[Dixielandjazz] Copyright issues

[G. William Oakley]

I have to assume most of the music being discussed falls under the old
copyright law which protected for a total of 28 years plus one year to apply
for a renewal and then another 28 years.  Works protectable are original
works (i.e. the composer) and the arranger of original works.  The arranger
is only protecting what he asctually contributed to the work.  He has no
position in the work itself.  The references to scammers is quite accurate.
ASCAP is a thuggish organization that is little better than the mob in their
operations and they attempt to claim everything is in their jurisdiction.
This includes "Happy Birthday."  I stopped using it in my theaters because
of ASCAP.  If you have a radio playing in your bar they will attempt to
charge you ASCAP fees. Publishing houses will carry things in their
catalogue as protected because few people ever call them on it.  They just
pay up because most assume they have to.  I won a decision over Samuel
French regarding the play Sherlock Holmes.  I knew it was in the public
domain but French carried it in their catalogue with a royalty of 50.00 per
performance.  God know how many people were duped into paying the royalty.
I wrote an adaptation of Gillett's original and produced it.  French came
after me and lost.  They still probably carry the play in their catalogue.

Perhaps the below will help clarify the issue.  It is from the Copyright
Office web site.

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registration if the work was registered in unpublished form.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.
Hope this helps;
G. William Oakley

----- Original Message -----
From: "Creole Dixieland Jazz Band" <dixielandjazz@myexcel.com>
To: "John Farrell" <stridepiano@tesco.net>; "DJML"
<dixielandjazz@ml.islandnet.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 12:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Dixielandjazz] Copyright issues


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Farrell" <stridepiano@tesco.net>
> To: "DJML" <dixielandjazz@ml.islandnet.com>
> Subject: [Dixielandjazz] Copyright issues
>
>
> > I too am confused about the question of royalties on recordings. Am I to
> > understand that there are two royalties payable on a recording - one to
> the
> > composer of the tune and the other on the recording itself?
> >
> > Like Jim Beebe, I have never paid either on any of my recordings and
doubt
> > if anybody would ever chase me for  money which they claim I might owe
> them.
> >
> > There is a strong smell of scam hanging over all this copyright
business.
> >
> > John Farrell
>
> John,
>
> Believe me, judging by the dozens of replies I've received on this issue,
> EVERYONE is confused. The opinions are numerous and widely varied but the
> known facts are few and far between. From what I've read and researched,
> chances are, everyone is right -- that tunes written before (about) 70
years
> ago are "public domain" and royalties need not be paid on them. But I
still
> can not find the actual written documentation proving this. And no wonder!
> Why would the ASCAP and Harry Fox sites make that specific information
> readily available? My guess is that there have been a number of people pay
> royalties when it wasn't necessary simply because there's no clear
> definition of the rules on those sites. A frustration.
>
> Dave
> =======================
> "It's a treat to beat your feet."
> The Creole Dixieland Jazz Band
> Dave Gravatt
> 417-581-5626
> www.CreoleJazz.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dixielandjazz mailing list
> Dixielandjazz@ml.islandnet.com
> http://ml.islandnet.com/mailman/listinfo/dixielandjazz