TubeNet

I don't understand...work in the pipeline...

Bill died in 1971...the tuba world still is waiting...

There has GOT to be MORE to this story...

But TUBACHRISTMAS lives!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who is benefitting?????????

Travelman wrote:I don't understand...work in the pipeline...

Bill died in 1971...the tuba world still is waiting...

There has GOT to be MORE to this story...

But TUBACHRISTMAS lives!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who is benefitting?????????

I believe you know. The answer is obvious.

One night I was at the TubaRanch with Harvey Phillips and Arnold Jacobs. The conversation drifted towards what music was available for the tuba 50 years ago. At that time there was no serious music, just pieces like "Billy Blowhard." Mr Jacobs commented that it took someone like Harvey Phillips to come along and influence composers to write for the tuba. Today there is a wide assortment of music written for the tuba and we can have to thank Harvey Phillips for that.

harold wrote:Yes - it falls outside the jurisdiction of this act. The original was 28 years after the death of Bill Bell thus the recording became public domain in 1997. This act only protects works that were still covered by the existing copyright in 1998.

Are you willing to bet your malpractice liability on that?

I think that there is no denying that Harvey IS extremely talented......not only is he a great tubist/musician, but he also has an even more unique gift for seeing things that don't exist, and making them materialize! We all have benefited from his imagination.

Having said that, I think that the terminology of "promotional machine", is merely a semantic issue.

harold wrote:

I bear no malice toward Harold, whoever he may be, but I do feel a strong need to correct a patently false statement from an individual who has no grounds on which to base such a statement.

The recording is protected by the US copyright laws that are in effect at THE TIME OF THE RECORDING. While current copyright law allows protection for 75 years after the death of the copyright holder, this was not the case when the recording was released. Once Golden Crest became defunct, the rights would have reverted back to Bill Bell who died in 1969. Given the 30 year protection available at the time of the recording, it became public domain in 1999.

While not unsympathetic on the subject of playing music of Christmas, I have to correct you on this statement. The Copyright Act of 1978, and its subsequent revisions, applied to ALL works that were not yet in the public domain when the act went into effect.

In fact, it does not matter when Mr. Bell died, if he did not own the copyright in the first place. I'm quite sure that he had a contract with Golden Crest that would given them the copyright. This is demanded by most publishers in return for publication, distribution, and royalties. The contract might have "rented" the copyright, and there may be provisions in it for what happens in any number of possible scenarios. You'd have to have the contract to know for sure.

Before 1978, copyrights provided protection to the holder for a renewable 28-year period, from the time of creation. Before 1978, the death date of the author had no bearing on the copyright period. Assuming the copyright was renewed, it would be in force for 56 years after the date of creation. If it was still under copyright protection by 1979 when the law went into effect, it would be protected by the new law, which provided protection for 75 years after the death of the author (or after the date of creation if the author is anonymous). Thus, the recording would have had to pass into the public domain before 1979. That means it would have had to be created before 1923 if the copyright was renewed or 1951 if it wasn't. I think we can assume it was renewed. Thus, it would be under copyright protection at least until 2044, except that I think Congress has extended the protection period to a longer term (90 years?).

Thus, your statements that this recording is in the public domain don't jibe with my understanding of copyright law.

The copyright owner should be able to take whatever time he chooses to release or not release material, whether or not it is "important". If there is demand and the project is delayed, there will be loss of revenue, but that is a business decisions. I vigorously defend property rights, including copyrights. On this subject, if the HPF is the copyright holder, then it's entirely their call and all we can do is make requests to demonstrate a willing market (this has worked before, by the way, in encouraging the re-release of the CSO low brass CD).

Rick "opposed, however, to the heavy hand when it is not legally justified" Denney

Rick, the Copyright law of 1909 stipulated that copyrights took effect from the date of publication, not creation. This can have a significant effect on copyright.

For example, Gershwin's "Lullaby" for string quartet was written sometime around 1919. Had Gershwin published it then, it would be in the public domain today.

But it was discovered among his papers after his death and not published until 1967 and is still very much protected by copyright.

Oddly, the aria "Has One of You Seen Joe?" from the opera "Blue Monday" which uses the same melody, is most certainly in the public domain.

FYI: http://www.pdinfo.com/

Sound Recording Rule of Thumb: There are NO sound recordings in the Public Domain.

There are, of course, exceptions to everything, and there really are some PD sound recordings. However, the federal and state laws are so tangled and complicated, it is extremely difficult to do confident sound recording PD research. There are several U.S. web sites claiming that sound recordings made in the United States prior to February 15, 1972, are in the public domain, and there are links to U.S. Copyright Office publications stating: "Sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, are not eligible for Federal copyright protection." We have had this reviewed independently by several attorneys across the U.S. Each has confidently and independently told us that between federal and state copyright protection, virtually all sound recordings are protected until the year 2067.

If you choose to believe pre-1972 sound recordings are in the public domain and choose to use them publically, you are subjecting yourself to a high probability of legal proceedings, financial liability, and major legal fees. We consider it absolutely imperative that you consult with an attorney before exposing yourself to this kind of risk. Don't even think about research in this area without major help from an attorney or rights clearance organization.

OTOH, you're pretty darned safe that anything published in the US 1923 and earlier is PD. That includes sound recordings. So I'm perfectly safe dubbing my old Earl Fuller jazz shellac 78's to CD.

...if I wanted to do such a thing...

Chuck(G) wrote:OTOH, you're pretty darned safe that anything published in the US 1923 and earlier is PD. That includes sound recordings. So I'm perfectly safe dubbing my old Earl Fuller jazz shellac 78's to CD.

...if I wanted to do such a thing...

Actually, I believe the magic year would be 1922, with nothing new going into the public domain until 2017. Personally, I believe the U.S. copyright laws are both convoluted and outside the original intent of copyright laws.

TubaRay wrote:Actually, I believe the magic year would be 1922, with nothing new going into the public domain until 2017. Personally, I believe the U.S. copyright laws are both convoluted and outside the original intent of copyright laws.

Well, let's see--the Sonny Bono extension act was October 1998 and a copyright had to be in effect on October 27, 1998 to be eligible for the extension to 95 years. Under the 1978 "normalization" in response to the Uruguay Round GATT agreements, copyrights still in effect on January 1, 1978 were given a length of 75 years. So, October 27, 1998 - 75 years give you October 27, 1923.

So a work published on October 26, 1923 would be in the Public Domain.

At least that's how I read the law:

http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/pl ... query.html|

Now, if someone would please explain Title II of the act to me, I'd really appreciate it.

Rick Denney wrote:I think Congress has extended the protection period to a longer term (90 years?).

90 years!? That's a darn long time.

At this rate, I'll never get the Torchinsky Shostakovich books....