|
|
||
Dave's Top Eight
1. Jerry Reed...Revisited by Darrell Toney (reviewed 6/07) (5 Stars) Click title to purchase at CBD.com...click artist name to read Dave's Review. A CD will automatically fall out of the Top Eight after twelve months if no CD surpasses it before then.
|
Most Recent Articles
Why blog? (Three years and counting)
| ||
-----------April 28, 2007Copyright Duration: Details and Oddities Below, I'm essentially reprinting an entry that I wrote on the Singing News message boards just now. I spent so much time on it, I thought I may as well post it here where other readers could see it. The question was asked initially about the legality of modifying lyrics. This morphed into a discussion about the duration of copyright. I had responded at one point, but later found out I had at least one mis-conception of my own. I knew the current term for copyrights was the life of the author plus 70 years, and that on songs published prior to 1978 (when the law changed completely), the period was 95 years. My mistake was in assuming that 95 years applied to all songs dating back 95 years...it doesn't...not yet. By the way, the message board thread title for this is "Question for Smart People," so I just naturally assume they're seeking MY help. :o) They may not have wanted quite this much in the way of worrisome detail, though. Unfortunately, complication is part of the game when it comes to law. Let's jump into the conversation where Daniel Mount asks: "So are you saying everything released over 75 years ago--i.e., 1931 and older--is PD?" No, I was saying that all songs over 95 (1911) years old are in the public domain. The Sonny Bono act added a 20 year extension to pre-1978 songs in 1998. As it turns out, though, that isn't exactly correct. The magic date is 1922, and it will be the magic date for a number of years. Right now, we're in a freeze period of 20 years while the 1998 extension runs its course. I'll work through the example you mentioned first. Assuming 1928 is the first year "Give The World A Smile" was PUBLISHED or REGISTERED (which may not necessarily be the year it was written), it would have held a 28 year copyright initially, taking it to 1956. At that point, it could have been renewed for another 28 years, which means it would have expired in 1984. I should interject here that beginning in 1962, the renewal term began to grow a bit each year, leading up to the 1976 copyright act. This did not have an effect on "Give The World A Smile," since it was renewed in 1956. In 1976, an entirely new way of dealing with copyright was approved. The 1976 copyright act did not go into effect until 1978. It preempted existing law. One thing it did was fix the renewal term for all works prior to 1978 at 47 years, so for our example, you must go back to 1956 and add 47 rather than 28. At this point in history, "Give The World A Smile" would have expired in 2003. Then along comes the 20-year extension of 1998, and as it sits right now, "Give The World A Smile" is good through 2023...95 years. Now, here's why the magic year is 1922 rather than 1911. I did some research and you are correct that any song that had already expired before 1998 did NOT get a 20 year extension. Here what the law states: "304. Duration of copyright: Subsisting copyrights (a) Copyrights in Their First Term on January 1, 1978. — (1)(A) Any copyright, in the first term of which is subsisting on January 1, 1978, shall endure for 28 years from the date it was originally secured." "(2)(A) At the expiration of the original term of copyright in a work specified in paragraph (1)(B) of this subsection, the copyright shall endure for a renewed and extended further term of 67 years, which —" "(b) Copyrights in Their Renewal Term at the Time of the Effective Date of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act.7 — Any copyright still in its renewal term at the time that the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act becomes effective shall have a copyright term of 95 years from the date copyright was originally secured." (I've cut and pasted the pertinent parts only. All this comes from the federal government's own website.) It's simply a long way of saying any song published before 1978 that hasn't entered public domain will have a 95 year term. This means that any song published in 1922 or earlier would have to be in public domain now. A song published in 1922 would have expired in 1997 under what was the existing 75 year maximum of the law in 1997. ---------------------------------- Now for another wrinkle...PUBLISH date is more important than WRITTEN or CREATION date of a work. The 1998 act stipulated that a song written but not published or registered before 1978 gets the current copyright protection of the life of the author plus 70 years. This means you could find some song your great-granny had written in 1930, register it, and claim royalties off of it for another 70 years after the date of her death. To wrinkle the wrinkle a bit further, if she died in 1931, you would think the copyright's maximum life for a work that hadn't been registered until, say, 2002, would already be over...since the 70 years were up. Nope...you could have registered the song in 2002 and still got protection on it through 2047! For that matter, it didn't have to be written in 1930. It could have been written and lain undiscovered for centuries. If you registered it by 2002, you got protection until 2047. Why this odd language was added to the law is a great mystery that I will never understand. It's so specific, it had to have been written so that some particular entity could benefit from it. What other rational explanation can there be? Someone must have had a stash of unpublished songs they figured would have potential market value, and they somehow convinced Congress to add this peculiar 4-year window during which they could register those works and take advantage of 45-49 years of copyright protection on songs they themselves didn't even write and that the songwriters didn't bother to publish. Weird stuff. ---------------------------------- By the way, if you're curious about anonymous, pseudonymous, and "work for hire" terms, those get 95 years from the first year of publication OR 120 years from the year of creation, whichever expires first. This doesn't give anyone who steals a song protection, though it may seem that way when you first read the law. If the anonymous or pseudonymous writer lays claim to their song once it's published, then the current copyright law of the author's life plus 70 years goes into effect. A work for hire songwriter could obviously dispute the claim that they wrote the song on a "for hire" basis, if in fact, they didn't. ---------------------------------- One final note. I'm obviously NOT a lawyer, so don't take any of this as legal advice...it's just what I understand the law to say. Labels: Copyright Law, Observations, Other Forums, Singing News April 2, 2007SG Artists: Required ReadingNick Bruno's column at SoGospelNews should be required reading for every aspiring Southern Gospel artist, as well as many who already view themselves as full-time professionals. Click HERE right now! It's all about recording...including what is proper in a contract, what a "contract" really means, etc. Labels: Observations, Other Forums March 12, 2007Where Musicscribe Draws The LineSusan Unthank sparked a good discussion a few weeks ago that's still underway. The topic began as "What Do You Want To Read," but has since morphed into "Where Do You Draw The Line" when it comes to reporting negative news. If it's some bit of news that may be perceived as negative, I draw the line at verifying the facts. This doesn't mean I necessarily wait for a press release to be issued. I've been known to pose questions without waiting to be spoon fed. After the facts are confirmed, I then try to apply the "What Would Jesus Do?" principle. I also ask myself, "Would I say this if the parties being discussed were in the same room?" (Of course, I'm not particularly shy. Some things I might say to a person, another person might not.) There's another extreme I also make every effort to avoid. Just as there is a line between reporting negative news and gossip/rumor, there's also a line between positive news and sensationalism. That's why you'll rarely see me quote a press release word for word. I should also point out that one major difference between Musicscribe and pure news reporting is that we're more about opinions. Daniel Britt or I may allude to a news story or even break news on rare occasions, but it's usually so we can add our own opinion to what has transpired. I don't lose any sleep if we get scooped, because reporting the news isn't really our first concern. Labels: Observations, Other Forums February 23, 2007If They Merged...They're up and running on the Singing News forums with more group name mashups. Click HERE to see what they have so far. Click HERE to see my blog post that started it. Labels: Other Forums 
| |||
Who's Blogging?
Contributors
Blog Search
Talk Back
Useful Links
Discuss SG
Quicklinks
Advice, Audio, Audio, Audiobooks, biography, CCM, CD Reviews, Concert Reviews, Discographies, Dove Awards, DVD Reviews, Fan Awards, History, Housekeeping, Humor, In The News, Interviews, Limericks, Group Members, Movies, NQC, Obituary, Observations, Odds And Ends, Old Clips, Other Blogs, Other Forums, Podcasts, Praise And Worship, Sad But True, Shopping Tales, Singing News, Song Clips, TV Shows, XM News, YouTube,
Archives
- September 2004
- October 2004
- November 2004
- December 2004
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
Copyright
- All textual content posted at Musicscribe.com and subfolders is owned and copyrighted by David Bruce Murray unless otherwise indicated. No reprints may be made without the permission of the author, except as provided by US Copyright law. Permission is granted to reprint articles on other non-commercial websites only as long as the following conditions are met:
1) All articles must be reprinted in full with no editing or additions
2) The words "by David Bruce Murray" must be displayed prominently with each reprinted article.
3) A link to the original article at Musicscribe.com must accompany all reprints. If your site meets these requirements, you may reprint articles without requesting additional permission from the author.The copyright of all content posted by Musicscribe.com contributors other than David Bruce Murray is retained by the original authors.