|
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.
|
Kosh's Shadow
6/6/2021 4:48:14 PM
@PBJ3
6/12/2021 5:54:43 PM