Is CD Mastering Copyrightable?

If not ... why not? If so ... please expand.

 

The Stones ABKCO remasters are copyright 2002 and there is no trace of their original copyright date - at least on the discs I have.

 

And speaking of copywrite, I came across this company today:

http://www.rediscovery.us/index.htm

Quote:
"The sources ReDiscovery uses for its releases are public domain recordings. Surprisingly, many classical recordings issued before 1972 are not protected by copyright. Law in this area is extremely convoluted, because before 1972, the first "fixation" of sound (the original master tapes) was eligible for protection, but the records and tapes made from them were not. Thus, an LP or tape issued for public sale before 1972 is public domain and can be freely used for any purpose--as long as the music contained therein is also public domain. (This is why you will not find releases by Gershwin or Prokofieff among our offerings.) If you wish a thorough explanation of this complicated issue, we recommended you check this copyright page at the R-VCR website. We have no connection with them, but their elucidation of the law as it applies to classical music recordings is well worth examining."


Most of their reissues are from consumer open reel tapes and LPs from the 50's and 60's. Weird.
Dan C

 

An interesting question...one would think that, were a company to want a master for, say, a V.A. or movie soundtrack comp, they'd use the most recent remastering(regardless of its actual sound quality); that, or are they stuck with whatever the company or entity they're licensing from sends along? I think I know where this thread is leading. What if somebody wanted to use, say, "She's Not There"? Once they got the legal thing together, could they use any remastering without credit--say, ahem, Steve's for the new SACD? Are there telltale 'digital watermarks' that would give away whose master was being used, and from what source? Fascinating subject. You out there, Steve?

ED

 

Record labels overseas can actually legitimately issue recordings in the open without royalty payments if they are 50 years old or older (labels that do this include ASV in the UK with their Living Era imprint, Pearl/Pearl Flapper in the UK, Disky (an EMI imprint in the UK), the Gold Collection 2 CD imports from England, Proper in the UK, JSP, Definitive in Italy, and many others). If you wonder why you can get a multi-disc compilation of Bing Crosby imported from the UK for $10-20 while Universal charges about $50 for their Bing Crosby box, now you know why.

 

Maybe I'm reading into this differently from all of you, but I think Chip's question concerns the mastering itself. Ie, let's say some company decides to license the Zombies material (not uncommon). Is there anything stopping them from simply doing a dub of Steve's mastering? Is there anything stopping Capitol from subbing in Steve's master of Straight Up for their own release? Etc...

 

Luke's right. You couldn't just add 1dB at 10kHz and try to get copyrighted ownership of that "mastered" recording. Everyone would own a piece of the Beatle's catalog. The lawsuits would never end.

There's no way to prove who mastered a certain recording. Capitol could just copy the the DCC Badfinger CD and release it since they have ownership of that album. Can you imagine the chaos trying to prove ownership of a mastering process?

There was a point made as to cases where significant processing, restoration or editing of the original signal have been performed. Wouldn't that fall under circle P instead of circle C? That would be more of a production than creation.

 

That's right ... Luke ... I am asking about the mastering itself ... and "copyright" may not be the right term.

 

I'm reading it the same way Luke is.

It is common for record companies to use other mastered CDs as sources. I's really no different than using a mixdown tape or one that was mastered for a particular format. There most likely have been cases where someone used, say, Steve's mastering on tape or CD for a compilation. If the mastering is a good job, it would be nice if the oroiginal mastering engineer got credit, but it usually does not happen. If I understand it correctly, if I had a record company and got all the mechanical licencing out of the way, I could use ANY source I wanted, master it to my new compilation, and claim mastering credit.

 

Probably true, but probably not something Steve wants to admit...

 

Not sure to whom your ? is directed ... but I am asking ... is there a legal mechanism (i.e. copyright) that keeps the owner of the rights to the music or a future licensee from using a "mastering" to CD that you, or any other independent engineer for that matter, have created once the licensing period has ended?

 

Say, taking your redbook "Tell Her No" mastering(for a start) and using--one song here or there, later cloning it--on a future comp: soundtrack, V.A., another 'authorized' Zombies comp.

ED

 

Steve ... I'm surprised ... or maybe I'm not ... that they don't give you a "mastering" credit when they use your mastering or mix ... cuz it's in their best interest ... $$$$ ... I wish Capitol would reissue your Nat King Cole masters.

 

Interesting. With enough money one can put out a great sounding comp. with little effort. The effort is already done. Hmmm...Doesn't sound fair. Then again money talks as with everything in life. Got the powder and you can shoot far.

 

Two incidentals regarding this thread:

1) Makes you understand why labels push for "work for hire" when dealing with acts.

2) Seems to make "fair use" (albeit morally wrong) of copying Steve's masterings on CD if you own an old battered Lp. If the big ones can do it why not the kid next door?

 

Well, this has been going on for years. When a company would license a song from a another record company, many times, the tape that was sent would be a needle drop of the song, sometimes, an out of phase, electronic stereo, bad condition needle drop!! So, the company putting out the record would seek out the best version of the song.

"16 Candles" is a good example. Until the virgin mono master tape was found around 1990, reissue labels used many different sources, until someone noticed that an Lp called "Golden Goodies" had a very nicely mastered version of the tune, then everyone started using that. That mastering job was some good engineers work.

Mikey

 

This is all too common in the classical reissue world.

A small company like M&A will put up their own cash to research and hunt down rare tapes or shellacs, pay an expert engineer to restore and master the material, and finally add detailed liner notes.
Only months later will an exact copy of this work be issued on some elusive label, usually out of Italy. Same remaster, except almost always with gobs of noise reduction. What did it cost these weasels to issue "their" CD? It's theft as far as I'm concerned, but it's "legal".
Dan C

 

Can you imagine some small record company upstart trying to make a few dollars, using downloaded mp3s as the sources?

Yes, it's all true and it happens. If I had the rights cleared for all the songs, I could take one of my homemade CD-R comps and market them. At least we'd get some rare or obscure 70s singles that none of the others can't seem to release...

Believe it or not, some reissues are mastered with the same software you use at home. They just don't want to tell you that. I have a Spyro Gyra compilation that was mastered with Sound Forge 4.5 with CD Architect on a PC.

 

The Beatles catalog is a great case in point. By not remastering what the fans want, in the proper quality or mix, the counterfeiters plunge into action. Over the years, some of these have gotten much better, mainly because of improved software you can install in any PC. The Mobile Fidelity vinyl has been used on I don't know how many boot reissues; I have one of WITH THE BEATLES in stereo that is VERY close to what the actual EMI reissue would sound like. Some of it doesn't always work, depends on the counterfeiter...the Dave Clark 5 boots floating around are kind of tinny, but they do have all the known stereo mixes Dave put out here and there over the years. If he had any sense he'd reissue all this stuff himself, but he owns it all, does what he wants. Which, of late, is nothing at all. Hence the boots.
Then there's the 'clone' CD, one where an original pressing of something goes out of print, or is so hard to find or costly when you do the clones just had to come. I reluctantly bought a clone of the RCA International Los Bravos collection, because that one went out of print fairly quickly....same with the SFS Moby Grape and It's A Beautiful Day discs. SFS was charging so much stores were selling original for $40 back in 1987! So the cloners went to work and issued them all for $20.
I'd love to see a good reworking of the Los Bravos catalog, but RCA Int didn't get it right, the album reissues are a mess of mono and stereo. Blah....

ED

 

It's in the classical domain that we should consider this -- some of the above postings are thinking about modern recordings like the Stones for example, which is a different situation -- w/ the Stones, the recordings themselves are still in copyright; and so, of course, are the compositions. We need a case where the copyright to the mastering alone is in question.

With classical recordings that have lapsed into the public domain the situation is clearer -- because the composition *and* the original recording are both out of copyright. But when a remastering engineer (Ward Marston, say, or Seth Winner or indeed anyone) does a new transfer, that transfer is copyright. (In the US, anyway -- foreign nations don't tend to care.)

So why isn't my personal transfer from a 78rpm disc copyright? I could probably claim that it was. It might hold up in court. I'm not likely to find out. Presumably a litigious enough engineer could undertake to prove that an Italian CD had pirated his transfer of some discs ... but to my knowledge no such case has been tried.

 

The issue of remastering as a copyright issue works better in cinema, where there is an image to protect. Republic finally renewed or verified their rights to the negatives of ANGEL AND THE BADMAN and IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE. One day, there were dozens of crappy public domain prints on VHS; now, none--just the authorized versions from the best available negatives.
With sound recordings, illegality is hard to prove, and often futile and expensive even if you can. It just bugs me that the next time some little company wants to put together a '60s comp and license "She's Not There" they can use any source they want: the one they're given, or lift it from any CD or SACD--including Steve's. It ain't fair, but not much can be done, really.
As for the classical aspect, this should be no different than how the issue is applied to pop music. If the orchestra can be identified, then litigation might work. Problem is, there are hundreds of versions of Beethoven's 9th or Holst: The Planets. Only an expert even more obsessive than some of us here could tell a Previn "The Planets" from a Steinberg.

ED

 

I have a Previn "The Planets" on Telarc which is a great digital recording. I'm not an obsessive classical music collector.