[cc-community] CC licenses and recording rights for music
jonathon.blake at gmail.com
Tue Dec 18 22:52:05 EST 2007
> I would be interested in hearing a bit more about this,
particularly examples (such as case law or new licenses of this type
that have recently become available) where this trend can be seen.
All I can point to here, is that some collecting societies have taken
to mailing letters to churches advising them of their need to pay
royalties on the hymns etc that they use.
> specific exemptions in US and Canadian law for public performances "of a religious nature" or by a "religious organization"  . I think this makes the question of whether a church service is considered a public performance a moot point.
That is why the singing of hymns by the congregation as a whole is a
> I wonder why I have never seen the separation of church and state issue brought up in relation to the government granting copyrights to works of a religious nature.
I don't remember what the case law on that one is. It wouldn't
surprise me if was along the lines of "governments have to treat all
content equally, unless such content is clearly against the interests
of both the people and the state".
> > Given the exemptions discussed above, I don't think that will happen.
> Laws can be changes with enough will. The question is, who has more will...
I _think_ that more churches are archiving their services now, than
were doing so, even as recently as a decade ago. So even without a
change in laws, what the churches are doing is crossing that legal
gray area boundary.
> Or music where artists have given explicit permission for royalty-free copying.
For those in jurisdictions with mandatory collecting society
requirements, that doesn't work.
> > Do you mean collection of royalty payments for recordings and public performance?
Not just those, but those are the most common.
> I would like to see this wording modified in such a way that if the party is paying a blanket license to my collection agency, I get my share.
I _think_ that with the CC-NC licenses, you can claim your share.
> assert that older works may still have copyright protection under various state laws.
Twin Books v Disney (83 F 3d 1162) implies that a work is under
copyright in the United States if the following four points apply:
* First published on or after 1 July 1909;
* Was never published prior to 1923 with a copyright notice recognized
by the United States;
* Was never published in the United States prior to 1923;
* Was originally published in a language other than English;
My understanding is that after 1909, state copyright law only applied
in the case of unpublished material. Between the 1978 Copyright Act,
and the DMCA, unpublished material is covered, and state copyright
laws no longer apply.
More information about the cc-community