| Digest Nr | Subject, Author, Snippet |
 |
| 2010.07.28.04 |
Piano Roll Copyright Problem
from Robbie Rhodes •Jon "Maddog" Hall is the Executive Director of Linux International ( http://www.li.org ), an end-user organization for Free and Open Source Software (FOSS). He also enjoys mechanical music instruments and is a member of AMICA. In his blog hosted at the web site of Linux Magazine, Mr. Hall tells of ... |
| 2012.03.18.05 |
Musical Staves Printed on Copyrighted Piano Roll
from Robert Perry •Hi all, I recently discovered one of my Rythmodik rolls has some unusual features. The roll itself is a regular production roll (no. V102723, "Can It Be Love At Last?" played by Fuiks), however it is hand-stamped with the copyright symbol and CE451494, and the date May 23, 1919. The underside of th... |
| 2013.07.11.01 |
Piano Roll Music Copyright vs. Public Domain
from Matthew Caulfield •John Belmont says in 130710 MMDigest: "I should think that most music on piano rolls are in the public domain (anything pre-1923 in the US)." Just to clarify: John is right regarding the original composition embodied in the piano roll. But the arrangement or the performance fixed into the piano rol... |
| 2014.08.14.04 |
Rich Olsen Wurlitzer Rolls Copyright Status
from Gordon Ramsey •When my new organ is completed, I hope to set it up in a public facility that charges admission. Will there be any issues with copyrights or ASCAP payments if I play the new Rich Olsen W165 rolls? I am pretty sure that the older W165 rolls are safe, but has anyone had a problem in this area? Gordon... |
| 2015.09.23.02 |
"Happy Birthday" Copyright Claims Ruled Invalid
from Robbie Rhodes •The Los Angeles Times reported on Sept. 21st, "None of the companies that have collected royalties on the "Happy Birthday" song for the past 80 years held a valid copyright claim to one of the most popular songs in history, a federal judge in Los Angeles ruled on Tuesday. ... Judge George H. King r... |
| 2015.09.24.03 |
"Happy Birthday" Copyright Claims Ruled Invalid
from Matthew Caulfield •Keep in mind that only the words to "Happy Birthday" are copyrighted. The melody itself, to the best of my knowledge, is not protected by copyright, since that melody is one composed in 1893 by sisters Patty and Mildred J. Hill and published as "Good Morning To All." It has been public domain for d... |
| 2020.06.14.02 |
Ampico Roll Date and Copyright Status
from Roger Wiegand •Is there an online resource that provides the publication dates for Ampico rolls? My Google-fu has failed me. YouTube has asserted that someone has made a copyright claim against me for posting a recording of Ampico roll 57143-G, Waltz Op. 70, No. 3, by Frederic Chopin. Clearly the composition itse... |
| 2021.08.08.02 |
Aeolian Organ Roll Copyright Stamps
from Kevin McElhone •I am continuing my research into copyright stamps. I have recently come across a copy of the 58-note Aeolian Organ roll L10287, Melodious Memories of 64 tunes, arranged by Herman Finck. This roll has a leader in poor condition; originally it had _eight_ copyright stamps on it but they are mostly mi... |
| 2013.07.05.06 |
U.S. Copyright Law in Wikipedia Articles
from Robbie Rhodes •Here are links (URLs) to copyright information at Wikipedia. Robbie Rhodes - MMDigest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act The Copyright Term Extension Act. This law, also known as the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Sonny Bono Act, or as the Mickey Mouse Protection Ac... |
| 1997.01.08.11 |
U.S. Copyright Law
from Matthew Caulfield Although it is completely true that any work copyrighted more than 75 years ago is now in the public domain, the reverse is not necessarily true. That is, it is not necessarily true -- though it usually is -- that a work copyrighted within the past 75 years is still protected by copyright in 1997. F... |
| 1998.03.23.05 |
U.S. Copyright Law for Sound Recordings
from Tim Baxter •This is a response to the statements concerning copyrights in recent postings from Robert Perry and Matthew Caulfield. As an initial matter, there is some confusion of the terminology in both of these recent postings; "mechanicals" refers to the compulsory license which must be obtained by a person... |
| 1998.03.24.04 |
U.S. Copyright Law for Sound Recordings
from Robert Perry •Hi Tim and MMD. Tim, you wrote: > I close by stating that no criticism is intended or implied towards > either Mr. Perry or Mr. Caulfield; the former asked in good faith. I certainly don't take offence and found your post really enlightening. Unfortunately, I didn't make my reasons for asking the q... |
| 1998.03.24.05 |
U.S. Copyright Law for Sound Recordings
from Tim Baxter •Hi Robert: Thanks for your response. Your most recent inquiry gets into a complex area of U.S. copyright law involving "derivative works". All of my postings involve U.S. law, and I do not claim to be an expert, nor do I hold out these postings as legal advice. First, I'm not sure anyone would comp... |
| 1998.04.16.09 |
Performance, Arrangement & Composer Copyright
from Tim Baxter •Re the articles by Damon Atchison and Bob Loesch on copyright infringement when copying old rolls. I was trying to not throw myself into this again, but here goes: (1) Distinctions must be made between the PERFORMANCE copyright, i.e., the copyright which attaches to a unique sound recording of a pa... |
| 1999.11.13.12 |
U.S. Copyright Term Extended
from Matthew Caulfield •I wonder if MMD'ers are aware of the major copyright law change of last year (or the year before?) that adds another 25 years to copyright term, in order to bring U.S. law into line with that of other western nations? Because of this the 1923 borderline between public domain and copy- righted mater... |
| 2002.07.25.05 |
U.S. Copyright Issues for Arrangers
from Harald Mueller •[ Charlie Moore wrote about new musical arrangements in 020626 [ MMDigest and inquired about licensing and fees. Harald's reply [ below was lost somewhere and wasn't received at MMD until now, [ two weeks late! -- Robbie Hello Charlie, Ed, and all -- No music arrangements this time, but another, im... |
| 2004.01.15.03 |
U.S. Copyright Law
from Matthew Caulfield •John, I believe that U.S. copyright law now conforms closely to U.K. and European copyright law. Under the Copyright Act of 1909 the United States pretty much went its own way and chose not adhere to the Berne Copyright Convention when it was later enacted -- differing in such provisions as copyrig... |
| 2004.01.15.04 |
U.S. Copyright Law
from Richard Vance •Yesterday, Mr. Page said, "...music whose copyright [in Britain] had already expired under the 50-year rule, came back into copyright when the time limit was increased to 70 years. This is a classic case of "moving the goal posts" if ever I saw one." This would not be possible in America, due to th... |
| 2004.01.16.04 |
U.S. Copyright Law
from Don Cox •Richard Vance wrote in 040115 MMDigest: > Ethical web suppliers of on-line music ... respect this rule ... I think the appropriate word here is "law-abiding" rather than "ethical". An ethical person would be fighting to get the Sonny Bono law repealed. Regards Don Cox |
| 2012.06.07.07 |
Music Rolls and U.S. Copyright Law
from Matthew Caulfield •In the 120605 MMD Bryan Cather mentions changes to copyright law that occurred during the 1920s that applied to sound recordings. These changes are a mystery to me. My understanding of copyright law is that the Copyright Act of 1909 did not apply to sound recordings and that hence there was no Fede... |
 |