Archivio dei testi con tag 'beatles'



Playlist a fumetti: Glyn Dillon, “Il Nao di Brown” (The “O” Tape)

naobrown

Insolito, delizioso, a tratti disturbante; e davvero splendido: è il volume “Il Nao di Brown“, scritto e disegnato da Glyn Dillon. Un gioiello in 208 pagine di tavole dipinte ad acquerello, una splendida edizione italiana per i tipi della Bao Publishing (23 Euro, Cartonato, la sovracoperta contiene una dettagliata mappa). Continua…

I Beatles a fumetti

Sin dagli anni ‘60 i Fab Four sono apparsi nei fumetti: commossi omaggi, biografie, citazioni, parodie: ecco alcune delle loro apparizioni editoriali italiane. Continua…

Estensione di copyright in Europa: il pasticcio continua

L’Unione Europea allunga la vita del copyright per le registrazioni discografiche: salvi i master dei Beatles; luci e ombre del provvedimento

La Gran Bretagna – che pure avrebbe interessi discografici forti – aveva speso fiori di quattrini per commissionare studi e dire no, dopo vari cambi di schieramento. Tutto era fermo dal 2009. Il parlamentare europeo del Piratpartiet svedese Christian Engström aveva di recente cercato di bloccare un colpo di mano dei lobbysti pro-estensione. Invece all’improvviso, l’Unione Europea ha approvato una direttiva per portare il copyright sulle registrazioni discografiche da 50 a 70 anni.

Il tutto mentre in America si discute per anticipare la tutela federale del copyright proprio sullo stesso settore e quindi forse rivedere alcune parti della attuale legislazione; sembra abbastanza bizzarro che si sia verificato tutto questo, all’improvviso e senza un dibattito.

Qualcuno suggeriva anzi che essendo nel frattempo cambiato il Parlamento in seguito alle ultime elezioni, la procedura sarebbe dovuta ripartire da zero, cancellando la decisione di due anni fa che invece ieri ha fatto un passo avanti con l’approvazione della direttiva.

L’accelerazione sembra avere solo un motivo: le prime registrazioni dei Beatles, quelle fatte in Germania nel 1961 con Tony Sheridan e sotto l’egida di Bert Kaempfert, all’epoca produttore e talent scout per la Polydor, entreranno nel pubblico dominio come master il 1° gennaio 2012. In mancanza di una estensione, da allora e nello spazio di pochi anni, intere discografie sulle quali tuttora si regge l’industria delle major classiche del disco sarebbero diventate ripubblicabili a costi contenuti da una miriade di “budget label”, semplicemente pagando i costi della SIAE o delle sue consociate estere.

L’Europa bissa così in un certo senso i contenuti della legge americana, senza arrivare agli eccessi dei 95 anni ventilati anni fa da qualcuno, né a quelli del copyright “eterno” che sembra risultare dal caso Capitol v. Naxos di qualche anno addietro (anche quello essenzialmente messo su per tutelare i master di Beatles & co. possibilmente senza fine).

Gli stati hanno ora due anni di tempo per ratificarla. Qualcuno – come Abba, Mick Jagger e U2 – canta già vittoria. Jim Killock di Open Rights Group parla di “disastro culturale” e riferisce che gli studi mostrano che il 90% delle somme verrebbe incamerato dalle label.

Vanno però fatte alcune riflessioni:

1) riusciranno paesi come Gran Bretagna e Italia, i cui governi hanno al momento problemi più seri da affrontare dell’estensione del copyright – di cui beneficerebbero essenzialmente un pugno di società e forse solo qualcuno degli interpreti – ad approvare nel giro di meno di tre mesi la suddetta ratifica, prima che qualcuno cominci a ripubblicare il materiale del 1961?

2) come nota un commentatore sul blog di Christian Engström, del Partito Pirata svedese: “Se scopro una cura per il cancro, posso ottenere un brevetto sulla mia invenzione ed essere tutelato per 20 anni. Ci vuole una piccola fortuna per ottenere il brevetto – specialmente se voglio essere tutelato in tutto il mondo – e bisogna scrivere e inviare tonnellate di documentazione. Se prendo un microfono e canto una canzone, quella registrazione è ora automaticamente protetta per 70 anni, a livello globale, senza alcun costo o sforzo”.

3) Che succederà quindi alle label che hanno già stampato materiale più vecchio di 50 anni (ma che non ha ancora raggiunto i 70 dalla prima pubblicazione)? In altre parole, per fare un esempio pratico (ma ce ne potrebbero essere una miriade così) quella stessa EMI che beneficerebbe dell’estensione per i master dei Beatles potrebbe ritrovarsi citata in giudizio per aver sfruttato in Europa master di altri artisti che in origine non erano suoi, ma che in Europa erano divenuti di pubblico dominio nel 2005? La direttiva sarà pienamente retroattiva o no?

Se quindi una parte importante dell’industria musicale sembra salutare con favore questa mossa, a chi scrive sembra che ci siano tutte le premesse per ingarbugliare ulteriormente una situazione già complessa, in un settore che avrebbe bisogno di chiarezza, semplificazione e di una boccata di ossigeno per un mercato – in particolare quello dei supporti fisici – agonizzante da oltre un decennio.

[Pubblicato da Mytech]

Bluebeat risarcisce EMI: no alla simulazione psicoacustica

Un bizzarro caso di copyright del 2009 si chiude, almeno in parte: EMI risarcita da Bluebeat per i brani dei Beatles

Continua…

Federal Law Protection on pre-1972 Recorded Music Masters in the United States?

I have read that the US Copyright Office is asking for opinions on the subject of Federal Law protection for recorded music masters. While this may just result in copyright owners lobbying trying to just a way for further copyright extensions, I thought to express some ideas about it.

I am a copyright owner myself, both of musical compositions and recorded masters.

First of all, I will never fully understand why in the American system it is allowed that for a banal mistake (forgetting to write “©” and the correct year in the credits, or similar issues) a 1968 or even 1998 can fall entirely out of copyright protection, while according to the results of the Capitol v. Naxos case, some pre-1972 recorded masters that originated outside USA, despite entirely public domain in the country of origin, may have a “common law” protection in the US and hence be protected eternally. Technically, under this presumed “common law” protection, even Edison Records’s early audio recordings (the oldest dating back to 1888) would still be protected (no other work made in 1888 is protected in the US: actually anything pre-1923 already fell into the Public Domain). Edison, luckily, falls out of this because the masters were acquired by a state agency: being the property of the US Government, they entered the Public Domain, just like the NASA picture of an astronaut or a photo taken by a soldier while in service.
Again, many movies have fallen into the Public Domain because of not being properly registered with the Copyright Office and issued before 1976. Since this applies to extremely popular works such as horror movie “Night of the Living Dead” and adult movie “Deep Throat”, I don’t see what would be so scandalous if it also applied to a Beatles album from the 1960s.

I have just read that the Copyright Office is accepting proposals about the introduction of Federal Law for pre-1972 music recordings. In the US law there has been a gap for a long time: since Federal Law protection never existed until 1972 for recorded music masters, you can easily see how many musical milestones (which are also the basis of some music majors’ businesses) would have gone entirely unprotected in America – namely the whole discography of the Beatles and a large chunk of discographies by the Rolling Stones, to make the most evident examples.

The infamous “Sonny Bono Copyright Extension” law of 1998 was basically drawn more by the movie industry than by other sectors of copyright owners.
Mostly, Disney needed protection on Mickey Mouse (it is still debated anyway what was the first published output incorporating Mickey Mouse; and since some of those were released without Copyright notice, Mickey Mouse itself – as a character – might still already be in the public domain, whatever Sonny Bono and friends did to the US legal system to save Disney properties).

In 2006, United Kingdom decided to confirm 50 years as a term for sound recordings to enter public domain: early Beatles recordings will start expiring January 1, 2012. This seems fair.

There are three points in the American copyright law that could be attacked relatively easily in my opinion:

1) it is unfair for someone who produced a recording prior to 1972 to enjoy a longer term of protection just because this “exception” set up the 2067 date without regard to the year in which the recording was made. This could mean that something recorded in 1930 would last 137 years, more than 40 years longer than something recorded in 2000 (95
years of protection).

2) the exception applies to foreign recordings too: an italian recording made in 1955 is now in the public domain in Italy or UK and I think all of Europe. The same identical recording could be claimed as “copyrighted” in the US since in the american territories the 95 year term applies and in this case the year 2067 term (!) since we are talking of a pre-1972 recording.

3) how do you consider a remastered 50+ years old recording that originated in the US and was remastered in Europe after the 50 years term expired, and then rereleased on cd and even exported to America?
– If you just consider the European term, the master is public domain and anyone can reprint or remaster that without licensing the sound recording (but probably licensing the compositions and paying for mechanical rights)
– If you consider the Sonny Bono exception, shouldn’t this be considered as a foreign product that of course has to be “protected” for 95 years, but it happens that the new copyright is controlled by the European company who produced the remaster?

The 2005 Capitol v. Naxos case has enough ground for a Supreme Court case. First of all, can “common law” be applied to Intellectual Property at all?
A song, a book, a poem, and so on are not like a material good. You can pass on a house to your heirs through the centuries. It is physical. In Europe, some ancient buildings, castles, palaces and so on have been in the hands of the same families for several centuries.
But we are not paying royalties to the (how many?) descendants of Dante Alighieri for his “Inferno”. Nor anyone is paying royalties to the eventual descendants of those who wrote sacred texts included in the Bible. If you apply that “common law” principle to Intellectual Property, be prepared to pay some person in Israel next time you print a Bible.

Second, let’s admit “common law” covers Capitol’s rights on recordings that are in the Public Domain elsewhere. Naxos is not based in US. In another country, in which the original masters are now in the Public Domain, Naxos created their own remaster. A remaster requires work: recovering a copy of the original (from tapes, 78 RPM vinyls or other media), cleaning, restoration, and so on.
Remasters are generally new copyrights. Record labels and movie producers often remaster and edit their materials; sometimes to create a better, cleaner version of some artist’s discography; some other time, for simple copyright purposes. Otherwise, certain operations conducted by Disney (adding new dubbing and soundtrack to some movies, even drawing new material into a classic movie like Pinocchio) would really have no “artistic” justification.
But if a remaster is copyrighted – even if just outside the USA – if the US don’t enforce these new copyrights coming from abroad, aren’t they in open violation of GATT/WTO principles and particularly the TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellecual Property Rights) Agreement of 1994?
In other words, by saving the (weak) rights of the owners of old master recordings by means of “Common Law” of dubious application, the USA – after Capitol v. Naxos – is openly not respecting foreign copyrights on remasters.

Third, Capitol never owned those recordings in the first place, but just a license to release them in the US; they originated in UK on the Gramophone label which is part of EMI UK. If the original copyright doesn’t exist anymore, how can I still be the licensee for it?

I don’t know in which direction the Copyright Office might be working now, and I imagine many other suggestions and proposals will be coming in at the moment. I can imagine a lot of RIAA action and pressure also and in very creative ways. I remember Jack Valenti’s crazy idea from some years ago about copyright lasting “Forever minus one day” (since “forever” was not usable in the American law wording). I expect such type of display of creativity in this case too.

The request to extend terms to send opinions to the Copyright Office, also means their lawyers are at work (and they are late as usual).

But whatever the intention is, I think the US law should be reworked to get rid of elements of confusion such as the outcome of Capitol v. Naxos. If Federal Law has to be brought in for recorded masters made before 1972, this has has to result in shorter terms compared to those in use now not in further extensions that are negative both for creativity and for the business. In Europe, the very same label group that brought Capitol v. Naxos (EMI) through the subsidiary Disky released Elvis Presley and other 50+ years old recorded masters they never owned, because master recording copyrights have expired in Europe. They also sell these in the USA as imports in places like Amazon.

Basically, if Sonny Bono’s purpose ended being “you cannot do to Disney what Disney did to Collodi, Andersen and the Brothers Grimm”, the message of Capitol v. Naxos is “don’t do to EMI in USA what EMI is already doing to everyone else in Europe”.

In other words, with regard to Recorded Music Masters, Federal Law pre-emption will only be a good thing if:

– pre-1972 works not registered with the Copyright Office or published before 1989 but released without a (P) notice fall automatically in the public domain as recorded masters. After all, none of them could be copyrighted in the old system and certainly they could not be renewed on time before 1972, too.
– Common Law is kept out of scope.
– GATT/TRIPS principles are enforced and foreign Copyright on remasters too, hence removing the injustice perpetrated through Capitol v. Naxos.

The Founding Fathers never wanted an eternal copyright. In a world in which the request for a new vision in this area, more rights for the consumers and also more creative freedom for the artists (in regards to incorporating/rearranging elements of old works, orphan works and similar) are so high, a further extension of copyrights to a Federal level, without serious limitations, would basically result in just protecting the interests of a dying industry: the major beneficiary of such an extension – just like the major beneficiary of Capitol v. Naxos – would be the EMI group, through their control on Beatles’ masters. And – without any changes in their property and financial assets – EMI is a company that will be probably bankrupt within the first months of the current year.

Nicola Battista, journalist, music producer, author, Intellectual Property Consultant
Pescara, Italy, January 13, 2011.

(Document submitted electronically to the US Copyright Office in response to the “Notice of Inquiry requesting public input on the desirability and means of bringing sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972 under Federal jurisdiction”; partially based on a message posted in 2006 onto the Rumori Mailing List)

Beatles in digitale: EMI contro BlueBeat, esce la “Mela” USB

Ancora nulla per iTunes, ma una ricca (e particolarissima) chiave USB per i Beatles, mentre BlueBeat.com tenta di vendere il loro repertorio senza permesso. Continua…

Abbey Road: lo studio dei Beatles online, per tutti

Rivoluzione per lo studio dove lavoravano i Beatles: i suoi servizi disponibili anche online. Continua…

“The Beatles: Rock Band”: il 9 settembre arriva il videogame

Ampiamente preannunciato, arriverà in autunno lo spin-off di Rock Band che è anche il primo videogioco ufficiale dedicato al mitico quartetto. Con la benedizione degli aventi diritto. Continua…