• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Is radio dialog between a host and caller public domain?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

billybogart

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Massachusetts

I have some recorded dialog between a radio host and a caller. I wish to know if it is public domain?

Do other areas of the law come into question including wire tapping? Is it reasonable to assume the host being on radio and cognizant of the technological world around him(tape recorders)as well as the studio was fully aware his thoughts were being recorded in a public forum?

Or is this such a grey area of law that the big boys on the block(handful or less of companies owning all radio stations) can wield their might?

In a nut shell is it okay for me to copyright it and release it commercially without asking the radio station and or disc jockey for permission? Do radio stations copyright every show? I doubt it. This is from the 90's and has no commercial music attached to it.

thank you
 


justalayman

Senior Member
Do radio stations copyright every show?
they have copyrights simply by virtue it is their creation. Registering their copyrights is a different action and allows additional actions against those that reproduce copyrighted material without their permission.


Is it reasonable to assume the host being on radio and cognizant of the technological world around him(tape recorders)as well as the studio was fully aware his thoughts were being recorded in a public forum?
was the DJ in a public area and you had a recorder or do you mean many people have recorders available to be able to record what comes to them via a radio?

In a nut shell is it okay for me to copyright it and release it commercially without asking the radio station and or disc jockey for permission?
In a nutshell, no.
 

billybogart

Junior Member
Well I'm sure when the caller rung up the station they didn't lay out any copyright law. Btw the caller made a significant contribution to the segment.

I'll go into more detail. The clip I wish to use does not identify the station. He could have been calling Walmart.

Does the caller not own part of the creation? Again there were no contracts. This is a simple conversation between 1 person and another that happens to take place over the radio.

The radio station hardly participated in a contrived creation. What is more is the radio station since that time has made absolutely no effort to use the footage again.

a lawyer please.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
they do not have to "lay out" any copyright law. The caller was calling into the radio station. the radio station broadcast the thing, they own the copyrights.


The clip I wish to use does not identify the station
. doesn't make any difference.


Does the caller not own part of the creation? Again there were no contracts. This is a simple conversation between 1 person and another that happens to take place over the radio.
the caller might have a claim to his words but he does not have a claim to the broadcast. The radio station owns the rights to the broadcast.


The radio station hardly participated in a contrived creation.
Oh, you mean those millions of dollars they spent on the studio and the ability to broadcast would be construed as "hardly participated in"?

I don't think so.

What is more is the radio station since that time has made absolutely no effort to use the footage again.
So? They own it. They can do what ever they want to with it including never broadcasting it again or broadcasting it every day. It's theirs. Does anybody tell you what to do with your socks and claim since you hardly wear a a particular pair you lose the rights to them?

Of course not. Ownership is ownership.

a lawyer please.
click on the little blue hyperlink at the bottom of each post box and you can hire one.
 

billybogart

Junior Member
I guarantee they didn't copyright it. If they did not go out of their way to identify this very unique conversation and copyright it they lay no claim.

You're arguing just your opinion. I could take a copy written work and loosely manipulate it in such a way to convince a judge or jury that it was fair usage.

You're not even placing a value upon the radio station's contribution other than to say it doesn't matter when in fact it does. It's a small clip that includes 2 people(1 of which is not an employee of clear channel).

Shall we say at worst 4.5 cents?

Usage does matter when it comes to copyright. We're also talking nearly 20 years ago.

Again I'd like to hear a lawyer's opinion experienced in this area of law.

I could write a song and not copyright it. Someone could hear it, take it, and copyright it themselves. I'd have no legal argument. Even if I had time stamped proof when I recorded it. The fact is I didn't copyright it. So I lose.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
billybogart;2488253]I guarantee they didn't copyright it.
you apparently do not understand what "they do not have to register the copyrights to own them.


If they did not go out of their way to identify this very unique conversation and copyright it they lay no claim.
wrong


You're arguing just your opinion
you think so? go to the US copyright office. They have a FAQ page. Read it.

. I could take a copy written work and loosely manipulate it in such a way to convince a judge or jury that it was fair usage
.sure, what ever you say.
You're not even placing a value upon the radio station's contribution other than to say it doesn't matter when in fact it does
.they produced the program. They own it, period.

It's a small clip that includes 2 people(1 of which is not an employee of clear channel).
so what?

S
hall we say at worst 4.5 cents?
huh?


Usage does matter when it comes to copyright. We're also talking nearly 20 years ago
. the do what ever you want. Copyrights extend for something like life of the artist plus 70 years. I think it is still well within the time frame.

Again I'd like to hear a lawyer's opinion experienced in this area of law.
I told you how to hire one.


I could write a song and not copyright it.
wrong. you ownn the copyright the instant you write the song. You are mistaking the creation of copyrights and the registering of those copyrights.

Someone could hear it, take it, and copyright it themselves.
and if you could prove you created it, you would then claim ownership of the work.

I'd have no legal argument.
that is because of you, not the law.

Even if I had time stamped proof when I recorded it. The fact is I didn't copyright it. So I lose.[
fine, believe what you want. You cannot educate a person that is incapable of learning or, at least, refuses to learn.
 

TigerD

Senior Member
I guarantee they didn't copyright it. If they did not go out of their way to identify this very unique conversation and copyright it they lay no claim.
What justalayman is trying to explain to is: Copyright is conferred at the moment of creation. The minute those words were broadcast by the radio station, the radio station owned the rights to the broadcast.

You're arguing just your opinion. I could take a copy written work and loosely manipulate it in such a way to convince a judge or jury that it was fair usage.
And you would likely be sued, lose and be forced to pay tens of thousands of dollars for your ignorance. For example: If you took one of articles I have written and published over the years and "loosely manipulated" it and republished my work, I would have my lawyer stop your ongoing theft, investigate your assets and net worth and your publishers assets and then do my best to liberate as much of that money as I am able to for my own ends. The would not be a cheap matter for you to resolve. It would not be a cheap matter for me to undertake, which is why a great deal of copyright infringement goes unchallenged. But, the radio station could be run by a prick like me who thinks the principle is worth the cost and money is made to be spent -- that would be bad for you.

You're not even placing a value upon the radio station's contribution other than to say it doesn't matter when in fact it does. It's a small clip that includes 2 people(1 of which is not an employee of clear channel).
See here you are wrong and here's why: It doesn't matter who called into the radio station - you, me, or God himself - the broadcast belongs to the radio station. Now you can except transcripts from the broadcast. But you cannot replay the broadcast without permission.

Usage does matter when it comes to copyright. We're also talking nearly 20 years ago.
Again you are wrong here. I wrote a book 25-years-ago that was not accepted by publishers. I still own the copyright to it. You couldn't take it and sell it yourself.

I could write a song and not copyright it. Someone could hear it, take it, and copyright it themselves. I'd have no legal argument. Even if I had time stamped proof when I recorded it. The fact is I didn't copyright it. So I lose.
Actually, you would only be assured of losing if you rolled over and let that person steal your property. You would own the copyright on your song and you could pursue every legal means of protecting it.

DC
 

billybogart

Junior Member
Never heard of parody? It's a complicated area of law but I can take what ever you have copy written and make fun of it if I carefully follow the guidelines of law.

Why is it the radio owns the broadcast exclusively? The broadcast was exclusive to a tape recorder. The microphone was the telephone receiver not the Neumann U-87.

By both your arguments the caller could sue the radio station if they rebroadcast the call.

I'm not even totally arguing absolute right but rather trying to define the worth of the radio station's contribution. They have never expressed interest in 20 years. That does play a part if I were to present the dialog as a parody. No not some ignorant definition of a weird al song but the legal definition. The absence of 20 years of usage would go against the so called creator.

Again it was the caller who initiated the creation. The DJ had a limited role. Why he might as well been a recording.

What is all this blind devotion to a crime syndicate? The conversation was recorded via the telephone NOT the radio. The radio might have been broadcasting at the time but I hardly see how that matters. They could have called the person. They do those things all the time.

I fail to see how the radio station created anything. Do they run a studio in the telephone?
 

justalayman

Senior Member
[E=billybogart;2488298]Never heard of parody? It's a complicated area of law but I can take what ever you have copy written and make fun of it if I carefully follow the guidelines of law
.yes I have and replaying a broadcast or a portion of it is not parody. Parody is a creation in itself making fun of some other act, action, or sitiation.

Why is it the radio owns the broadcast exclusively? The broadcast was exclusive to a tape recorder. The microphone was the telephone receiver not the Neumann U-87.
You are being ridiculous.

By both your arguments the caller could sue the radio station if they rebroadcast the call.
No.

I'm not even totally arguing absolute right but rather trying to define the worth of the radio station's contribution.
it doesn't make any difference what their contribution is. They do own it.


They have never expressed interest in 20 years.
so? If you leave your sock setting in the drawer long enough does that give somebody else the right to take them? Of course not.

That does play a part if I were to present the dialog as a parody.
make up your mind. Some of the dialog can be used by the person recorded, if he did not give up his rights but that is all. The broadcast and the dialog of anybody but your friend cannot be used

.No not some ignorant definition of a weird al song but the legal definition.
The absence of 20 years of usage would go against the so called creator.
no it would not. If you use the broadcast and they want to sue, as long as the can prove it is theirs (possibly stored in their archives) it is easy for them to prove ownership and you now become a broke son of a gun.

Again it was the caller who initiated the creation. The DJ had a limited role. Why he might as well been a recording.
What is all this blind devotion to a crime syndicate? The conversation was recorded via the telephone NOT the radio. The radio might have been broadcasting at the time but I hardly see how that matters. They could have called the person. They do those things all the time.

I fail to see how the radio station created anything. Do they run a studio in the telephone?
forget it. You are just a fricken joke that is going to argue silly little arguments regardless what the law is. .

read this:

U.S. Copyright Office - Frequently Asked Questions
and find some more here:

U.S. Copyright Office

and educate yourself. It is obvious you are unteachable.
 

The Occultist

Senior Member
A dialog in and of itself is not subject to copyright protection until it has entered a tangible medium. A recording of the dialog would be a suitable medium, a transcript might also be a suitable medium, or, were the dialog scripted, the script would be a suitable medium. But, a conversation being held over the radio in and of itself is not tangible, and as such retains no copyright protection.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
A dialog in and of itself is not subject to copyright protection until it has entered a tangible medium. A recording of the dialog would be a suitable medium, a transcript might also be a suitable medium, or, were the dialog scripted, the script would be a suitable medium. But, a conversation being held over the radio in and of itself is not tangible, and as such retains no copyright protection.
All radio stations record their shows...
 

The Occultist

Senior Member
All radio stations record their shows...
Then their specific recording has a copyright attached to it, just like anybody else that made their own recording of the same broadcast has their own copyright attached to their recording.

I'll admit now that I don't really know what I'm talking about here, but I believe I'm at least somewhat correct, and am waiting for somebody more knowledgeable to correct me (I usually look toward Div in these matters!).
 

FlyingRon

Senior Member
Then their specific recording has a copyright attached to it, just like anybody else that made their own recording of the same broadcast has their own copyright attached to their recording.

I'll admit now that I don't really know what I'm talking about here, but I believe I'm at least somewhat correct, and am waiting for somebody more knowledgeable to correct me (I usually look toward Div in these matters!).
It would need to be recorded (fixed). It is acceptable (this is specifically mentioned in the code) that this fixation occur at the same time as the broadcast. If you believe Zig, everything broadcast is recorded. This isn't true in bulk, but you can probably believe that for "talk" stuff. Things that are by and large broadcasts of other copyrighted works (programming consisting of music for example) typically aren't.

All "call in" shows are recorded at least transiently because despite appearances they are not truly live, but delayed (seven seconds) is typical to allow the station to zap any profanity etc...
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top