• 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 there really such a copyright statute? If so where can I find it?

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

C

Caljamscott

Guest
What is the name of your state? New York.

I read on the internet not too long ago that if a big group, such as the Grateful Dead for whom this new statute is written, performs a show and no one but a fan tapes the show, then that fan has some Rights to the music.

This is exactly what happened to me. In 1974, I taped a mega-concert off the radio that was so huge, some fans were a full mile from the Stage. Five years ago I found out the 16 year old genius here was the only one who rolled tape on it. Major press followed.

I've followed every recommendation here and searched the name California Jam on www.loc.gov and www.copyright.gov and time and time again I come up with nothing but A-I-R. You can verify if you'd like, if you've got 15 minutes to waste.

So my question is, surely I must have some Rights to this amazing piece of Americana? Isn't there a new statute covering this exact issue? I just don't know where to look for the item.

In their bumbling post-production of the California Jam, apparently ABC/TV never sent anything to copyright either. I'd think because they had nothing to send. But with a lot more than 200,000 ppl there and some terrific sounding reel-to-reel tapes, I'm sure I'm not imagining that such an Event really did take place. This thing was bigger and better than Woodstock.

I'm trying to bring back this amazing piece of Americana singlehandedly. I'm in the process of creating an internet radio station with the plus 3 hours of this Magnificence. I think merch, CD and aquired video replication is in order too. Espeically the CDs. I get emails every day from ppl seeking my CDs and telling me they can't live without it.

I hope you're really grasping the magnitude of the situation here. I'm talking about the biggest musical in the world here.

Where do I stand? Many thanks for your help and even just for reading about my neverending plight too.
 


divgradcurl

Senior Member
I read on the internet not too long ago that if a big group, such as the Grateful Dead for whom this new statute is written, performs a show and no one but a fan tapes the show, then that fan has some Rights to the music.
This is sort of true. If somebody records a concert, that somebody holds a copyright in the recording of the cornert -- it doesn't matter how big the band is, it could be your neighbor's kids band or it could be U2. If you make the recording, you own the copyright to the recording.

However, it does NOT mean that you are then free to use the recording as you see fit, because the copyrights to the songs in the recording -- the "musical works," in copyright parlance -- are owned by someone else, and if you reproduce or perform your recording, even though you have a copyright on the recording, you would be violating the underlying "musical work" copyrights.

Further, you have one further layer to deal with -- you didn't record the concert directly, instead, you recorded a broadcast of the concert, and that broadcast also has a copyright associated with it that you would be violating if you performed your recording without permission.

So you do have a copyright, and you could register your copyright and then protect your tapes from being reproduced or performed without your permission -- but without the permission from the underlying copyright holders, you can't perform your work publically without permission. Actually, since ABC had permission to broadcast, you only need permission from ABC -- you wouldn't need permission from each and every song copyright holder. But you would still need permission from ABC.
 
C

Caljamscott

Guest
HomeGuru said:
You rock div.
div ain't rockin' that hard if she's not grooving on the California Jam just like the rest of us are.

div I don't know what this is all about. All I know is I'm the only one who recorded the biggest musical in the world off the radio in 1974 "while the whole world was sleeping, on Nytol" as the saying goes. I defied 5 Billion to One odds by doing so, and I'd like a little credit for my world astounding, unprecendented no-peat feat.

California Jam is all the ppl want; I get 100s of emails a week asking me for it, and I'm sick and tired of this oppression and suppression of the biggest musical in the world. I'm the only way they can get it. It's the biggest thing on the internet, the Legend of my California Jam Recording is.

All I see is bumbling post-production incompetence by the mouse, if they left it up to one 16 year kid holed up in a little room to defy 5 Billion to One odds to be the only one to record it.

This looks like Supreme Court matter if I only had the ways and means to bring it there. I don't.

The Fate of the Course of History rests with me. It's as "simple" as that. Check around the internet, you'll see.
 

divgradcurl

Senior Member
div ain't rockin' that hard if she's not grooving on the California Jam just like the rest of us are.
Div is a he, not a she, and to be perfectly honest, Div cares not one whit about the California Jam.

div I don't know what this is all about. All I know is I'm the only one who recorded the biggest musical in the world off the radio in 1974 "while the whole world was sleeping, on Nytol" as the saying goes. I defied 5 Billion to One odds by doing so, and I'd like a little credit for my world astounding, unprecendented no-peat feat.

California Jam is all the ppl want; I get 100s of emails a week asking me for it, and I'm sick and tired of this oppression and suppression of the biggest musical in the world. I'm the only way they can get it. It's the biggest thing on the internet, the Legend of my California Jam Recording is.

All I see is bumbling post-production incompetence by the mouse, if they left it up to one 16 year kid holed up in a little room to defy 5 Billion to One odds to be the only one to record it.

This looks like Supreme Court matter if I only had the ways and means to bring it there. I don't.

The Fate of the Course of History rests with me. It's as "simple" as that. Check around the internet, you'll see.
Today 07:37 AM
And none of this is relevant to the FACT that ABC owns the copyright on the broadcast, not you, and that ABC has the right to allow the people to hear the "Jam" or not, not you. Copyright law is very clear on this point -- the Supreme Court would have no interest in this case (if it ever got that far), because there is NO question that ABC has the right to allow dissemination of performance of the "Jam" or not. Copyright is a property right, and one of the key property rights is the right to exclude -- in other words, the right to control distribution and public performance of their property.

Hang on to the tapes though -- eventually the broadcast will move into the public domain, and you will not need ABC's permission, or anyone else's permission, to perform or distribute the tapes. Unfortunately, under current copyright law, the copyright won't expire until 2194 (120 years from publication), so hopefully you'll find a good archival media...

You've already been told what you need to do -- you need to somehow obtain the rights to the work (or at least permission to use the work) from the copyright holder, ABC. I guess you could go ahead and do what you want with the tapes, and HOPE that you don't get sued, but that's risky, to say the least.

I feel for your plight -- I really do -- but the fact is, copyright law is pretty clear in this area, and the fact that the recording is unique, and the concert was a major event (although hardly the "greatest event in California history" -- Best Hyperbole Ever!) is completely irrelevant to the scope of the rights of the copyright holder. If you can't get the rights somehow, you'll either have to forget about, break the law and risk a lawsuit, or move to another country with lax IP laws to reproduce and/or broadcast the "Jam."
 
C

Caljamscott

Guest
Thank you divgradcurl. I only thought you were a she because div is usually associated with diva.

I think by the year 2194 I'll have some other things to worry about.

I can't take this bouncing around anymore. The people want the Jam. I'm the only way to get it. Your suggestion about moving to another country, I've been told that before. What countries do you recommend?
 
C

Caljamscott

Guest
divgradcurl said:
And none of this is relevant to the FACT that ABC owns the copyright on the broadcast, not you, and that ABC has the right to allow the people to hear the "Jam" or not, not you. Copyright law is very clear on this point -- the Supreme Court would have no interest in this case (if it ever got that far), because there is NO question that ABC has the right to allow dissemination of performance of the "Jam" or not. Copyright is a property right, and one of the key property rights is the right to exclude -- in other words, the right to control distribution and public performance of their property.

Hang on to the tapes though -- eventually the broadcast will move into the public domain, and you will not need ABC's permission, or anyone else's permission, to perform or distribute the tapes. Unfortunately, under current copyright law, the copyright won't expire until 2194 (120 years from publication), so hopefully you'll find a good archival media...

You've already been told what you need to do -- you need to somehow obtain the rights to the work (or at least permission to use the work) from the copyright holder, ABC. I guess you could go ahead and do what you want with the tapes, and HOPE that you don't get sued, but that's risky, to say the least.

I feel for your plight -- I really do -- but the fact is, copyright law is pretty clear in this area, and the fact that the recording is unique, and the concert was a major event (although hardly the "greatest event in California history" -- Best Hyperbole Ever!) is completely irrelevant to the scope of the rights of the copyright holder. If you can't get the rights somehow, you'll either have to forget about, break the law and risk a lawsuit, or move to another country with lax IP laws to reproduce and/or broadcast the "Jam."
If this is all true, then why can't I find a simple copyright registration number for California Jam? I've been doing exhaustive searches on California Jam for years. If ABC/TV cares about or even owns this one particular Work they certainly must have it on file at the US Copyright Office?

Are you saying they don't need to register something as big as this? I think they didn't register it because they never had any material to register in the first place. Post-production incompetence is where the fault must lie.

In all fairness there m/ay be something registered at the LOC for something called California Jam 2, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with California Jam (1 or the original).

Let's forget about all this and bring back the California Jam. Alright, so one 16 year old genius aced out the whole world by being the only one to create the biggest musical in the world out of it. In this case they ought to swallow their pride and maybe we can get something done here.
 
Last edited:

divgradcurl

Senior Member
If this is all true, then why can't I find a simple copyright registration number for California Jam? I've been doing exhaustive searches on California Jam for years. If ABC/TV cares about or even owns this one particular Work they certainly must have it on file at the US Copyright Office?
Copyright registration is NOT required -- copyright protection affixes automatically. Many people and organizations will register their copyrights, because they want some of the added benefits of registration -- notice, ability to sue for stautory damages, etc. -- but their is no requirement that anyone register a copyright.

Are you saying they don't need to register something as big as this? I think they didn't register it because they never had any material to register in the first place. Post-production incompetence is where the fault must lie.
Yep. No need to register. As I noted, there are some advantages to registering, but there is no requirement to register.

In all fairness there m/ay be something registered at the LOC for something called California Jam 2, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with California Jam (1 or the original).
The Library of Congress has nothing to do with Copyright.

Let's forget about all this and bring back the California Jam. Alright, so one 16 year old genius aced out the whole world by being the only one to create the biggest musical in the world out of it. In this case they ought to swallow their pride and maybe we can get something done here.
Okay -- but that's ABC's decision to make, not any of ours.
 

divgradcurl

Senior Member
I can't take this bouncing around anymore. The people want the Jam. I'm the only way to get it. Your suggestion about moving to another country, I've been told that before. What countries do you recommend?
I don't recommend any countries -- search Google, figure out which countries are not signatories to the Berne Convention, and start there.
 
C

Caljamscott

Guest
divgradcurl said:
Copyright registration is NOT required -- copyright protection affixes automatically. Many people and organizations will register their copyrights, because they want some of the added benefits of registration -- notice, ability to sue for stautory damages, etc. -- but their is no requirement that anyone register a copyright.
They can't sue me for statutory damages. Yay! The Jam is mine now yippie! Chalk up one for Railroad Charlie against the Mighty Mouse :D
 
C

Caljamscott

Guest
divgradcurl said:
I don't recommend any countries -- search Google, figure out which countries are not signatories to the Berne Convention, and start there.
The Berne Convention it is. I will search under that. Thank you again so much for that information divgradcurl.
 

divgradcurl

Senior Member
They can't sue me for statutory damages.
No, but they can sue you for actual damages, and can still obtain injunctive relief and other types of relief, so it's not like you are out of the woods.
 
C

Caljamscott

Guest
divgradcurl said:
No, but they can sue you for actual damages, and can still obtain injunctive relief and other types of relief, so it's not like you are out of the woods.
They could've avoided all that had they obtained a copyright registration in the first place. Apparently I cared about the Jam just a bit more than anyone else did.

The only way they can register the Work is if they ask me for the Materials. I may be willing to work out a compromise. We're not talking about any penny-enny item here. We're talking about the Greatest Moment in California History. And the crazy way that only one 16 year old taped this Show out of a 1974 worldwide broadcast. There's human interest here too.

I hope they don't go on a path to bury the California Jam altogether. I don't think they'd be successful, and I'm happy to announce my name is now the name most associated with the Jam. The real story of what happened with the California Jam is now on all the search engines.

Thank you so much divgradcurl. Please keep me in mind and keep these great posts of yours coming into this thread and to all other threads. I don't have to reiterate how high the stakes here are.
 
C

Caljamscott

Guest
divgradcurl said:
No, but they can sue you for actual damages, and can still obtain injunctive relief and other types of relief, so it's not like you are out of the woods.
They're doing this against the whole world. This is show business. They can lose their audience too.
 
Caljamscott said:
Thank you divgradcurl. I only thought you were a she because div is usually associated with diva.

I think by the year 2194 I'll have some other things to worry about.

I can't take this bouncing around anymore. The people want the Jam. I'm the only way to get it. Your suggestion about moving to another country, I've been told that before. What countries do you recommend?
Caljamscott:

Saudi Ariabia doesn't adhere to any International Treaties or Copyright laws, so that country would work best, however, there are some negative aspects of living there. Like the smell, and copyright pirating is HUGE, so, even if you went there and tried to publish/sell your concert, YOUR stuff would be pirated by others as well.

Guess you can't get away from it.....lol
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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