On 6 Dec 2006 at 6:14, dhbailey wrote: > Noel Stoutenburg wrote: > [snip]> > > The "abandoned copyrights" are already transferred, to the public > > domain, and I would argue that a provision by which abandoned > > copyrights could be acquired by parties who have previously no > > interest sets a dangerous precedent; that could conceivably lead to > > auction of copyrights to other music in the public domain. > > If by "abandoned copyrights" you mean works where the copyright owner > has specifically stated in print or in writing that he/she is placing > a work in the public domain explicitly, then you are correct. But I > think the term "abandoned copyrights" are those copyrights which are > still in effect but for which no owner of the asset can be found. > Such as a work copyrighted by XYZ corporation which was absorbed by > UVW corporation which was in turn absorbed by RST corporation, which > then slowly went out of business and nobody bought the assets. Or, > more simply, one of today's myriad self-publisher composers dies with > no heirs and dies intestate. The full strength of the copyright > protection is in place for any such works but there is nobody who > actually owns the copyrights. > So technically, there being nobody to bring suit, one could do > whatever one wants with the materials, legally one can't do anything > with it since there is nobody to gain any permission from nor to pay > any royalties to. Currently there is no law which transfers those > copyrights to the public domain in the U.S.
And the fact that there's nobody to dispute a technical infringement doesn't mean you'll be able to copy the piece. Most libraries won't photocopy for you any music that is under copyright. They don't waste their time trying to determine if there's someone to sue them if they do, they just won't do it. So if the only copies of a work on which the copyright has been "abandoned" are in a library, you're basically out of luck. > And another possible meaning for "abandoned copyrights" would be those > copyrights which are still valid but which for purely financial > reasons the materials are no longer being made available. Not for any > artistic, "gee, I've changed my mind and don't want anybody to be able > to play that garbage" reasons but for the simple fact that the > publisher doesn't feel like putting any more money into printing that > work. The P.O.P. category of works. I used the term intending to refer to works for which the copyright holder is gone/dissolved for whatever reason, or can be found but has no interest in the work any longer. This latter category shades over into the group you describe in the paragraph quoted immediately above. I wouldn't think it fair for the law to force any particular action on the copyright holders you describe there, unless it's to set up some kind of rules by which such copyrights could be purchased (somewhat the same way there are rules for transferring domain names on the Internet). But I'm having some difficulty distinguishing those copyright holders from the ones I describe as having lost interest in the copyright. > I would argue that those sorts of abandoned copyrights should revert > back to the composer, including all ancillary rights such as > synchronization, mechanical reproduction, performance, etc., > automatically when a publisher places a work Permanently Out of Print > and doesn't make the material available through rentals. I wonder if it's possible to write contracts that allow for this on the front end? That would allow a composer to negotiate for reversion of copyright after a publication is out of print for X number of years. I wonder if publishers would agree to such contracts? -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
