.
I will play the game Existence to the End ;)
7.50am
21 February 2024
Offline Quick question.
In 2067 Google says Beatles catalogue is Public domain (free use). This doesn’t quite make sense since 50s/early 60s songs should be exempted as their recording date goes out. (eg, Pinwheel Twist is PD when 1962 is). Also why is it that Beatles are together released, when obviously the film or album would be PD separate years? (Please Please Me in 1963 vs. White Album 1968)
And 2067, per copyright rule, 1971 is Public domain. Already solo work. And that leaves Now And Then exempted until the 22nd century.
Of course, that is considering 2 factors:
1) Copyright renewal holds, no expiration or failure to renew, regardless of studio or estate
2) copyright still exists in 2119.
The following people thank LucyInTheSkyWithHackneyDiamonds for this post:
OakwoodProject 2025
America is SAFE Again! 47
5.32pm
10 January 2024
Online I’m pretty sure the albums/songs would loose copyright individually. Not all at once. Like for example Disney lost copyright to Steamboat Willie last year but they didn’t loose the copyright to their other films that came out around the same time. They’ll loose the copyright to indiviually films when the specific year for a film passes. I don’t understand why the whole catalogue would enter the public domain all at once.
Also it’s important to keep in mind copyright laws (in the US) changed in 1978, meaning media made before them have different copyright rules (copyright renewal requests are different)
If I remeber correctly the shortest amount a pre-78 song/album can keep copyright is 75 years. The 75 years can be extented to about 95 if they apply for renewal/extention. Assuming we’re talking about their earliest album, Please Please Me , the copyright to the songs/album would last until roughly 2058 for that album respectively (Assuming that Apple extends the copyright for as long as they can).
Now if we start talking about post-1978 solo work copyright laws are different. The general rule is the copyright lasts 70 years after the last remaining authors death.
I’ll use Double Fantasy for my example. Double Fantasy was realised in 1980, Which happens to sadly be the same year John died, which means at the very least the album will stay out of the public domain until around 2050 at the very least. I am unaware if copyright can be extented after an authors death. (I didn’t take Yoko being a credited author on the album into account, In that case the copyright would last 70 years after she passes)
Now please keep in mind I am far from a legal expert, and my knowledge of copyright is rather primative. Also this is American copyright law I’m talking about. Every country has different copyright laws. (If my google ‘research’ is correct, Copyright laws in the UK say that copyright applys for 70 years. I am unaware if copyright can be extented and if it can how long it can be extended for.)
The following people thank Oakwood for this post:
LucyInTheSkyWithHackneyDiamondsI made this my signature to remind me not to change it constantly.
2.52am
30 August 2021
Offline LucyInTheSkyWithHackneyDiamonds said
Quick question.In 2067 Google says Beatles catalogue is Public domain (free use). This doesn’t quite make sense since 50s/early 60s songs should be exempted as their recording date goes out. (eg, Pinwheel Twist is PD when 1962 is). Also why is it that Beatles are together released, when obviously the film or album would be PD separate years? (Please Please Me in 1963 vs. White Album 1968)
And 2067, per copyright rule, 1971 is Public domain. Already solo work. And that leaves Now And Then exempted until the 22nd century.
Of course, that is considering 2 factors:
1) Copyright renewal holds, no expiration or failure to renew, regardless of studio or estate
2) copyright still exists in 2119.
Individual items would enter PD gradually, so I assume that 2067 is the date when the final piece falls into place so that the whole catalog is available. Although, presumably, that still wouldn’t include the reunion tracks.
"Nothing is Beatle-proof."
3.12am
7 November 2022
Offline Speaking of copyrights, as far as I know, titles of works of art like songs or novels or movies, etc., are not copyrightable. That means that theoretically I could write and publish a song today called Hey Jude — with different melody and lyrics of course — and I could get away with it legally.
The following people thank Sea Belt for this post:
OakwoodNow today I find, you have changed your mind
1 Guest(s)