Rare 1960's James Brown Reel to Reel from Arthur Smith Studios found
Barry Guerin
an estate of a producer. It seems like this could have a lot of potential
if what is on here has never been heard before. If anyone could point me
in any direction on the best way to sell it, I would be most grateful.
Thanks
Scott Dorsey
What is it?
Is it a quarter track demo or a master?
Why not listen to it?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
EggHd
if what is on here has never been heard before. >>
A couple of issues to be aware of. One is that you have no rights to the name
and likeness of James Brown so it will be hard to sell commercially.
Another is that if James Brown was under an exclusive recording contract at the
time the performance rights belong to them.
If the rights have reverted back to James brown, the commercial use belongs to
him.
There is a reason that this person you got it from didn't exploit this tape.
On the other hand, if the label that owns the rights to the performance doesn't
have a good copy, they may buy it from you.
It's hard to tell what you have and what it is worth.
---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"
Ray Thomas
>
> Why not listen to it?
> --scott
.......make sure you degauss your tape path and ensure it's not shedding
oxide first....!
Ray
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:c41mft$9c6$1...@panix2.panix.com...
hank alrich
> << It seems like this could have a lot of potential
> if what is on here has never been heard before. >>
> A couple of issues to be aware of. One is that you have no rights to the
> name and likeness of James Brown so it will be hard to sell commercially.
> Another is that if James Brown was under an exclusive recording contract
> at the time the performance rights belong to them.
> If the rights have reverted back to James brown, the commercial use belongs to
> him.
> There is a reason that this person you got it from didn't exploit this tape.
> On the other hand, if the label that owns the rights to the performance
> doesn't have a good copy, they may buy it from you.
> It's hard to tell what you have and what it is worth.
So basicly you're saying poserssion is nine-tenths of possession.
--
ha
hank alrich
You want to find Mr. Brown's manager or music biz attorney and inform of
what you have. Have you listened to it? If not, do so. Then provide
them, in your first communication, with a list of what's on it, and tell
them from whom and how you got it.
You most likely have no legal right to exploit the material commercially
beyond selling it to Mr. Brown or his agents or to whatever entity
controls the rights to the music.
--
ha
EggHd
Great, I have to go look up a word
Mike Rivers
Put it up on eBay with an enticing description, start the bids at
$2,000, and you should hear rather promptly from the attorney of
whoever owns James Brown's material. Also, expect the auction to be
cancelled.
--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mri...@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
hank alrich
> << o basicly you're saying poserssion is nine-tenths of possession. >>
>
> Great, I have to go look up a word
Because of my typo? <G>
So basicly you're saying possession is nine-tenths of possession.
Whew. Idiots ±R Us.
--
ha
Paul Rubin
> > I was wondering if anyone could help me out. I purchased this reel from
> > an estate of a producer. It seems like this could have a lot of potential
> > if what is on here has never been heard before. If anyone could point me
> > in any direction on the best way to sell it, I would be most grateful.
>
> Put it up on eBay with an enticing description, start the bids at
> $2,000, and you should hear rather promptly from the attorney of
> whoever owns James Brown's material. Also, expect the auction to be
> cancelled.
Why should the auction be cancelled, if the person acquired the tape
lawfully?
neil.he...@sbcglobal.netnospam
news:7xzna3h...@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
I think it's more about how the tape was acquired not just by this
particular person - who may have indeed bought it from the previous owner -
but how it became "available' in the first place. Every recording contract
states that the label owns the masters, and if this can be defined as a
master, or even a safety copy thereof, then the label that "owns" it under
contract can claim that it's a stolen version. Or as a couple of people
have pointed out, it could be owned by James Brown's management company or
some other entity, if the ownership of the masters had been transferred
(legally) at some point.
For example, you can of course buy a CD & then turn around & sell it, give
it away, whatever (assming you haven't made a copy of all of it or part of
it) and that's perfectly legal... it's more a matter of that particular
performance/product that happens to be on that tape. The rightful owners of
that master or performace are the only ones that have the right to exploit
it or not exploit it, as they see fit.
Without knowing what's on the tape, however, it's impossible to say what
the guy who's got it can do with it... heck, it could be blank, for all he
knows.
--
Neil Henderson
Progressive Rock
http://www.saqqararecords.com
Phil Brown
>lawfully?
Because while the physical tape may belong to this person the rights to exploit
the program material do not.
Phil Brown
Mike Rivers
In article <7xzna3h...@ruckus.brouhaha.com> //phr...@NOSPAM.invalid writes:
> Why should the auction be cancelled, if the person acquired the tape
> lawfully?
He may have made a legitimate business transaction - paid money and
received the tape - but how does he know that the person who sold it
to him had the right to own, or sell it? If you buy a microphone that
turns out to have been stolen and it's traced back to you, while you
might not go to jail, you'll probably be out some money unless an
insurance company reimburses you. In the case of intellectual property
(the tape stock itself is immaterial), things can get complicated if
it's legitimately the work of a well known artist.
The reason I suggested that the auction might be cancelled is that if
an attorney contacts the seller, he probably will also contact eBay,
and eBay would rather not get involved, so they cancel the auction and
ask questions later.
EggHd
Whew. Idiots ±R Us. >>
I really thought it was a word. i was going to look it up today. Doop e do.
EggHd
believe it would slip though the cracks either way.
Mike Rivers
In article <72h9c.2547$x83....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com> neil.he...@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM writes:
> Every recording contract
> states that the label owns the masters
Not every one, but likely every one of the real James Brown's during a
period when a recording may have become "lost" and then "found."
> Without knowing what's on the tape, however, it's impossible to say what
> the guy who's got it can do with it... heck, it could be blank, for all he
> knows.
Or it could be someone imitating James Brown.
Paul Rubin
What rights are those? In what way is selling a lawfully acquired
tape "exploiting the program material"? It's no different than
selling a used book or LP, to which the seller has no special rights
other than having lawfully acquired it.
Someone else brought up the possibility that whoever sold the tape in
the first place didn't really own it, in which case the transfer
wasn't legitimate, and that would indeed be a problem. That's a
different issue though.
Paul Rubin
> He may have made a legitimate business transaction - paid money and
> received the tape - but how does he know that the person who sold it
> to him had the right to own, or sell it? If you buy a microphone that
> turns out to have been stolen and it's traced back to you, while you
> might not go to jail, you'll probably be out some money unless an
> insurance company reimburses you. In the case of intellectual property
> (the tape stock itself is immaterial), things can get complicated if
> it's legitimately the work of a well known artist.
Yeah, it would take a while to get that situation straightened out.
I don't know what label that would be, but I wonder if it's even still
around after all these years. The big ones are of course still around
in one form or another, but lots of small ones simply vanish.
james
Paul Rubin <http://phr...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>philc...@aol.communged (Phil Brown) writes:
>> >Why should the auction be cancelled, if the person acquired the tape
>> >lawfully?
>>
>> Because while the physical tape may belong to this person the rights
>> to exploit the program material do not.
>
>What rights are those? In what way is selling a lawfully acquired
>tape "exploiting the program material"? It's no different than
>selling a used book or LP, to which the seller has no special rights
>other than having lawfully acquired it.
Error. The book was published. The copyright owner chose to distribute
it in a particular medium.
The book analogy doesn't really work. Say you're cleaning out a cabin
in Maine, and you happen to find a stack of papers that is a piece of a
Stephen King manuscript. You might actually own the stack of papers,
but that doesn't necessarily give you the right to distribute or even
transfer the creative work that's on those papers.
So, it behooves you to know precisely what's on this tape, when it was
recorded, what agreements existed at the time, and whether any
distribution rights have passed to you along with the medium.
It's too late to anonymously inject the material into the community, but
that might be a strategy in a case like this, if it's legal to do it in
your country. Another option might be to identify the material, and
offer to sell the master or destroy it if the owner isn't interested.
If you really think this thing might be worth more than the equivalent
value of a "second" tape reel, and if you aren't absolutely clear about
what rights are attached to the contents, you really should consult a
lawyer who deals with entertainment issues. Who knows, it might
*already* be ugly, since you've told the world you have a James Brown
master. He's having an upturn in popularity lately -- playing Vegas
at $375 a head, out of prison, etc. He's not getting any younger
either. When the Godfather of Soul goes to the Heaven Jam, your tape
might be a whole lot more interesting...
If it was me, I'd have been tempted to transfer it to a simpler medium
and play it once in a while... "Hey, here's a James Brown master that
nobody's ever heard"
james
EggHd <eg...@aol.com> wrote:
>Interesting if the one sale really rises to anything unlawful. I tend to
>believe it would slip though the cracks either way.
There's a world of difference between transfer of the media, and
distribution of the content.
rickymix
Actually, I like the term; "Poserssion". I thought it was a Hankism.
:>) Rick.
(hank alrich) wrote ...
> EggHd <eg...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > << so basicly you're saying poserssion is nine-tenths of possession. >>
rickymix
out if he has another Troggs tape or Buddy Rich tape. If so, the
second thing he absolutely MUST do is to give us all a copy, and then
thirdly contact Rhino Records. Some things are more important than
the Law. :>)
Rick.
eg...@aol.com (EggHd) wrote...
Paul Rubin
> The book analogy doesn't really work. Say you're cleaning out a cabin
> in Maine, and you happen to find a stack of papers that is a piece of a
> Stephen King manuscript. You might actually own the stack of papers,
> but that doesn't necessarily give you the right to distribute or even
> transfer the creative work that's on those papers.
I can see how your ownership of the stack of papers might be disputed.
But if it's not disputed, why on earth can't you sell it on ebay?
hank alrich
> Hi guys!
> Actually, I like the term; "Poserssion". I thought it was a Hankism.
> :>) Rick.
It could become that if we kin git it spelt rite: poseression. That's
the ticket. It means to pretend to have something that really isn't
yours. <g>
--
ha
hank alrich
> << So basicly you're saying possession is nine-tenths of possession.
>
> Whew. Idiots ±R Us. >>
>
> I really thought it was a word. i was going to look it up today. Doop e do.
You give me too much credit.
--
ha
james
Paul Rubin <http://phr...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
>I can see how your ownership of the stack of papers might be disputed.
>But if it's not disputed, why on earth can't you sell it on ebay?
First, I'm not a lawyer, but I have studied law. My opinions are
only nominally "informed", and this subject is sticky enough that
there might not be just one answer.
It's not a simple question, and it would be unwise not to cosult a
lawyer with it, who should obviously be experienced with entertainment
issues. It makes a difference whether the recording was made before
1968, before 1978 (and before 1995, or before 1909, not relevant of
course).
The first question is, when the recording first changed hands, was there
an agreement that the transferee was given complete or limited authority
to distribute the work. That would constitute "publication", which
means, this tape is a published work. The interpretation of copyright
law regarding ownership and transfer by lease, gift, sale, etc., is
different if the work is published or unpublished, and also varies
depending on the dates in question. It really gets complicated if a
work is made during one era of law, and published under another.
If it's older than 1976, and was never published (the original artist
never affirmatively approved distribution or delegated that authority),
then the original artist still has the sole authority of distribution.
(Basically, James Brown could get wind of this and could get a court
order saying the tape must be destroyed.)
You may own the tape, and you can surely listen to the waves on the
tape, but depending on how it got to you, you might not have any right
to pass it on to another person. It might behoove you to know all the
rights, risks, and responsibilities before putting any legal attachments
on the property. I'd sure as hell would want to know for certain that
there's no clause in some old contract in a file cabinet somewhere that
says if you sell this thing, you owe a bunch of money to some agency...
david
few artists that everyone here knows, that came with the recording
facility I took over 5+ years.
We contacted record companies back then and the tapes still here are
those who's record companies we never heard back from.
I thought about putting one of them up on ebay and to see what would
happen. But I first wondered what my legal standing is for these tapes
I've been caring for the past 5+ years.
Doesn't a dry cleaner own what gets left behind after a while? At the
very least I've been paying rent, heat, electric and insurance for the
space they've been sitting in.
Anyone with an actual clue welcome to comment.
David Correia
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island
Paul Rubin
> Paul Rubin <http://phr...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
>
> >I can see how your ownership of the stack of papers might be disputed.
> >But if it's not disputed, why on earth can't you sell it on ebay?
>
> First, I'm not a lawyer, but I have studied law. My opinions are
> only nominally "informed", and this subject is sticky enough that
> there might not be just one answer.
I'd appreciate it a lot if you could cite some actual statutes or
cases. Your post in my reading shows well-intentioned concern but a
complete vagueness in content.
> It's not a simple question, and it would be unwise not to cosult a
> lawyer with it, who should obviously be experienced with
> entertainment issues.
There are knowledgeable people on the newsgroup who follow this stuff,
so I'm asking here. I'm not the one with the tape, so I don't have a
direct concern with what happens with it, but I have some interest in
the general topic, and the stuff you're saying is counterintuitive to
put it mildly. IANAL etc.
> It makes a difference whether the recording was made before 1968,
> before 1978 (and before 1995, or before 1909, not relevant of course).
I don't see how that makes a whit of difference. This shouldn't be a
copyright issue, since we're talking about selling the original stack
of paper (or tape), not copying it.
> The first question is, when the recording first changed hands, was there
> an agreement that the transferee was given complete or limited authority
> to distribute the work.
If the person you got the tape from didn't own it himself, he didn't
have the right to sell it to you, and so you may not be the tape's
legitimate owner. If you're not the legitimate owner, then of course
you're probably not entitled to sell it. I'm asking what legal
principle can stop you from selling it if you ARE the legitimate and
undisputed owner. Of course that's a big "if".
> If it's older than 1976, and was never published (the original artist
> never affirmatively approved distribution or delegated that authority),
> then the original artist still has the sole authority of distribution.
> (Basically, James Brown could get wind of this and could get a court
> order saying the tape must be destroyed.)
>
> You may own the tape, and you can surely listen to the waves on the
> tape, but depending on how it got to you, you might not have any right
> to pass it on to another person.
If a court orders that the tape must be destroyed, that sounds like it
doesn't recognize your ownership (it can't randomly order your
property destroyed). I mean, you're saying two conflicting things: 1)
you own the tape and can listen to it; 2) a court can order the tape
destroyed, which I think stops you from listening to it. Those sound
mutually exclusive to me.
> I'd sure as hell would want to know for certain that there's no
> clause in some old contract in a file cabinet somewhere that says if
> you sell this thing, you owe a bunch of money to some agency...
A contract is only binding on the people that agreed to it, not on
some third party who had nothing to do with it. So if there's a
contract like that between the producer and some agency, then the
producer's estate may owe the agency money, but the guy who picked up
the tape at the estate sale certainly doesn't owe anything.
The most plausible argument I've seen that the tape can't be sold is
that per some prior agreement between the producer and the record
label, the tape belonged to the label all along and not to the
producer, and therefore the producer's estate didn't have the right to
sell it. But that situation at worst leads to a dispute over who owns
the actual tape, not over whether the owner is allowed to transfer it
to someone else.
hank alrich
Hey, that won't stop me from commenting. <g> Can you exercise a storage
lien on them? Kind of like a mechanic's lien? Such notice might at least
get a label to gt back to you real soon now.
--
ha
unitron
> I was wondering if anyone could help me out. I purchased this reel from
> an estate of a producer. It seems like this could have a lot of potential
> if what is on here has never been heard before. If anyone could point me
> in any direction on the best way to sell it, I would be most grateful.
>
Perhaps it's the master for the JB album that was only released as
an 8-track cartridge, which means that all the copies ever sold are
probably worn out and thrown away by now. Maybe it can now finally be
pressed as an LP. Of course having never heard the album, I have no
idea whether it's worth re-producing.
Paul Rubin
> I thought about putting one of them up on ebay and to see what would
> happen. But I first wondered what my legal standing is for these tapes
> I've been caring for the past 5+ years.
>
> Doesn't a dry cleaner own what gets left behind after a while? At the
> very least I've been paying rent, heat, electric and insurance for the
> space they've been sitting in.
What's legal probably depends a lot on what contracts the old studio
owners signed with the record label, and presumably you have copies of
those contracts. But I think the next thing to do is try to contact
the artists and ask what they want done, even if you're not legally
obliged to do that.
WillStG
<< Doop e do. >>
Errr - Buzzy Linhart?
Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
james
Paul Rubin <http://phr...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
>I'd appreciate it a lot if you could cite some actual statutes or
>cases.
You and me both! I probably should have kept my mouth shut.
>Your post in my reading shows well-intentioned concern but a
>complete vagueness in content.
I just wouldn't want to see you innocently walk into a situation that
could ruin your career. It's probably nothing. But if there are
issues, consider how big your adversary might be.
>> It makes a difference whether the recording was made before 1968,
>> before 1978 (and before 1995, or before 1909, not relevant of course).
>
>I don't see how that makes a whit of difference. This shouldn't be a
>copyright issue, since we're talking about selling the original stack
>of paper (or tape), not copying it.
It makes all the difference in the world. If it's a creative work,
made before 1978 it has a common law copyright associated with it,
period. If it's made after 1976, it has a statutory copyright. Either
way, it's not necessarily yours to distribute if you don't have the
artist's consent, or if the person you got it from didn't have the
authority to pass the distribution rights to you.
>If a court orders that the tape must be destroyed, that sounds like it
>doesn't recognize your ownership (it can't randomly order your
>property destroyed).
You may feel comfortable taking your chances. I'd ask a lawyer if I had
the idea that the material was of any consequence or value. If it only
had cultural value, I might be tempted to quietly, anonymously, inject
it "into the culture."
Would you feel secure in making a .shn of the tape and putting it on
etree? It's not exactly a bootleg, but it's still not clear whether
you have the right to distribute the work. It'll only seem like a silly
thing to worry about until James' lawyer starts calling. I would be
scared -- he has the kind of lawyers that can get him out of prison
after repeated major drug offenses and trying to beat up cops and crap :-)
james
david <ih...@spamo.com> wrote:
>Doesn't a dry cleaner own what gets left behind after a while?
You might lose your clothes if you abandon them at a dry cleaners --
you don't lose your copyright just because you chose not to publish it,
and you also don't lose your copyright just because someone else
believes they own the material.
Property and intellectual property are different animals. It's easy to
get lured into believing they are the same, what with people screaming
about how "Kazaa is theft" and always making "car" analogies.
Paul Rubin
> It makes all the difference in the world. If it's a creative work,
> made before 1978 it has a common law copyright associated with it,
> period. If it's made after 1976, it has a statutory copyright.
> Either way, it's not necessarily yours to distribute if you don't
> have the artist's consent, or if the person you got it from didn't
> have the authority to pass the distribution rights to you.
You seem to believe here that "distribution" as controlled by
copyright law is possible without COPYING anything. Do you have the
slightest bit of evidence for that rather counterintuitive claim?
> Would you feel secure in making a .shn of the tape and putting it on
> etree? It's not exactly a bootleg, but it's still not clear whether
> you have the right to distribute the work.
That would certainly be distribution, and I doubt very much that I'd
have the right to do anything like that, so I'd recommend against
anyone trying it, at least in any way that could be traced back to
them. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about
handing over the original tape to a new owner, not distributing copies
of it in any manner.
Scott Dorsey
>
>I think it's more about how the tape was acquired not just by this
>particular person - who may have indeed bought it from the previous owner -
>but how it became "available' in the first place. Every recording contract
>states that the label owns the masters, and if this can be defined as a
>master, or even a safety copy thereof, then the label that "owns" it under
>contract can claim that it's a stolen version. Or as a couple of people
>have pointed out, it could be owned by James Brown's management company or
>some other entity, if the ownership of the masters had been transferred
>(legally) at some point.
Well, it's almost certainly not a master tape. My first guess is that
it's going to be a quarter-track tape with a quick mix on it. Back in
the days before people took cassettes seriously and before CD-Rs, rough
mixes and demos would usually be done quarter-track 7.5 ips so they could
be played on consumer open-reel machines at home.
But you'll know it when you put it on a half-track machine and hear a huge
channel imbalance.
>Without knowing what's on the tape, however, it's impossible to say what
>the guy who's got it can do with it... heck, it could be blank, for all he
>knows.
There's plenty of that out there... Lots of studio tapes with labels and
track notes that were bulk-erased before being discarded but didn't have the
markings removed.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Scott Dorsey
>
>owners signed with the record label, and presumably you have copies of
>those contracts. But I think the next thing to do is try to contact
>the artists and ask what they want done, even if you're not legally
>obliged to do that.
I routinely see old film prints for sale, with disclaimers like "NO
RIGHTS IMPLIED: FOR PERSONAL VIEWING ONLY." I believe it should be
legal to sell old master tapes that way as well.
neil.he...@sbcglobal.netnospam
news:c46nqn$q8g$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> Paul Rubin <http://phr...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >What's legal probably depends a lot on what contracts the old studio
> >owners signed with the record label, and presumably you have copies of
> >those contracts. But I think the next thing to do is try to contact
> >the artists and ask what they want done, even if you're not legally
> >obliged to do that.
>
> I routinely see old film prints for sale, with disclaimers like "NO
> RIGHTS IMPLIED: FOR PERSONAL VIEWING ONLY." I believe it should be
> legal to sell old master tapes that way as well.
Good point... if he were to sell it with public notice of that fact clearly
posted (e-bay, for example), he'd have his butt covered, too, methinks.
Another thing that would cover it would be to contact all the entities that
even *might* be associated with possible ownership of this material & let
them know what he's got & what he plans to do with it so they can feel free
to bid on it just as any other entity might do. A public notice ad in
Billboard classifieds might even suffice.
First things first, though... what the heck is on that tape? It would be
pretty embarrasing if he contacted the record label in question & they
offered him x-amount of money to buy it & upon listeneing to it before
handing over the check, it turnd out to be a copy of some 7-year old
singing "Mary Had a Little Lamb". :)
--
Neil Henderson
Progressive Rock
http://www.saqqararecords.com
Mike Rivers
> This thread is interesting to me, as I have some multitrack tapes of a
> few artists that everyone here knows, that came with the recording
> facility I took over 5+ years.
> I thought about putting one of them up on ebay and to see what would
> happen. But I first wondered what my legal standing is for these tapes
> I've been caring for the past 5+ years.
> Doesn't a dry cleaner own what gets left behind after a while?
There's a difference between material property and intellectual
property. It might cost you to store the tape boxes, but it doesn't
cost you anything else to store the music. The usual policy with
recorded material left behind after a reasonable amount of time and
attempt to contact the owner is to destroy the recording. You could
bulk erase the tape and sell it or re-use it, but you really don't
have any right to the recorded material. You didn't purchase it, you
didn't record it (so you had time invested in it) - it was just a
gift. There's no reason why you should profit from it and possibly get
yourself into some legal hot water.
If there was a legitimate market for the material - like the artist's
label or management wanted to release it - you would have already sold
it. Putting it in the hands of a curiosity seeker on eBay is just
perpetuating someone else's mistake.
If you like the music, save the tapes. If you don't like the music,
erase them. Don't try to make money from them. It's not yours and it's
not morally right.
Mike Rivers
In article <7xekrd3...@ruckus.brouhaha.com> //phr...@NOSPAM.invalid writes:
> I'd appreciate it a lot if you could cite some actual statutes or
> cases. Your post in my reading shows well-intentioned concern but a
> complete vagueness in content.
Intellectual property law is vague. There isn't just one statute that
represents this problem, though I'm sure that a good IP legal clerk
could research a few cases that are similar. What lawyers do is put
together pieces to build a case. It's like two people mixing the same
tracks - you may not end up with the same song. Really the only way to
test this is to bring it to court, and the person who has posession of
the tape may not want to go to that trouble and expense.
> This shouldn't be a
> copyright issue, since we're talking about selling the original stack
> of paper (or tape), not copying it.
There's more to intellectual property than "the" copyright law. I
don't think that there would be any issue if you were selling the tape
as tape, and took care that you were not also including intellectual
property, by erasing it before sellling. But apparently the person who
has the tape sees that there may be some added value because of the
recording - in fact, that's really the only thing of value since
nobody is really interested in tape stock that's 40 years old. He
didn't purchase it from the creator (James Brown & Co.) and he didn't
create it himself.
> I'm asking what legal
> principle can stop you from selling it if you ARE the legitimate and
> undisputed owner. Of course that's a big "if".
That's a pretty easy answer - nothing can stop you from selling it if
you are the owner. However intellectual property doesn't change hands
as easily as cars or money. Since it can (and probably has been) be
copied, there's nothing preventing two people from having posession of
the same material. Do both of them then have the right to sell it?
This is why studios have contracts with the artists they record. If
you record neighborhood garage bands, you probably should have a
standard contract or agreement that states clearly who owns the
recording.
It's always the artist unless the agreement states that it will be
accepted as payment in lieu of cash, with all rights assigned to the
studio. Some studio recording contracts do indeed say that. When the
deadbeat artist becomes famous and realizes that you have his early
recordings and he's forfieted the ownership, he'll get back in touch
with you and make you a generous offer (which, of course, you have the
right to refuse).
What we don't know here is:
- Is this really James Brown (or someone whose recordings would be
of significant value)
- Is this an original recording of which nobody else has a copy? My
guess, if it truly sounds legit, is that it's a dub of some work
that may or may not have been released, but is already in storage
somewhere else.
Basically, the question is whether there's any real value here. If
there is, it should be handled through a lawyer. If there isn't, it's
just another copy of a James Brown recording that the current posessor
of the tape hasn't heard.
> A contract is only binding on the people that agreed to it, not on
> some third party who had nothing to do with it. So if there's a
> contract like that between the producer and some agency, then the
> producer's estate may owe the agency money, but the guy who picked up
> the tape at the estate sale certainly doesn't owe anything.
This is why it's a complicated issue. If there's no money involved
(by which I mean that nobody really wants to pay for the material, not
that you turned it into MP3 files that people can download for free)
then there's no value and no reason for anyone to get upset. But when
it comes to famous artists, there's always someone who wants to make
some money - in this case, the person who has posession of the tapes.
Usually this stuff ends up in the right hands eventually, someone
often gets to enjoy it for a while, and someone who invested a lot of
money to gain posession ends up losing some money. There have been
cases where a "lost" painting from a famous artist has turned up in
a basement, been sold at a yard sale, found its way to a collector who
paid a lot of money to maybe the third or fourth owner, and ultimately
it gets bought by a museum. If this is really a James Brown recording
that is of interest to a legimate purchaser (which may not be the
origianal label wanting to get it back for free, but perhaps a label
who will issue the recordings with permission and pay proper
royalties), it will probably eventually get where it belongs and
someone will make some money.
> The most plausible argument I've seen that the tape can't be sold is
> that per some prior agreement between the producer and the record
> label, the tape belonged to the label all along and not to the
> producer, and therefore the producer's estate didn't have the right to
> sell it. But that situation at worst leads to a dispute over who owns
> the actual tape, not over whether the owner is allowed to transfer it
> to someone else.
This is exactly the problem, and the earlier in the chain the rightful
onwer is located, the better off everyone involved will be.
james
Paul Rubin <http://phr...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
>You seem to believe here that "distribution" as controlled by
>copyright law is possible without COPYING anything.
And you seem to believe copyright law is simple enough to get a single
answer, but it's not. Don't worry about my counterintuitive claims,
check it out for yourself. I think you'll be unpleasantly surprised by
how complicated copyright issues can get.
Phil Brown
>tape "exploiting the program material"? It's no different than
>selling a used book or LP, to which the seller has no special rights
>other than having lawfully acquired it.
Lawfully purchasing a book does not give you the right to copy it and sell the
copies. While copyright law is complicated that much is pretty clear.
Phil Brown
Mike Rivers
> I routinely see old film prints for sale, with disclaimers like "NO
> RIGHTS IMPLIED: FOR PERSONAL VIEWING ONLY." I believe it should be
> legal to sell old master tapes that way as well.
Interesting. But maybe all the worthwhile movies have already been
released on videotape or DVD, so they don't care. Have you ever run
across anything in that market that's previously unreleased or would
be of some IP value? I know that there are lots of original
transparencies that went into the making of cartoons that have been
sold for their collectable-art value, but that's a little different
yet.
Paul Rubin
It's also clear that copyright law does absolutely nothing to prevent
you from selling a used book that you own, as long as you don't copy
it. All this stuff about copying is simply a distraction from the
topic at hand.
Paul Rubin
> >You seem to believe here that "distribution" as controlled by
> >copyright law is possible without COPYING anything.
>
> And you seem to believe copyright law is simple enough to get a single
> answer, but it's not. Don't worry about my counterintuitive claims,
> check it out for yourself. I think you'll be unpleasantly surprised by
> how complicated copyright issues can get.
I'm checking it out by asking about it here (not a thorough strategy
for someone actually holding such a tape, but better than nothing for
someone with a casual general interest). So far nobody has given any
answer beyond vague speculation.
Paul Rubin
> Interesting. But maybe all the worthwhile movies have already been
> released on videotape or DVD, so they don't care. Have you ever run
> across anything in that market that's previously unreleased or would
> be of some IP value?
Unpublished literary manuscripts and letters are sold all the time.
Why would movies be different?
> I know that there are lots of original transparencies that went into
> the making of cartoons that have been sold for their collectable-art
> value, but that's a little different yet.
Also original paintings.
Paul Rubin
> > I'd appreciate it a lot if you could cite some actual statutes or
> > cases. Your post in my reading shows well-intentioned concern but a
> > complete vagueness in content.
>
> Intellectual property law is vague. There isn't just one statute that
> represents this problem, though I'm sure that a good IP legal clerk
> could research a few cases that are similar.
Here's a case I can think of: J. D. Salinger in the 1970's had a
relationship with an 18-year-old woman named Joyce Maynard and wrote
her a number of personal letters. A few years ago, Maynard decided to
sell the letters and Salinger tried to intervene. While the court
ruled that Maynard could not publish the letters, I don't think her
right to sell them was ever seriously in question. They were
auctioned by Sotheby's and sold for $156,500 to a guy who as it turns
out decided to return them to Salinger.
I have some sympathy in general for the author or artist in a
situation like that, but that's on grounds of privacy rather than
copyright. I believe those should be separate areas of the law.
References:
http://www.cnn.com/books/news/9906/22/salinger.letters
http://www.suntimes.co.za/1999/05/23/lifestyle/life02.htm
http://www.alligator.org/edit/issues/99-fall/991118/b04maynard18.htm
rickymix
> First things first, though... what the heck is on that tape? It would be
> pretty embarrasing if he contacted the record label in question & they
> offered him x-amount of money to buy it & upon listeneing to it before
> handing over the check, it turnd out to be a copy of some 7-year old
> singing "Mary Had a Little Lamb". :)
Or worse, Paul McCartney's version! :>) R.N.
Scott Dorsey
>In article <c46nqn$q8g$1...@panix2.panix.com> klu...@panix.com writes:
>
>> I routinely see old film prints for sale, with disclaimers like "NO
>> RIGHTS IMPLIED: FOR PERSONAL VIEWING ONLY." I believe it should be
>> legal to sell old master tapes that way as well.
>
>Interesting. But maybe all the worthwhile movies have already been
>released on videotape or DVD, so they don't care. Have you ever run
>across anything in that market that's previously unreleased or would
>be of some IP value? I know that there are lots of original
>transparencies that went into the making of cartoons that have been
>sold for their collectable-art value, but that's a little different
>yet.
All the time I see prints of films that aren't otherwise available. And
of course the image quality of the film print is far better than any tape.
But more importantly, the rights required to show films theatrically (or
to show videotapes for that matter theatrically) aren't conveyed with the
physical material.
You can buy a videotape at the Wal-Mart, and take it home, and the label
on it conveys certain rights allowing you to watch it at home. But it does
not allow you to show in a theatre and charge admission. It does not even
allow you to show it to a large group even if you aren't charging admission.
If you buy a film print, say, from a television station that purchased it
outright from the distributor, it comes with no rights of any sort. But,
if you own it, you can call up the studio and ask for permission to run it
in a theatre for a fee.
Mike Rivers
In article <7x4qs81...@ruckus.brouhaha.com> //phr...@NOSPAM.invalid writes:
> Unpublished literary manuscripts and letters are sold all the time.
> Why would movies be different?
Because most movies are made with the intent to be published.
Mike Rivers
In article <7xhdw81...@ruckus.brouhaha.com> //phr...@NOSPAM.invalid writes:
> It's also clear that copyright law does absolutely nothing to prevent
> you from selling a used book that you own, as long as you don't copy
> it.
That's because when you bought the book, you clearly bought the right
to own that one copy of the words, and you can sell that one copy. In
the case of this mysterious tape, it's not clear that the person in
posession of it purchased the right to the music recorded on it, or if
he in fact purchased anything at all.
OK, so go ahead and argue this: If you found a book in the trash,
picked it out, and sold it, is that OK? Now how about if you found a
tape of recordings (of anyone, not necessarily a famoust artist) in
the trash, and sold that.
I suspect that the legal difference is that the intellectual property
in the book was created with the intent to publish and distribute it
in the form of many copies of a book. The recording was created with
the intent (maybe) to publish and distribute it as many copies of a
record. However by selling the tape, that publishing step has been
bypassed.
EggHd
something from the Fleetwood Mac Rumors sessions.
Even if someone bough this tape copy and it was an out take that has been un
heard, the buyer would have NO rights to exploit the master commercially.
Simple.
---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"
Paul Rubin
> That's because when you bought the book, you clearly bought the right
> to own that one copy of the words, and you can sell that one copy. In
> the case of this mysterious tape, it's not clear that the person in
> posession of it purchased the right to the music recorded on it, or if
> he in fact purchased anything at all.
What is "the right to the music recorded on it"? I've never heard of
such a right, as opposed to, say, the right to publish the music.
> OK, so go ahead and argue this: If you found a book in the trash,
> picked it out, and sold it, is that OK? Now how about if you found a
> tape of recordings (of anyone, not necessarily a famoust artist) in
> the trash, and sold that.
Selling either one is legal, as far as I can tell.
> I suspect that the legal difference is that the intellectual property
> in the book was created with the intent to publish and distribute it
> in the form of many copies of a book. The recording was created with
> the intent (maybe) to publish and distribute it as many copies of a
> record. However by selling the tape, that publishing step has been
> bypassed.
I think the tape likely has the same status as an unpublished literary
manuscript. In that case there may be no right to publish the
contents even in paraphrase (there was a court case about that), but
there's still no obstacle to selling the original. Even the letters
from J.D. Salinger to Joyce Maynard (see other post) which contained
stuff that Salinger considered very private, were sold at Sotheby's,
which is basically a fancier version of Ebay. Something like a tape
of a commercial recording session isn't likely to contain anything
nearly that sensitive.
hank alrich
> It would not be unheard of for a second engineer to have made a tape copy from
> something from the Fleetwood Mac Rumors sessions.
> Even if someone bough this tape copy and it was an out take that has been un
> heard, the buyer would have NO rights to exploit the master commercially.
> Simple.
Sure can stir a thread, though, and inconvenience plenty of innocent
electrons.
--
ha
jt
> > It's also clear that copyright law does absolutely nothing to prevent
> > you from selling a used book that you own, as long as you don't copy
> > it.
>
> That's because when you bought the book, you clearly bought the right
> to own that one copy of the words, and you can sell that one copy. In
> the case of this mysterious tape, it's not clear that the person in
> posession of it purchased the right to the music recorded on it, or if
> he in fact purchased anything at all.
>
> OK, so go ahead and argue this: If you found a book in the trash,
> picked it out, and sold it, is that OK? Now how about if you found a
> tape of recordings (of anyone, not necessarily a famoust artist) in
> the trash, and sold that.
This is a bad analogy given the context of this discussion.
Selling a master tape meant for duplication is not the same as selling
a single book.
If you found a book in the trash and sold it, that would be fine.
The paralell with music is: if you found an LP or CD in the trash and
sold it that would be fine.
You're not selling thousands of copies, or the means by which to make
the thousands of copies.
Mike Rivers
In article <7x8yhk9...@ruckus.brouhaha.com> //phr...@NOSPAM.invalid writes:
> What is "the right to the music recorded on it"? I've never heard of
> such a right, as opposed to, say, the right to publish the music.
That's the copyright - the work created by the artist. Once it's fixed
in a tangible medium (do they still use that term?) it's theirs and
they have the right to control what happens to it.
> > OK, so go ahead and argue this: If you found a book in the trash,
> > picked it out, and sold it, is that OK? Now how about if you found a
> > tape of recordings (of anyone, not necessarily a famoust artist) in
> > the trash, and sold that.
>
> Selling either one is legal, as far as I can tell.
I guess what I'm getting at, and I'm about to dig myself into a hole
and admit that in principle you're right, is that I'd be concerned
about what happens to it next. If I sell it as an artifact to a
collector, that's one thing. He can put it in a vault and brag about
it, and perhaps resell it to another collector in the future. But if I
sell it to someone who will press CDs from it (and who may very well
pay more than a collector) my conscience would bother me. But in this
case, it would be the buyer who was realy the guilty party.
> I think the tape likely has the same status as an unpublished literary
> manuscript. In that case there may be no right to publish the
> contents even in paraphrase (there was a court case about that), but
> there's still no obstacle to selling the original.
I suppose you're correct. And I suppose that if it's authentic, there
will be someone willing to pay too much money for it, hoping that in
the future someone will buy it from him at a handsome profit. Trash to
treasure, I guess. Still, I don't like to contribute to this sort of
thing, but I suppose that there will always be people who will take an
opportunity to make an easy buck. If it's good material and it
deserves to be issued, that shold be done in the legitimate manner.
And if it's the equivalent of a scrap of Elvis' toilet paper, it's
better off being destroyed rather than added to the collection of rock
memorobelia that's not of any value as music.