CHANGES IN COPYRIGHT LIFESPAN

[iefje]

All this could mean that the planned release of 1958/1959/1960/1961 BBC recordings by Cliff & The Shads on Rollercoaster Records becomes out of the question or are the agreements involving the CD release solid enough?

[JimN]

All this could mean that the planned release of 1958/1959/1960/1961 BBC recordings by Cliff & The Shads on Rollercoaster Records becomes out of the question or are the agreements involving the CD release solid enough?

The company will have to be damned quick!

[Didier]

Magic Records has recently reissued some old records from Cliff & the Shads. I you are interested, hurry up, they might not be available very long !
http://www.magic-records.com/boutique_u ... g_us&num=2
http://www.magic-records.com/boutique_u ... g_us&num=3

I have not checked, but they certainly are also available from Leo's Den.

Magic Records had previously reissued many Shadows album, but they are no more available. As far as I know, they don't have anymore the EMI licence for that.

Didier

[Arpeggio]

The situation will be very interesting. I have a very informed piece of information relating to this - but I can't name the professional artiste concerned. To summarise - it may not be as beneficial to some artistes as others. Anyone who owns the copyright on their own recordings - will be able to license them directly themsleves and potentially block any 'illegal releases'. For everyone else...it will be a very different set of circumstances. As many of us on Shadow Music love instrumentals generally, let's just take five examples - say the Cougars, the Outlaws, the Eagles, the Hunters and the Federals. Now.....in their respective cases, they don't own their own recordings. So.....now (in theory) - whichever major organisation now controls those recordings will be obliged to issue them to keep them in the 'public domain' (so that people can buy them and hence the artists concerned will pick up whatever royalty rate they are entitled to). But....(there's always a but)....should they choose not to do this (which seems highly likely to me!!!!) then the artists themselves (viz: members of the groups previously listed for example) can arrange for their recordings to be reissued on a different label. In the case of at least 3 of my 5 examples, several of the group members are now regrettably deceased. I can see it becoming a sort of Catch 22 scenario. Moreover, it will probably still be quite difficult to block some of the many 'grey area' releases which crop up all of the time. However, I can see it becoming a problem for the many labels eg Magic, Jasmine, Proper, Fantastic Voyage, Not Now etc - who turn out quite high profile releases of material which is still (at the moment) out of copyright. I could see the major labels blocking these & then not bothering to reissue the material themselves - as they don't see it as being worthwhile / profitable. Plus, how many acts (assuming they're still alive that is) are going to have the time / money / inclination to arrange for their own material to get reissued?? Call me a cynic......but, really, who are the REAL prime movers behind all of this. Is it really for the benefit of the artists.....or is it for the benefit of the money men? I mean, look....one year and the Beatles would have been out of copyright. Now.....gasp!!....they won't be. Oh, and control can be gained, once again, over Elvis Presley's back catalogue. Can't imagine anyone worrying too much about Wee Willie Harris or Ersel Hickey....but the Beatles, Elvis? Oh yes indeed. Being cynical again....can't really blame Sir Cliff about fighting for this too.....but with c. £25,000,000 in the bank (well - earned mind you)....does he really need to worry??

Rob

[iefje]

The situation will be very interesting. I have a very informed piece of information relating to this - but I can't name the professional artiste concerned. To summarise - it may not be as beneficial to some artistes as others. Anyone who owns the copyright on their own recordings - will be able to license them directly themsleves and potentially block any 'illegal releases'. For everyone else...it will be a very different set of circumstances. As many of us on Shadow Music love instrumentals generally, let's just take five examples - say the Cougars, the Outlaws, the Eagles, the Hunters and the Federals. Now.....in their respective cases, they don't own their own recordings. So.....now (in theory) - whichever major organisation now controls those recordings will be obliged to issue them to keep them in the 'public domain' (so that people can buy them and hence the artists concerned will pick up whatever royalty rate they are entitled to). But....(there's always a but)....should they choose not to do this (which seems highly likely to me!!!!) then the artists themselves (viz: members of the groups previously listed for example) can arrange for their recordings to be reissued on a different label. In the case of at least 3 of my 5 examples, several of the group members are now regrettably deceased. I can see it becoming a sort of Catch 22 scenario. Moreover, it will probably still be quite difficult to block some of the many 'grey area' releases which crop up all of the time. However, I can see it becoming a problem for the many labels eg Magic, Jasmine, Proper, Fantastic Voyage, Not Now etc - who turn out quite high profile releases of material which is still (at the moment) out of copyright. I could see the major labels blocking these & then not bothering to reissue the material themselves - as they don't see it as being worthwhile / profitable. Plus, how many acts (assuming they're still alive that is) are going to have the time / money / inclination to arrange for their own material to get reissued?? Call me a cynic......but, really, who are the REAL prime movers behind all of this. Is it really for the benefit of the artists.....or is it for the benefit of the money men? I mean, look....one year and the Beatles would have been out of copyright. Now.....gasp!!....they won't be. Oh, and control can be gained, once again, over Elvis Presley's back catalogue. Can't imagine anyone worrying too much about Wee Willie Harris or Ersel Hickey....but the Beatles, Elvis? Oh yes indeed. Being cynical again....can't really blame Sir Cliff about fighting for this too.....but with c. £25,000,000 in the bank (well - earned mind you)....does he really need to worry??

Rob

If you talk about choosing between 'the money' and 'being solidary with the artists and their accomplishments', the majority of record companies, very regrettably in my opinion, choose for the same old money. This sounds probably very harsh, but I think is the hard-edged reality.
Slightly off-topic, but in the case of EMI Records, I still can't believe that the 1978, 1984 and 1989 anniversary and reunion material of Cliff Richard & The Shadows can't be updated and expanded for a new DVD and/or Blu-Ray release. I probably shouldn't say this, but I will take the risk: In the end it's always about the same old money and all parties concerned just will not bother to come closer to eachother to establish an agreement over such a great release. I personally would very much welcome the release of a complete, uninterrupted and stereo/5.1 mixed issue of "Thank You Very Much" and I hope some of the fans feel the same way.