Europe - copyright extended

[John Wright]

For Europe, length of copyright term for sound recordings and performers’ rights in sound recordings is extended from 50 years to 70 years

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/directive201177eu.pdf

An interesting note near the end of the document, on:

an example of where copyright will be revived by the new regulations is in the music for the opera Rusalka by the Czech composer Antonín Dvořák. The libretto was written by Jaroslav Kvapil. Dvořák died in 1904; therefore the copyright in the music expired in the UK at the end of 1974 (i.e. life of the author plus 70 years). Kvapil on the other hand lived until 1950, so the copyright in the libretto will not expire in the UK until the end of 2020. In this case, copyright in the music will be revived and will expire at the end of 2020, i.e. at the same time as the copyright in the words.

Different in USA. Rusalka will be in public domain in the States, being published before 1923.

There must be many other cases of music copyright revived?

[johnb]

What does this mean for the plethora of third party reissues based on out of copyright recordings, e.g. the Naxos Archive recordings which I mentioned in another thread?

[Beef Oven!]

For Europe, length of copyright term for sound recordings and performers’ rights in sound recordings is extended from 50 years to 70 years

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/directive201177eu.pdf

An interesting note near the end of the document, on:

an example of where copyright will be revived by the new regulations is in the music for the opera Rusalka by the Czech composer Antonín Dvořák. The libretto was written by Jaroslav Kvapil. Dvořák died in 1904; therefore the copyright in the music expired in the UK at the end of 1974 (i.e. life of the author plus 70 years). Kvapil on the other hand lived until 1950, so the copyright in the libretto will not expire in the UK until the end of 2020. In this case, copyright in the music will be revived and will expire at the end of 2020, i.e. at the same time as the copyright in the words.

Different in USA. Rusalka will be in public domain in the States, being published before 1923.

There must be many other cases of music copyright revived?

Does this mean the ruling is retrospective?

[John Wright]

No it is not retrospective. The directive gives examples e.g.

recording is published in February 1962 – the term of copyright expired at the end of 2012 and
will not be extended under the Directive.

recording is first published in February 1962 – the performers` rights expired at the end of 2012
and will not be extended under the Directive.

[Beef Oven!]

No it is not retrospective. The directive gives examples e.g.

recording is published in February 1962 – the term of copyright expired at the end of 2012 and
will not be extended under the Directive.

recording is first published in February 1962 – the performers` rights expired at the end of 2012
and will not be extended under the Directive.

Thanks and good!

Although I was looking forward to seeing more and more things from the early/mid 1960s to come on line, so as to speak, and now that won't happen.

Why are they doing this? What was wrong with 50 years?

[Pabmusic]

...There must be many other cases of music copyright revived?

Elgar. Out of copyright in 1984 (death + 50 years) and back into copyright in the 1990s when the calculation changed to death + 70 years. Finally out of copyright for a second time in 2004.

The example quoted in the government document is not quite right, since Dvorak's music came out of copyright in Britain in 1954, not 1974.

[John Wright]

The example quoted in the government document is not quite right, since Dvorak's music came out of copyright in Britain in 1954, not 1974.

Yes but they are saying with this NEW directive the music NOW is out of copyright since 1974 (new rule).

and then explains the libretto is STILL in copyright (new rule).

[Pabmusic]

Yes but they are saying with this NEW directive the music NOW is out of copyright since 1974 (new rule).

and then explains the libretto is STILL in copyright (new rule).

No. The directive was not retrospective. Dvorak's music came out of copyright at the end of 1954. The change to 70 years didn't happen till the 1990s - and never affected Dvorak at all, since he'd died more than 70 years before. I agree about the libretto (which is their point, of course). But they're wrong about Dvorak.

[Alain Maréchal]

Why are they doing this? What was wrong with 50 years?

Example: Elisabeth Schwarzkopf's EMI recording of Der Rosenkavalier went out of copyright during her lifetime, so other companies were able to reissue it without paying her a penny.

[Dave2002]

Example: Elisabeth Schwarzkopf's EMI recording of Der Rosenkavalier went out of copyright during her lifetime, so other companies were able to reissue it without paying her a penny.

While I agree that that seems wrong hasn't most of this been driven by US corporate greed and the likes of Disney?

[Pabmusic]

While I agree that that seems wrong hasn't most of this been driven by US corporate greed and the likes of Disney?

I think that's a sweeping statement. True, the US has some very long copyright periods, with the chance to renew copyright. "Happy Birthday" will remain in copyright long after it expires in Europe in 2016 (do you pay your dues?) It was written in the 1890s. But Europe went to death + 70 years quite a long time ago, and it's bringing other things into line.

Having said that, you're not exactly wrong, either.

[Dave2002]

I think that's a sweeping statement. True, the US has some very long copyright periods, with the chance to renew copyright. "Happy Birthday" will remain in copyright long after it expires in Europe in 2016 (do you pay your dues?) It was written in the 1890s. But Europe went to death + 70 years quite a long time ago, and it's bringing other things into line.

Having said that, you're not exactly wrong, either.

Surely the whole point of copyright is to allow the original creators to profit from their own work, and possibly also provide for some of their dependents. It's similar to, but not the same as patenting, where the time limits are shorter. Patenting is supposed to stimulate innovation, though perhaps doesn't always do that. Copyright enforcement for longer periods of time is very likely to reduce imaginative use of other's works and may also reduce the widespread availability of significant older material, and I still think that extending copyright is hardly likely to benefit the original creators much, but large corporations with loads of hangers on will perhaps do quite well out of it.

[cheesehoven]

That hits the nail on the head. Copyright has very little to do with upholding the creator's rights and all to do with corporations controlling the market. Copyright does beg the question, to me at least: for how long should one get paid for doing one piece of work?
More specifically, I've often wondered what exactly is the rational to extending copyright beyond death, when the creator is no longer able to benefit from his "intellectual property"; providing for his children is the slenderest justification for this gravy train. In what other profession do you receive payment your whole life, let alone be able to grant it to your children. One can hardly imagine a carpenter making you a table then calling round to collect a commission for it year after year then his son afterwards!

[MrGongGong]

Does this apply to folk like MrPee who don't believe that the UK is in Europe ?

[Stillhomewardbound]

Copyright does beg the question, to me at least: for how long should one get paid for doing one piece of work?

In my opinion for as long as someone is deriving a profit from it, or indeed a deserving benefit as in the case of My Fair Lady <Shaw's Pygmalion> and Barrie's Peter Pan which have provided a significant contribution of funds to RADA and Bart's respectively.

I think Shaw's legacy was deliberately brought back into copyright on this basis.

It's a very different world from that of industrial patents. There the yield is likely to be much greater during an inventor's lifetime and from a commercial imperative it makes sense that certain innovations are released and made available for the benefit of the market at large.

For the author or the composer, on average, they will seldom make the Forbes Top 100 of earners and most will make meagre returns, so it as appropriate that they works should still have to be paid for long after their passing for the benefit of their children, grandchildren, ECG.