POSTED ON November 21, 2022 8:46 pm
Visual Composer License Key 196
there is an exception, however, if the recording was made before february 15, 1972. as noted above, the copyright act exempts certain recordings (which lack federal copyright protection) from general copyright limitations such as the duration of copyright. that is, the legal copyright in a pre-1972 sound recording is the author’s renewal term, which may last for up to 75 years. 43
starting in 2009, the copyright office has used section 115 of the copyright act to grant permission to record “nondramatic” musical works that are not classifiable as “motion pictures” for purposes of copyright distribution or royalty rate determination. 45 although section 115’s language does not define the term “nondramatic,” the office has developed a four-part test to evaluate the nondramatic nature of a musical work. according to that test, the musical work must have:
for example, the copyright office has authorized the section 115 license to record “nondramatic” pre-1972 works by coltrane , ellington , horn , marley , richards , shelter , yardbirds , and winans . this includes big band and
the record labels whose artists or songwriters are employed by ascap and bmi are members of their two trade associations and so are entitled to participate in the negotiation of licenses to public performance rights to their compositions. as a result, record labels receive royalties for online audio services (such as the internet radio provider pandora) that use the music of their artists. record companies with copyrights to their performers’ creations are also the copyright owners of the sound recordings. therefore, through use of the compulsory license granted under section 114 of the copyright act, companies such as record companies receive royalties from businesses that broadcast their compositions over the internet. the remaining non-performing copyright owners (groups such as sound recording artists and songwriters) receive no direct payments from online audio services.
as music publishers have noted, the petitioners in the two cases that have been decided thus far in favor of digital music services, have either refused to license their content, or they have agreed to license to webcasters at rates lower than those provided in the music publishers’ ordinary practice for webcasters. 111 however, the music publishers have argued that they do not have equal bargaining power in such agreements with digital music providers. nevertheless, the majority of federal court decisions, and the majority of legal scholars, have rejected the notion that the copyright owners lack bargaining power. 112 the decision to assign public performance rights to webcasters (a decision made by the copyright owner, of course) is legal, not economic, and therefore the assertion that the holders lack bargaining power is not a factor that can be determinative of fair market value. further, the music publishers have failed to meet their burden of showing that they lack bargaining power. while congress may seek to remedy the condition by requiring that negotiations be conducted through the notice and comment process, as it did in the rate court, it is unclear how the law would apply to ascap. however, the system of voluntary assignments, which are fairly common and have been ruled to be lawful in such cases as they exist, would continue to be available, since, under the voluntary system, ascap would continue to send notice to online services when publishers indicate that they would be willing to grant ascap new media licenses. 113 the recordkeeping procedure, licensing fees, and payment of royalties would remain the same.