5 ms·
The music is in the public domain, but the copyright status of recordings of music in the US is very complex. For example: "In 2005 the landmark case of Capito
by herodotus 7y ago
The music is in the public domain, but the copyright status of recordings of music in the US is very complex. For example:
"In 2005 the landmark case of Capitol v. Naxos pitted a distributor of 1930s foreign classical recordings (Naxos) against the putative holder of the U.S. rights to those recordings. The judges of the New York State Court of Appeals ruled against Naxos, but they used the opportunity to go much further than that. They declared that since New York State had not passed explicit statutes dealing with recording copyright, it was in fact governed by “common law” (i.e., law declared by judges in their rulings). In their opinion sound recording copyright in New York derived from the laws of seventeenth-century English kings. It was absolute and perpetual. The rights holders have all rights, forever, and the public has none." (Capitol Records, Inc., v. Naxos of America, Inc., 830 N.E. 2d 250 (N.Y. App. 2005).)
See: https://recordingcopyright.org/pdf/AMuscop_fnl.pdf https://recordingcopyright.org/pdf/AMuscop_fnl.pdf
Therefore, it is illegal to copy and distribute an old recording of Rhapsody in Blue if the recording was made in the US.
- lonelappde 7y agoAh, New York Court of Appeals. Where can I buy a copy 17th Century English sound recording? And since this is common law, why haven't any other courts given their own alternate common law? Deferring to English law is bizarre, considering that the Constitution was written specifically to replace English law, including a specific Copyright clause, and backed by a war against England.
- HeWhoLurksLate 7y agoHas me wondering, too. What?
- herodotus 7y agoMy understanding is that copyright of US sound recordings are governed at the state rather than federal level. Say you wanted to create an App or website for classic early recordings - you would have to get permission from all 50 states plus DC, and other territories in oder to proceed! Good luck with that. However, recordings made in Europe prior to 1961 are in the public domain. In 2011, EU copyright was extended from 50 years to 70 years, but this did not apply to any recording that was already in the public domain.
- radeklew 7y agoWhat's the 52nd state? I'm assuming DC is treated as the 51st, is the 52nd the federal government? (sorry if it's a typo, I'm asking in good faith)
- zrail 7y agoAlmost all of the states, as well as the federal government, separately adopted and modified English common law as the basis for their bodies of law. The only exception is Louisiana which adopted French and Spanish style Civil law. The Constitution isn’t a legal system in and of itself. Rather it sets out a system of government and gives one branch the power to make laws, another to execute them and veto new ones, and a third to supervise and rule on those laws (including setting up a court system).
- Mindwipe 7y ago> Deferring to English law is bizarre, considering that the Constitution was written specifically to replace English law, including a specific Copyright clause, and backed by a war against England. Err, I've got bad news for you about a lot of law.
- matheusmoreira 7y ago> It was absolute and perpetual. The rights holders have all rights, forever, and the public has none. Current situation is not much better to be honest.
- incompatible 7y agoAt least you can get some musical instruments / synthesizers and make your own recording.
- Freak_NL 7y agoOr just break the law by ignoring unreasonable copyright claims. Copyright on a recording from the 1930s is not beneficial to the public in any way. This approach of course comes with the risk of becoming the next Jammie Thomas.
- VWWHFSfQ 7y agoJammie Thomas wasn't distributing copyrighted works from the 1930s
- irrational 7y agoThat only applies in New York, right?
- wtallis 7y ago> They declared that since New York State had not passed explicit statutes dealing with recording copyright, it was in fact governed by “common law” How did the court justify that conclusion over the more obvious conclusion that copyright—including of recordings—is governed by federal law with a constitutional requirement for time limits?
- vilhelm_s 7y agoThe linked document explains this, but it's because there is no federal copyright law for pre-1972 sound recordings. Before 1972 there was no federal copyright law for sound recordings, and then congress did not want to change the state-law copyright status of recordings made before the federal law was passed, so it was intentionally left non-preempted so that state law applies.
- chrismcb 7y agoThat sounds unconstitutional to me.
- CGamesPlay 7y agoWhich part of the constitution do you think invalidates the ruling?
- brianbterry 7y agoArticle 1 Section 8 Clause 8
- jkaplowitz 7y agoThat provision grants Congress the power to pass copyright laws with limited durations, but where they choose not to exercise that power (as they had not for pre-1972 sound recordings until 2018's Classics Protection and Access Act) or to pre-empt the states' ability to rule or legislate on the topic, the states can do exactly what they could without that provision.
- FBT 7y agoIf this were in a Commerce Clause context, Congress' decision not to act on a given matter still wouldn't allow the states to restrict or legislate on interstate commerce, by the principle of the "Dormant Commerce Clause". By analogy, I could imagine a "Dormant Copyright Clause" doctrine, meaning that the states shouldn't have the power to legislate copyright other than in whatever contexts the Federal government explicitly leaves to them. This is all theory, of course. But actual case law does say something at least similar. See for instance Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., a case in which the Supreme Court said (in the context of patents) that the Constitution reserves the power over them to the Federal Government exclusively, and that the states can't give patent protection to something that Federal law doesn't protect.
- beerandt 7y ago