[Dixielandjazz] Copyrights

[G. William Oakley]

Technically, Steve, you had one day less than 57 years.  The law was written
to give you one year to renew, thus if you waited you could get 57 years.
Regards,
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Barbone" <barbonestreet@earthlink.net>
To: "Dixieland Jazz Mailing List" <dixielandjazz@ml.islandnet.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 3:42 PM
Subject: [Dixielandjazz] Copyrights


> Dave Gravett printed the Copyright Law:
>
> 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 registration if the work was registered in unpublished form.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.
>
> Public Law 102-307 makes renewal registration optional. Thus, filing for
>
> renewal registration is no longer required in order to extend the
> original
> 28-year copyright term to the full 95 years. However, some benefits
> accrue
> from making a renewal registration during the 28th year of the original
> term.
>
> For more detailed information on renewal of copyright and the copyright
> term, request Circular 15, "Renewal of Copyright"; Circular 15a,
> "Duration
> of Copyright"; and Circular 15t, "Extension of Copyright Terms."
> ==========
>
> So? What about our tunes written/published in the 1920s? Do we pay
> royalties
> or not? Anyone have an idea? What's your interpretation of these
> paragraphs?
>
> Thanks, again. Trying to do the right thing,
>
> Dave and Listmates:
>
> Caution, I am not a practicing attorney but I think it means that if a
> tune possessed a valid copyright in 1978 it is automatically protected
> for 95 years from the date of registration.
>
> Except that to have been valid in 1978, the farthest (or furthest) back
> it could go is 28 year original copyright plus a 28 year renewal, if
> made. 28 plus 28 equals 56 years. 1978 minus 56 equals 1922, Thus IMO
> everything prior to 1922 is in public domain. Everything after 1922, if
> it had a valid copyright in 1978, is now automatically protected for 95
> years.
>
> CAUTION, THE ABOVE IS NOT AN ATTORNEY'S OPINION.
>
> On the practical side, consider JBB's advice, fuggetaboudit and find a
> CD duplicator who is not so particular. Or, failing that, do what jazz
> men have done for years, list yourself as the composer and change the
> name of the tune. ;-)
>
> Like how many "Bill Baileys" are there?   (Tiger Rag, Washington & Lee
> Swing, Bourbon Street Parade etc. Did they pay royalties to Bill Bailey
> composers?
>
> Or Donna Lee, (Indiana) Hot House (Whispering) etc.
>
> The owner of Savoy records, a notorious cheapskate, in the 40s and 50s
> never recorded an existing tune where he had to pay royalties. He just
> had all those bop cats rename the tune. Notorious example is Bird's
> "KoKo", which is simply a tune written on the chords of "Cherokee". Or
> Monk's "Bright Mississippi" which is a thinly disguised "Sweet Georgia
> Brown" or his "Hackensack" which is really "Lady Be Good"
>
> Like JBB said, the record producers just bought these tunes from the
> musos for $50 bucks, made it back by shorting them on the session fee
> and pumped out the records, making their own fortunes.
>
> Cheers,
> Steve Barbone
>
> PS. Do any of us pay performance royalties on "Happy Birthday" which is
> still protected?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dixielandjazz mailing list
> Dixielandjazz@ml.islandnet.com
> http://ml.islandnet.com/mailman/listinfo/dixielandjazz