A legal resolution to an embarrassing situation

The WTJU copyright issue, day 53 -- resolution.

That's the big news in my little world. I finally got a response from the general manager at WTJU, and so formally sent off my consent to have my image used on the WTJU website.

Good thing I wasn't in a litigious mood! But I always felt it was something best handled between rational adults rather than hired lawyers. So what did I do? I granted the University of Virginia and WTJU the non-exclusive right to use my image in full or in part in any media they chose for the support of WTJU. I also stipulated that should the image be used in full, the phrase "courtesy Ralph Graves" should appear either in the lower right hand corner of the image, or directly under it. I further waived any fees for the use of this image.

If you're not of a legal bent, you might wonder what all the fuss is about. It's simply this. According to current copyright law, when something is created, it is automatically the property of the creator. You don't have to register the work with the Copyright Office. So the image used (until today without my permission) was my property.

By granting a non-exclusive license to UVa and WTJU, I gave them permission to use the image, but I can still use it, and I can grant other people or organizations permission to use it as well. I know they only wanted to use part of the image, so I included that in the permission. But if they decide (for some reason) to do a postcard or a print add with the full image, then I'd like to get credit, primarily to serve notice to others that the image is owned by someone (me).

So there you have it. It always was a simple transaction, and should not have dragged on for two months, but in the end everyone (even me) got what we wanted. WTJU can use my picture, and I can still claim the image as mine.

Time for a new tack

Well, a week ago I contacted the General Manager of WTJU to alert him about a copyright violation on the new WTJU website. Basically, UVa is using one of my photos without permission (shown right). I offered an easy out -- send me a request for use, and I'll grant it without charge (because I'm a volunteer and I'm happy to help). Here we are nine days later and no response.

So I've decided that perhaps I'm contacting the wrong person. I sent the following email to the station's webmaster. Let's see what happens.

The website mockup looks great, but it's using an image of mine that I have not given the University permission to use. I'm happy to do so (at no charge), but someone needs to contact me about it. Attached is the original photo, along with the email that wrote to Burr on 8/10.


I have yet to get any kind of response, so perhaps this message hasn't reached the right person. Could you please either forward this along or let me know who I should be sending this to?


I would very much like my photo to be used -- but legally to protect everyone's interests.




Burr:


Saw the mockup for the new website -- it looks really great.


I know you're talking with the UVa legal department about various things, and I'd like to help you keep things in order.


I'm not sure who put the photo of the board operator's hand on the header, but I do know they don't have permission to use the image -- because it's mine. I took that photo and posted it to my Facebook account.


Attached is a copy of the original photo, where you can clearly see that I have my Gamut playlist open on the computer screen.


I didn't say anything when it was grabbed for the forum, I thought things were volatile enough.


I'm perfectly happy to allow the station/University to use the image without charge. I'd consider it a donation to the station. But to make sure all the t's are crossed, the appropriate people need to shoot me an email asking permission for use, which I'll promptly reply to.


That way there will be permission on file that just protects everyone (and shows you're on top of things).


Please email the request to:


[email address provided]


with the subject line:


Photo clearance


I'm very honored that folks considered this image captures part of the spirit of the station, and I'd love to have it used for that purpose.

The WTJU copyright issue, day 9. 

Trying to prevent more embarrassment

I've already pointed out how the University of Virginia used one of my images without permission. I think the assumption was that since I had posted it on Facebook, it was fair game (it isn't).

UVa's currently working on a new version of the WTJU website, and have posted a preview for volunteers to look at. And there it is -- my copyrighted image at the top of the page (the original's shown below).

Let's be clear: as a volunteer for WTJU I'm happy to let UVa use the image. But they do have to ask.

To get the ball rolling, I've written the following email to Burr Beard, the general manager for WTJU. Hopefully this will all be cleared up soon.

Burr:


Saw the mockup for the new website -- it looks really great.


I know you're talking with the UVa legal department about various things, and I'd like to help you keep things in order.


I'm not sure who put the photo of the board operator's hand on the header, but I do know they don't have permission to use the image -- because it's mine. I took that photo and posted it to my Facebook account. Attached is a copy of the original photo, where you can clearly see that I have my Gamut playlist open on the computer screen.


I didn't say anything when it was grabbed for the forum, I thought things were volatile enough.


I'm perfectly happy to allow the station/University to use the image without charge. I'd consider it a donation to the station. But to make sure all the t's are crossed, the appropriate people need to shoot me an email asking permission for use, which I'll promptly reply to.


That way there will be permission on file that just protects everyone (and shows you're on top of things).


Please email the request to:


[I supplied an email address here]


with the subject line:


Photo clearance


I'm very honored that folks considered this image captures part of the spirit of the station, and I'd love to have it used for that purpose.

So here we go: the WTJU copyright issue, day 1.

Well, this is embarrassing (but not to me)

There's a huge controversy stirring at WTJU, the station I volunteer for (but this post isn't about that). The University wants to makeover the station, and listeners are understandably upset (OK, me too). The University hurriedly set up a forum for listeners and volunteers to share their thoughts.

They came up with a really nice header for the site. (Click to enlarge) This is the embarrassing part.

You see, I recognized the image -- because I took it. Here's the original. (Click on image to enlarge.)

Notice the computer screen -- it's showing the playlist blog for my show "Gamut" that I was updating at the time.

I didn't give the University permission to use this image, so where did it come from? Well, I posted it on my Facebook page, so it apparently was lifted from there. So here's the dilemma. Do I send a take-down notice to the University for the unauthorized use of my work? Or leave it alone?

The takeaway (as if I didn't already know it), is that anything online is fair game -- to anyone.
 - Ralph

This Week in Law hosts an exception discussion of copyright

Although not a lawyer, I'm a big fan of This Week in Law. Program #62 was particularly outstanding, especially in providing real insight and practical, first-hand looks at the use and value of copyright in a file-sharing world. Cory Doctorow, BoingBoing editor and author, along with Mike Masnick of TechDirt discussed with host Denise Howell and regular Evan Brown how files haring and "piracy" hasn't hurt or devalued their creative content.

Many studies have shown that when it comes to music, a record label's best customers are those who share files. I encourage you to listen to this podcast episode even if you normally don't (or don't think a law-oriented discussion is your cup of tea).

Among other things, Doctorow presents an interesting concept; that the emotional investment companies have in their business models often trumps the practicality of said models. It certainly explains the continued efforts of the RIAA!

Doctorow tells the story of what happened when the E.U. considered changing database copyright laws. In Europe, database information can be copyrighted, giving each information company its own little monopoly. In America, this information can't be copyrighted. Result: In America the information industry grew 25 times over the same period the European information industry declined. Apparently, the only thing that prevented a sharper decline were the investments some European companies made in American firms.

So what happened when the E.U. looked into lifting the copyright restrictions on databases? In reality, everyone could see it was the way to go, but even the companies that invested in the U.S. firms weren't emotionally ready to give up their exclusive control. So the restrictions remain, to the benefit of the U.S. industry, and the detriment of the European.

There's more in this program, such as how the lack of copyright spurs fashion innovation and why link farms don't matter. This is important stuff, and something we should all be informed about. Because the laws being put on the books, and the draconian punishments that go with them, aren't being formed on the reality of the situation, but on the emotional investment of the major players -- and that affects all of us.

Internet Radio Saved? Not So Fast...

IInternet Radio is now Saved.

f you just scan the headlines, you'll glean that H.R. 7014 has passed both the House and the Senate, and

Well, kind of.

First off, what does the Webcaster Settlement Act of 2008 do, exactly? It basically updates the Webcaster Settlement Act of 2002, changing the terms slightly and moving deadlines. It allows for Internet broadcasters and the SoundExchange to continue negotiating the royalty rates that webcasters have to pay. And that they can continue to talk, and even reach a binding agreement while Congress is adjourned.

That's good, but not great. The royalty rate is still officially set at the ruinous levels it was on January 1. The SoundExchange has agreed not to collect the higher fees as long as talks continued. But should talks cease, then the entire uncollected balance plus interest would immediately come due -- which would shutter many netcasters with one fell stroke.

Webcasters like Pandora are obviously grateful for any kind of extension, but the SoundExchange is still acting pretty cagey. As their executive director John Simon said, "We are hopeful, but we've been close at other times during the past 18 months." (that would include the time last year when they lobbied the Copyright Board so hard they didn't have time to talk to anybody).

So there's still a need for the Internet Radio Equity Act (H.R. 2060 and S.1353), still languishing in committee. That bill would have the rates set at a fair level by Congressional legislation. The fees would be scalable, so each netcaster would pay in proportion to their income, rather than the current rates that demand a large payment that in many cases exceed the netcaster's income.

Still, it's a start. The Senate passed the bill unanimously, so kudos to my congressmen, John Warner (R-Va) and Jim Webb (D-Va). The bill also passed the House of Representatives, but by a voice vote that was not recorded. So how did my Representative, Eric Cantor (R-Va) vote?

I don't know. His responses to my correspondence on the subjects are always carefully crafted to betray no stance whatsoever. And there's nothing on his website either. Hmm.

This isn't over yet. And the outcome isn't clear at all. There's more to the story than just the headlines.

- Ralph


Day 109 of the WJMA Web Watch.

One out of three

I heard back from one of my elected officials today. You may recall that I wrote my representative and both my senators recently to ask for their support for the current Internet radio bills that would dial back the 1200% increase in royalties netcasters are required to pay to the SoundExchange to a more rational and reality-based level.

Here's Senator Jim Webb's response:

Thank you for your recent electronic mail message to my office in Washington. I am pleased that because of the Internet, more than 100,000 Virginians will send their ideas directly to me this year.

[Well, yeah. That's why I'm concerned about keeping the Internet as regulation-free and open for everyone to use as possible.]

Please be assured that your views are very helpful to me and my staff.

[And those views would be....? Relax, I know this is an automated response.]

As the Senate addresses crucial economic, domestic and foreign policy issues facing our nation, we will be sure to keep your comments and ideas in mind.

[Not sure how the Save Internet Radio bills fit in with foreign policy, but it's certainly a crucial economic issue to netcasters.]

I encourage you to visit my website at http://webb.senate.gov for regular updates about my activities and positions on matters that are important to Virginia and our nation.

[Yep, I have -- I'm also tracking your Senate activities, voting records, large contributors, et al. at OpenCongress.org. ]

If the subject of your communication is time sensitive, involves a personal issue relating to the federal government (such as help with a passport, claim for veterans' benefits, or immigration) or requires more detailed attention, please visit my Assistance/Casework page or contact my office directly toll free at 1-866-507-1570.

Again, thank you for contacting my office, and I hope you will communicate with me often in the future.

Jim Webb
United States Senate

OK, it's a canned response, but at least it is a response. I'm sure my letter was mixed in with a bunch of CIA-microwave-mind control rants and black helicopter emails. I'm hoping in time a real person will read this and I'll get a more genuine reply.

In the meantime, I'll continue to follow this issue, and take note of how Senator Webb supports or blocks the passage of the bill.

- Ralph

The Orphan Works Act

Since I'm blogging about politics this week, there's one other piece of legislation worthy of everyone's attention -- the Orphan Works Act, H.R. 5889 and S.2913.

Orphan works are copyrighted material that has been abandoned. A book published by a defunct publisher is a good example. Although the copyright may not be expired, the copyright holder no longer exists -- and the work cannot be used by anyone else. As I've pointed out in an earlier post, this can be a real problem, especially for archivists.

As the law's currently written works copyrighted after 1922 are protected for 95 years (and ones after 1978 even longer). So everything between registered between 1922 and 1978 is off-limits until 2019 at the earliest. Which means that books, films, and recordings from the 1920's deteriorate beyond recovery, while libraries watch helplessly. They're unable to make copies of this material because it would violate the rights of an owner who no longer exists.

There's more to this, of course, which is why the Orphan Works Act is a hugely controversial bill. Currently, there are massive penalties for the unauthorized use of copyrighted material. So if you used something you thought was an orphan work, and the owner showed up, you could be on the hook for huge punitive damages.

The bill basically tweaks the law a little. It would require the user to use "due diligence" to seek out the copyright owner. If one can't be found, then they can proceed. And if later the owner shows up, then they are entitled to the proceeds and profits from the unauthorized use of their material, but not punitive damages.

Artists are up in arms. As they see it, someone could take their work, claim they didn't know it wasn't public domain, and pay them peanuts. Well, the key is actually what "due diligence" entails. The most current artwork is pretty easy to trace -- especially online -- so there's some recourse. If someone just claims they "thought" it was in the public domain when the owner steps forward, then they're still liable for punitive damages. The onus of proof is on the user that they made a reasonable effort to determine who owned the work and to contact them.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation's weighed in with their view. The EFF's take on it is similar to mine -- protection is still in place for the artists, but now it's been added for users who can prove they thoroughly researched the copyright before appropriating the material.

So is this a good bill or no? To answer that question, I went to the source, read the legislation for myself and then decided. OK, I know I've made my views fairly clear in this post, but for anyone reading about this bill for the first time, I suggest you don't take my analysis on faith. Go to the source and read the bill for yourself. Then you'll have a point of reference for considering the pros and cons of this debate.

After all, the idea here is to promote more democracy in action, not democratic inaction.

- Ralph

"Radio Nowhere" by John Amos

I was trying to find my way home,
But all I heard was a drone,
Bouncing off a satellite,
Crushing the last lone American night.
This is Radio Nowhere.
Is there anybody alive out there?

--Bruce Springsteen

Well, is there? Will somebody please answer the man’s question: Is anybody alive out there? I’ve been listening, but it seems pretty dead to me. Commercial radio, once such a potent means of communication, has become an utter wasteland.

I spend two hours a day in my truck, which doesn’t have a working CD player. So I listen to a lot of radio. I’ve got ten preset buttons, but only a couple are worth pushing.

Most stations today play pre-programmed “hits.” Few have live deejays. Of the ones that do, advertisements and silly talk predominate. Crude humor abounds. Once we had Wolfman Jack; now we have Imus, Stern, and a host of other shock-jock wannabes.

Stations try to grab listeners with fizzy promises (“more music, less talk”) and catchy slogans (“Generation Radio,” an inane euphemism for the oldies format). What’s missing, of course, is any sort of community connection. I realize the bottom-line drives a station’s programming decisions, but the fact remains: pre-packaged shows, produced in nameless places, are no substitute for the real, live thing.

Most stations today are owned by huge corporations. That’s why they all sound alike. Can’t take a chance on something original, so we’ll just play another worn out old standby, tell another smutty joke. The result: homogenized play-lists and tasteless talk.

It was not always so.

In fact, not that long ago radio was a vibrant part of this community. Orange’s tiny station had talent that much larger markets must have envied. Arch Harrison, Ross Hunter, and Bill Little were classy broadcasters with made-for-radio voices. The station also developed young talent, hiring high school students as broadcast interns, who learned the ropes quickly and soon became radio personalities in their own right. These folks took their work seriously, and they put out a product that people wanted, maybe even needed, to hear.

My grandmother listened religiously to The Swap Shop, a sort of on-air yard sale. She loved hearing people call in to trade clothes, cars, books, and other odd-and-ends. I once heard an old farmer on The Swap Shop attempt to trade a bushel of sweet potatoes for a 1968 Ford Galaxy transmission. I kid you not.

People tuned in on Friday nights to hear Hornet football games. They listened on election night to local politicos discuss the vote tallies. Teenagers called, requesting songs and offering dedications. People set their alarms to hear their neighbors’ birthdays announced. Churches took turns airing Sunday morning services.

None of it was particularly exciting, but it was genuine. Real people, real entertainment, and real information. Of course, it’s no longer cost-effective; but surely something has been lost.
A few oases still exist in today’s radio wasteland. National Public Radio provides a wonderful medley of music, interviews, and in-depth reporting. A Prairie Home Companion is the closest thing we have to the classic shows of the 30’s and 40’s.

Closer to home, several Charlottesville stations are bucking the trend. WNRN advertises itself as “community radio” and plays a wonderful grab-bag of music. 106.1 “The Corner” lives up to its slogan, “Different is Good.” And you never know what gem you’ll hear next on WTJU. These stations mix passionate volunteers with seasoned, professional deejays to create something worth listening to.

And in Orange, Phil Goodwin continues to report daily on local news. He’s a humane and intelligent voice, crying in the wilderness.

The internet is also trying hard to revive the medium. XM and Sirius offer stations devoted to blues, jazz, sports-talk, and just about anything else you could want. Services like Pandora and slacker.com actually allow listeners to build their own stations. Though I like the concept, internet radio seems a bit sterile to me. Good radio should deliver a sense of place, and who can say where the internet originates?

Radio, far more than television, relies on an audience’s imagination. Without pictures, it has only words, voice, and human warmth to reach listeners. This requires a person at the other end of the microphone, not a recording.

Like the newspaper industry, radio is struggling to remain relevant in the modern age. It will only survive by cultivating the human connection. Abandon that, and all you’ve got left is waves, bouncing off a satellite.

- John Amos

©2008 by John Amos
Reprinted by permission

"Radio Nowhere" and the Orange Review

John Amos, a local writer here in Orange, Virginia, writes an excellent column "Every Now and Then" that's published in the Orange Review and the Fredricksburg Free-Lance Star.

His article that ran in last week's edition of the Orange Review, "Radio Nowhere," articulated the ennui of broadcast radio's diminishing audience from a listener's point of view. I really like the piece, and I should have been able to call attention to Amos' essay simply by linking to it.

But I couldn't.

The Orange Review didn't put it online. Only a portion of the articles published in the weekly paper makes it to their website, and they have no online archive. New week, a new batch of articles and the old simply disappear from cyberspace.

Now I know I've talked about local media a lot recently, but it's for a purpose. Most of "CE Conversations" readership don't live in Orange, Virginia, and commentary only about WJMA or the Orange Review would be irrelevant for them.

But these critiques are using specific examples that are relevant elsewhere. While it's unlikely the site in question will do anything, hopefully, it will stimulate thought among the readership for other sites they're involved with; be it work, recreation, or volunteer organization.

So what's wrong with the Orange Review site that might be of help to similar sites? The Review doesn't understand that content is king.

The Review is the best source of news and information about what's happening in Orange and has been continually published since at least 1887. Granted, it would take a long time to digitize all those back issues, but what a resource for historians and genealogists.

But the paper doesn't even archive what it currently prints! At the very least, there should be two or three years' worth of content available (I'm guessing that's about the time everything went digital in the press room). Where do these digitized stories go after publication, anyway? Just add a search box (also missing) and make this content available, already.

Why should they? Because unique content drives traffic to the site, which boosts ad revenue. Which is the other problem with the Orange Review site. There's just one ad box. Ad clutter is bad, but these guys just aren't trying. A few spaces for contextual advertising would not be too obtrusive, and would help expand the revenue base outside of the Orange County limits.

And before you respond that this is just a little paper in a little one-horse town and they don't have the staff or the time to do all that interwebtube stuff, know this: the Orange Review and the papers for the four surrounding counties are owned by Media General, a fairly large media company. Their sister publication, Charlottesville's Daily Progress does a slightly better job -- at least, you can search their archives and their ad placement makes a little more sense.

I think it's simply a lack of vision. Whether it's at the corporate level, the regional level or perhaps even the local level, somewhere decision makers are not understanding the web.

If I had my way, everyone whose decisions involve even marginally the Internet would watch the following video. Mike Wesch, an assistant professor of cultural anthropology at Kansas State put together what I consider the best explanation of how information on the Internet works, and how its different than printed media.

So the story ends with me contacting John Amos and getting permission from him to post the column in its entirety on "CE Communications" (he owns the copyright to the material). I'll post it tomorrow.

If this article generates the amount of discussion I think it should, traffic for this site will increase significantly. And that's a shame -- because each additional click represents another missed opportunity for the Orange Review.

- Ralph

Still fair and balanced -- our bottom five posts

Our last post we took stock of where we were after 20,000 views and ran down our five most popular posts. Just as we did when we hit the 10,000 mark, we're also going to list the five least popular posts, in descending order. After all, if we celebrate the good, we ought to acknowledge the bad.

5) After the Bum Rush -- My analysis of the attempt to send the record labels a message by pushing an independent release to the top of the iTunes charts. Was it successful? Fortunately, more folks responded to the challenge than read my post about it.

4) I Want My MTV YouTube -- I'm hoping this one's in the gutter just because it's so recent. I offer up the concept that YouTube serves the function of the original version of Music Television.

3) Pulling Cable -- Ken observed new fiber being laid in his neighborhood. Would HDTV finally be available? Did you care?

2) The Revolution Will Be Dugg -- My attempt to put the spreading of DRM codes as an act of civil disobedience into a larger context.

And the absolute least-read post so far:

1) Return of the Marching Memes -- This was also the least popular 10,000 views ago. When you're not interested, you're really not interested.

Four of the five bottom posts are mine. Ken finally has an entry, but he still comes out ahead when you look at the most popular posts. No matter how we look at the stats, you, gentle reader, have voted with your mouse clicks. Quality wins over quantity once more. And I don't think either of us would want it any other way.

- Ralph

Copyright II - The Orphan and the Manger Dog

Sean Tubbs of the Charlottesville Podcasting Network posted an excellent question to my recent entry on copyright. He wanted to know:

Who would come after you if you decided to use music from the 1930's, say, in a podcast, without permission? Who would you get permission from?

As the law's currently written works copyrighted after 1922 are protected for 95 years (and ones after 1978 even longer). So everything between registered between 1922 and 1978 is off-limits until 2019 at the earliest.

If for example, you wanted to use a recording from 1923 in your podcast, you would have to get permission from the current copyright owner. For an RCA Victor release, for example, you would have to contact Sony/BMG. Okeh Records was independent in the 1920s but was eventually purchased by Columbia, which was bought by Sony and is now part of Sony/BMG -- who you would have to contact to get permission.

But what if it's an "orphan" work? That is, what about works copyrighted by companies that no longer exist, and whose assets were never purchased by another company? Under the current system, these abandoned works do not automatically lapse into public domain. It is incumbent upon the user to make a diligent search for the copyright owners, and even if they cannot be located, the work is still considered to be used without proper clearance.

Does it matter? A record company that went under in 1929 isn't likely to come after a podcaster today. But look at your terms of use agreements you signed with your Internet provider or web hoster. You could technically be considered in violation of the agreement by using a work that isn't cleared.

Legislation has been introduced to force the issue and get orphan works to lapse into public domain -- but it's being fought by the RIAA, MPAA, and other content owners. Why? Because they don't want any of their material that -- through oversight -- may be considered abandoned to automatically become public domain.

And the effect?

Books by publishers long gone molder on library shelves. Archivists don't dare scan them to preserve their content because they're not in the public domain.

Movies from film companies that collapsed in the Great Depression disintegrate in their cans. Preservationists can't reproduce them because they're not in the public domain.

Recordings from defunct labels remain unheard. Sound engineers can't transfer them and present them to the public because they're not in the public domain.

And so a large part of our past disappears into the mist of time while the Big Media dog furiously barks to keep the public at bay. The record labels, publishers and movie studios can't make any money from this material. It isn't useful to them -- but by God no one else is going to use it either!

- Ralph

The Three Faces of Copyright

With the recent decision in the UK to continue their current copyright system and the economic study released by Rufus Pollock, it's now possible to examine three aspects of copyright law side-by-side: the ideal, the practical, and the insane.


1. The Ideal - 14 Years
In his study, Pollock outlines through economic theory and a good deal of number-crunching that 14 years is the optimal length for a copyright. According to Pollock, this provides protection for the work during its peak earning capacity and releases it to the public domain about the time it stops bringing in significant income.

What does that mean?
In such a world as Pollock posits, everything copyrighted before 1983 would in public domain. That would include all of KC and Sunshine Band's output, as well as the Beatles, most of the Rolling Stones, Miles Davis, James Brown, and more.

What are the effects?
Popular works from the past that continue to sell, such as the Beatles catalog would no longer be income streams for their owners. A massive revival of many forgotten, underappreciated and cult films and bands would begin almost immediately, fueled by fan-driven rereleases.

2. The Practical - 50 years
British copyright protection for sound recordings lasts for 50 years, at which time the work passes into public domain. This was recently challenged when record labels realized that early recordings by Elvis, the Beatles, and the Rolling Stones would soon have their copyrights lapse. Fortunately, the government stood firm, and the current rules stand.

What does that mean?
Popular works from the past are still protected, but the clock's ticking. Personally, I believe that if you can't make money off the Beatles catalog in fifty years, then maybe you should be in another line of work. The half-century of protection ensures that artists who enjoy a revival in popularity can still profit from their back catalog (such as Bill Haley when "Happy Days" started a 50's craze).

The effects?
Basically, the music of three generations is protected. Glen Miller's recordings are in public domain, as well as "All Shook Up" and "Jailhouse Rock" by Elvis, "That'll be the Day" by the Crickets, and "Love Letters in the Sand" by Pat Boone. While the Elvis material (and a few others) may represent some loss to the labels, most of the material coming into public domain is only of interest to nostalgia buffs and older listeners -- a demographic the major labels ceased to serve some time ago. These niche markets with their limited sales continue to present opportunities for small specialty reissue labels.

3. The Insane - Life plus 70 years
American copyright protection has lengthened over the years, in part (some suspect) to ensure that Mickey Mouse never enters public domain. The current legislation, called the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act jumped the previous protection of life of the creator plus 50 years to life of the creator plus 70 years for works registered after 1978, and extended from 75 to 95 years those registered before (which fell under a different version of the copyright law). It is perhaps not a coincidence that Senator Bono was a recording artist and songwriter who benefited from this legislation (although ironically, his premature death in a skiing accident started his copyright protection clock ticking sooner than he had perhaps imagined).

What does that mean?
Basically, just about everything is out of reach. The current law protecting works registered after 1978 means that the earliest these recordings could enter public domain would be 2048. Works registered between 1924 and 1978 are protected for 95 years. So tunes popular in 1924, such as "Alabamy Bound" and "Wreck of the Old 97" are still under copyright -- as well as the recordings of Rudy Vallee, Glenn Miller, Big Momma Thornton and others.

What are the effects?
Because the law's basically an extension cobbled onto an extension of an older statute, things are a mess. Only works copyrighted before 1922 are in public domain. Nothing will enter public domain until 2019.
This is in stark contrast to the ideal and practical models above, where new works enter the public domain every year. And because everything's locked down under copyright, the only recordings that are reissued are the ones either by the major labels or those they authorize. Want some Bunny Berigan? Good luck with that. The legendary jazz trumpeter of the 1930's had some of his hits reissued on LP in the 1950's but as far as legal recordings go, that's it. All out of print, with virtually no chance of reissue -- at least in America.

Virtually all the recording artists from the 1930's and before are dead, and their music mostly out of print. The recording companies long ago made whatever significant money there was to be had from them, and in many cases recouped their investments many times over. Economies of scale make most of this recorded legacy impractical to reissue. So there it sits, locked away unheard, and generating no income -- but still protected!

And therein lies the insanity.

- Ralph