Re: [ARSCLIST] Brunswick Records rights/Universal

[James L Wolf <jwol@xxxxxxx>]

Steven C. Barr wrote:
"However, in this case Archeophone is (or assumes it is) placing someone
else's (i.e. the owners of the copyrights on the records they reissue)
material in the public domain! I would suppose the legal question here
is whether their reprocessed sounds are different from the originals?"

AFAIK, the issues of reprocessing and digital mastering don't have any bearing on the laws protecting the original recording. It's true that new transfers and processings can be copyrighted, but only as such, i.e. they only protect that specific remastering, not the underlying recording. I believe Archeophone does copyright its transfers. But the bold, or savvy, thing they did was to declare the original recordings to be in the public domain.

Does anyone know the Illinois laws for sound recording, or if there may be some access to them on-line? As was demonstrated by the NY Appeals Court, Archeophone's operations would be entirely illegal if the company was based in NY, whose sound-recording protections last in perpetuity or until Congress voids them (supposedly 2067). I know that some states, like Colorado, have much more lax laws with terms like 50 years.

Then of course there's the question: If Archeophone is legal to operate in Illinois, are the CDs still legal to sell in NY? I think NY would have to decide this, since all pre-72 recording are not under federal jurisdiction. I'm no lawyer, but I'm guessing the whole interstate commerce issue wouldn't apply here unless the state of Illinois decided to sue the state of NY over Archeophone (or vice versa), which seems unlikely.

James

Once again, all opinions personal, not of LOC, etc.