big news for you jazz fans out there!
- Thread starter maureen
- Start date
Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
Apropos to that good news is the sad news that Herman Leonard died the other day.
His jazz photos are really great work.
His jazz photos are really great work.
Thanks, Maureen. On a tangent of sorts, I found watching multiple episodes of the Ken Burns' jazz series to be a nice iPad distraction for a couple long flights and a very long wait on a runway with a 5-year old kicking the back of my seat. Perhaps not for those with a mylunschian-deep knowledge, but interesting for a fan like me.
Joel Stewart
Joel Stewart
Great story on the Savory recordings, thanks Maureen.
Eden Mylunsch
Eden Mylunsch
Shit Jon, I'm really not all that deep. WTF, lately I've been digging that "Kenny G Plays Coltrane" album that I bought on QVC last month. His version of "Lush Life" (with Barry Manilow singing the parts Johnny Hartman made famous) veers pretty close to being interpretative.
-Eden (funny the way that "Giant Steps" when played on a soprano sax makes you think that you put the LP on at 45 rpm instead of 33)
lars makie
lars makie
And then again, sometimes there's inspiration in messing around with the speed. I thought this was pretty interesting. Hans Zimmer talking about slowing an Edith Piaf song down for the Inception score.
Chris Weber
Chris Weber
Strange story.
Somehow I'm not sure that when I'm dead and gone and they discover my stash of bootleg music that people will be quite as enthusiastic.
I realize they found a law prof to say that the ownership question is a lawyer's delight, but given the legal opinion she profferred, I really don't see how the museum can own it, or of course Mr. Savory either. It wasn't one of the options listed, in any case. Maybe that's why he changed his name, since trafficking in stolen property is considered untoward in some quarters. But then, I'm not an attorney.
In any event, if someone decides this truly is worth a bunch of money, it might be a while before we get to hear any of it.
Somehow I'm not sure that when I'm dead and gone and they discover my stash of bootleg music that people will be quite as enthusiastic.
I realize they found a law prof to say that the ownership question is a lawyer's delight, but given the legal opinion she profferred, I really don't see how the museum can own it, or of course Mr. Savory either. It wasn't one of the options listed, in any case. Maybe that's why he changed his name, since trafficking in stolen property is considered untoward in some quarters. But then, I'm not an attorney.
In any event, if someone decides this truly is worth a bunch of money, it might be a while before we get to hear any of it.
Joel Stewart
Joel Stewart
I think it's already decided it's a huge cultural asset, and as such, is worth a lot of money. Might be a while before much of it gets packaged, sure, but snippets are already available to listen to, so it appears somebody's confident about bringing them into the light of day.
Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
A little harsh. While perhaps technically true, private recordings are not generally classed as "stolen property" as long as only the owner listens to them.
Chris Weber
Chris Weber
Yes, a little harsh. I guess I was mixing his actions with his son's. I wonder what the sales price was.
The museum owns the physical discs. They purchased the discs, not the rights to the intellectual property. There is no doubt of that. Some determinations must be made before the intellectual property stored on the discs can be commercialized legally. Nothing has been stolen. If the museum were to sell copies
of the performances without obtaining proper permissions, the legal rights holders could sue them in a civil court.
The museum is now in the drivers seat as far as being the one with the greatest interest in doing what's required to commercialize the recordings. That would involve reasonable efforts to determine who and where rights holders are, making deals and signing contracts etc.
of the performances without obtaining proper permissions, the legal rights holders could sue them in a civil court.
The museum is now in the drivers seat as far as being the one with the greatest interest in doing what's required to commercialize the recordings. That would involve reasonable efforts to determine who and where rights holders are, making deals and signing contracts etc.
Chris Weber
Chris Weber
I guess this is why I'm not an attorney, Ned. I don't see the distinction between what you're saying - "sell copies of the performances without obtaining proper permissions" - and what the younger Mr. Savory already did.
At any rate, this is way O/T so I won't belabor it any longer.
At any rate, this is way O/T so I won't belabor it any longer.
Cory Cartwright
Cory Cartwright
The younger Mr. Savory sold the physical copies that he himself owned, much as you and I are able to sell records, cds etc. that we own. Selling copies of those is where the problem is.
Chris, to layperson-it-up, there are two rights in question. One is to the stuff you can touch. Another is to the stuff you can't. There are differences in the way the law treats those two categories. We can dispense with the problems introduced by ownership of non-physical content (e.g. downloaded music) because they don't apply here.
If I sell the physical medium on which I have a recording of Cory Cartwright's Tibetan Throat Songs for Lovers, I no longer have that recording. In the absence of an agreement that I will not do what I just did, everyone's in the legal clear. If, however, retain the physical medium but give away or sell what's on it (or vice-versa), I -- depending on various details -- may well be in trouble.
I'm not saying that there might not be other trouble associated with ownership and rights. But a legally-owned recording, transferred rather than duplicated, is almost always OK.
If I sell the physical medium on which I have a recording of Cory Cartwright's Tibetan Throat Songs for Lovers, I no longer have that recording. In the absence of an agreement that I will not do what I just did, everyone's in the legal clear. If, however, retain the physical medium but give away or sell what's on it (or vice-versa), I -- depending on various details -- may well be in trouble.
I'm not saying that there might not be other trouble associated with ownership and rights. But a legally-owned recording, transferred rather than duplicated, is almost always OK.
Cory is right except that these, as originals (master recordings) aren't copies. That's the distinction.
The museum purchased the "master recordings". It's an analog thing. These days with digital files as often being the only form of the artists work, the rules are different.