Bob Dylan - 50th anniversary collection - 1964

You're confusing the concept of legal ownership of a physical article (in this case master tapes) with the concept of copyright (the exclusive right to profit from the commercial exploitation of said tapes). They are two very different legal concepts.

Even if Sony's copyright is expired, Joe Public doesn't have the right to walk into Sony HQ and demand access to their vaults.

The same principle applies, in reverse, for tapers. If I make a recording of a gig, without permission of the artist and venue, I own that tape; no one can take it from me. What I don't own is the right to profit from it legally.

 

No, I'm not confusing the two issues but they are inextricably bound together. Yes, I understand that Sony own the physical tape but if they do no longer own exclusive right to profit from it how could you or I, who have as much right to profit from it as Sony, if it's PD, get to make our profit if we cannot get hold of the physical recording to make a CD? I'm interested in the logistics here and how the system would work.

As you say it works in reverse so that tape you make illegally is still yours but you do not have the legal right to profit from it. How would those who DO have that right, get to obtain their profit whilst you hold onto that tape tightly? You see my point?

 

You need to get hold of a copy somehow. For all the stuff that's already been bootlegged, there's already an available source waiting for the PD labels. You can't demand anything from Sony. But if Sony release it after their 50 years is up, you can copy it and release it legally.

 

The "use it or lose it" provision is for the performer, not for "anyone". In Dylan's case it would certainly be furthered complicated by the fact that he is not a resident of the EU, and that his session tapes are not stored in the EU.

If I remember the provision correctly, the performer goes through a legal process of requesting the physical materials from the record company. The record company has one year to release the material themselves, or comply. So if they failed to comply, I would assume they would be considered to be in breach of civil law.

I don't know that anyone has attempted to make use of this provision, which really seems to have been written with "out of print" (rather than "never in print") material in mind. I would assume the provision would need to be legally tested by someone, and that there likely would be considerable legal cost involved.

 

Okay, having given this some thought now please allow me to add my "theory" and feel free to shoot me down if it's completely wrong. The law says that these companies have 50 years to use or lose exclusive rights to profit from the material. However unless said material has been leaked (and is therefore "secure") no companies hoping to profit by "PD" releases can actually do anything about it as they have no rights to access the physical media containing the performance. It is only at the point of time when the "owner" of the media decides to produce a music release from it, that PD companies can freely copy / clone / redistribute it without issue under the law. Correct?

 

I believe so.

 

That is correct. In the past three years Dylan's folks have done a thorough job of thwarting PD releases (as I certainly would if I were them). The Beatles' folks have not been so thorough, a decision I personally think they will live to regret.

 

Slane has answered your first question already.

As for your second question, it is important to understand that it is not illegal to make an audience recording; it is only illegal to profit from the distribution of one.

If Sony became aware that I had an uncirculated Bob Dylan recording, they would not have the right to walk into my house and take the tapes, in the same way that I do not have the right to walk into Sony HQ and make demands upon them. Once I choose to share my recording for free (not illegal) or bootleg it for profit (absolutely illegal) then I lose all control over the contents of that tape forever. Sony can take my recording, press it to a commercial release, and profit legally from it. They did this very thing with certain live tracks included on BS8. I own the master tape, Sony owns the copyright in the contents of that tape. This is why they can release the poor quality Philadelphia audience recording on the 1964 copyright set.

 

Interesting! What recording on BS8 is yours?

Doesn't all this just go to prove that any commercial release must be from the "original master tape" to be guaranteed to sound the best? So many PD releases must be using second grade and inferior copies.

 

My point was illustrative, not literal. But, off the top of my head, I believe "Tryin' to Get to Heaven" from 2000-10-05 is an audience recording. Not mine, but that of a well-known Dylan taper.

Yes, PD labels often use inferior source tapes. It doesn't stop them from profiting from unsuspecting members of the public. Quality control is not high on their list of priorities.

 

I have a PD LP of the lost album between Dylan's debut and Freewheelin' that is as nice as anything Sony puts out, although it is probably cloned from Sony CD releases. But I'm glad PD labels have been able to release some of the pre-1964 Dylan material that Sony doesn't want to bother with. I'm not an unsuspecting member of the public, and I'm glad to be given more choices.

 

Huh -- I disagree! I love the performance, and I even like Eric's harp playing on it. He's playing cross-harp, which can tend to be a little limited when played over something as decidedly major-key as Mr. Tambourine Man, but I think he does a nice job. And Dylan plays it in a lower key than usual, which suits his voice and the melody nicely.

 

Taking information from (only) Olof’s Files I would hazard a guess that the following takes appear on the Copyright Collection.

I am assuming that the takes on the Collection are placed in sequence.

From what I can hear ‘Interrupted’ seems to mean an abrupt ending or early fade.

41. 42. & 42. Are listed as ‘False Starts’ from what I hear, they should be listed as ‘Interrupted’

All comments corrections welcome.

Columbia Studios, New York City, New York. 9 June 1964

The 'Another Side Of Bob Dylan session', produced by Tom Wilson.

1. Denise….. 50th. Anniversary Copyright Collection 1964.
2. Denise (Composite)
3. Denise (Composite)
4. Denise (Composite)
5. It Ain't Me, Babe…....50th. Anniversary Copyright Collection 1964. (Interrupted)
6. It Ain't Me, Babe……Another Side Of Bob Dylan
7. To Ramona…… Another Side Of Bob Dylan
8. Spanish Harlem Incident (False Start)
9. Spanish Harlem Incident (False Start)
10. Spanish Harlem Incident…..50th. Anniversary Copyright Collection 1964.
11. Spanish Harlem Incident…..50th. Anniversary Copyright Collection 1964.
12. Spanish Harlem Incident….. Another Side Of Bob Dylan
13. Ballad In Plain D (False Start)
14. Ballad In Plain D . (Interrupted)
15. Ballad In Plain D . (Interrupted)
16. Ballad In Plain D……50th. Anniversary Copyright Collection 1964.
17. Ballad In Plain D…… Another Side Of Bob Dylan (With Insert)
18. I Don't Believe You……50th. Anniversary Copyright Collection 1964.
19. I Don't Believe You (False start)
20. I Don't Believe You……50th. Anniversary Copyright Collection 1964.
21. I Don't Believe You (False Start)
22. I Don't Believe You…... Another Side Of Bob Dylan (Tom Wilson intro on Bootleg)
23. Chimes Of Freedom . (Interrupted)
24. Chimes Of Freedom……50th. Anniversary Copyright Collection 1964. (False Start)
25. Chimes Of Freedom……50th. Anniversary Copyright Collection 1964. (Interrupted)
26. Chimes Of Freedom (False Start)
27. Chimes Of Freedom (False Start)
28. Chimes Of Freedom (False Start)
29. Chimes Of Freedom…… Another Side Of Bob Dylan (Tom Wilson Intro on Bootleg)
30. Motorpsycho Nitemare (False Start)
31. Motorpsycho Nitemare (False Start)
32. Motorpsycho Nitemare (False Start)
33. Motorpsycho Nitemare…… Another Side Of Bob Dylan (T. Wilson outro on Bootleg)
34. Mr. Tambourine Man……50th. Anniversary Copyright Collection 1964. (False Start)
35. Mr. Tambourine Man…… The Bootleg Series, Vols. 1-3 (Studio chatter on Bootleg)
36. All I Really Want To Do…… Another Side Of Bob Dylan (T. Wilson intro on Bootleg)
37. Black Crow Blues……50th. Anniversary Copyright Collection 1964. (Interrupted)
38. Black Crow Blues……50th. Anniversary Copyright Collection 1964.
39. Black Crow Blues…… Another Side Of Bob Dylan (Extended ending on Grogan Acetate)
40. I Shall Be Free No 10……50th. Anniversary Copyright Collection 1964. (Interrupted)
41. I Shall Be Free No 10……50th. Anniversary Copyright Collection 1964. (False Start)
42. I Shall Be Free No 10……50th. Anniversary Copyright Collection 1964. (False Start)
43. I Shall Be Free No 10……50th. Anniversary Copyright Collection 1964. (False Start)
44. I Shall Be Free No 10…… Another Side Of Bob Dylan (With Insert from 43) (T. Wilson intro on Grogan Acetate)
45. Mama, You Been On My Mind…… The Bootleg Series, Vols. 1-3 (Witmark Demo)
46. My Back Pages (False Start)
47. My Back Pages…… The Bootleg Series, Vols. 1-3

 

Herald-Tribune article on the Eric von Schmidt session:

http://dlvr.it/7nBC1x

From the comments section:

 

ONCE AGAIN I doff my cap, and bow down to you SIR!

 

Bongartz in Erlangen; but they only got a few and will only give them to well known customers of them...

 

Incorrect information, this take was not used as a Witmark Demo.

 

Florida is a bit out of the way, isn't it?

Anyone have a Dylan day-by-day reference for early 1964?
Were there other reasons for him to be down south?

Maybe it was it an excuse to get some sun before going to dreary England..

 

Just got my 'your item has shipped' mail from my (online only, so no 'brick store') supplier. 129.99 euro.
That's where I got my 1963 box at 99.99 too, last year.
So keep an eye on our Amazon etc suppliers.

I have all the BS on vinyl, so the 'collection' keeps complete.

 

From Heylin's book 'A Life in Stolen Moments' :

"According to Von Schmidt, Dylan never visited him in Sarasota, and there is no obvious gap in Dylan & Baez's schedules when this trip would have been practical"

From Olof:

1st. May. Dylan plays the Monterey Folk Festival

9th. May. Dylan leaves for England, where he is to give a number of concerts and appear in TV shows.

 

I'll have you know that temperatures were considerably above average, in England, during the second half of May 1964, with sunshine mostly above average in eastern parts:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/9/r/May1964.pdf

 

Yeah, Florida doesn't sound like part of that itinerary. Even for a troubadour, I'd be a little tired going from
Monterey, CA to Florida to NYC to England in a week or two.

Still, I wonder how that address got attached to the tape?

Ha ha, thanks!

 

Big record companies have never been all that concerned about illegal bootlegs, which is why they've proliferated for decades. They're niche products for a niche audience who generally buy all the official product anyway. Sony had the legal power to stop everything from Great White Wonder onwards, because they owned those recordings. Actually doing so would have been a huge legal expense with little economic gain at the end of it.

This situation is completely different, as the PD releases would be mass market items, legally available in record stores (if you can find one) and, more importantly, on Amazon, and their release would actually destroy Sony's ownership rights - which is what they're really worried about. If they don't release this stuff now, they lose the ownership of it, and all the potential future revenue from it. If somebody wants to use an unreleased 1964 live version of 'Blowin' in the Wind' for an insurance ad in 2025, Sony misses out on a very big paycheck. If they don't protect their copyright now, there's no chance of a 'Live at Festival Hall' release in a few years time, or at least not one that won't be accompanied by dozens of identical 'spoiler' releases available at exactly the same outlets for a couple of bucks less, thereby making it a commercial non-starter.

 

That is very true. BUT to use a song for a commercial venture, you also need the publisher of the song in question to allow the use of the song. So in all likelihood, the publisher of "Blowin' In The Wind" (Witmark Music??) would deny any random company from using a PD version of the song, especially if they wanted Dylan (or his estate) to remain signed with them.

So there are many intricacies involved here, which we sometimes forget.

Arnie

 

Is it too obvious to figure that the Dylan-Von Schmidt tape was made in the very near vicinity of the "Blues Project" track they appeared on together?



Olof's information on this recording session is vague (probably because it wasn't recorded at Columbia) - "Early 1964". The album came out in June, so it's conceivable that the recording session could have taken place after Dylan was inspired to write "Mr. Tambourine Man" in New Orleans. So that would place the Von Schmidt tape in New York City, probably a couple of months earlier than currently figured.

EDIT: It also occurred to me that while they could have referenced "I Want To Hold Your Hand" any time in 1964, it would make most sense while the single was at #1 (It got there on February 1st).