Are some early 60s music recordings now public domain?

[Kazaam]

I can't quite figure out exactly what the rules are regarding such copyrights, but here's the reason I'm asking...

Over at Amazon and Google Play, they currently have a dirt-cheap MP3 album called "100 Hits 60s" for a mere $3.99. Songs from 1959 to 1962, according to one review. Also, according to another Amazon reviewer, these appear to *mostly* be the original songs by the original artists. The reviewer notes the clicks and skips which I presume is because they used vinyl as the original source. And even one track (Paty Cline's "I Fall To Pieces") having so many clicks to essentially be unlistenable.

So my questions...

With big names like Elvis Presley, Roy Orbison, Del Shannon, Nat King Cole, Sam Cooke, Chubby Checker, Ray Charles, and others how is some company called JB Productions able to assemble a collection of 100 hit songs and have it sold for less than four bucks. Is it because the copyrights have expired? And, if so, exactly what has now entered the public domain? Is it only the actual original vinyl that was first pressed back in 1960, etc? Like a record that was bought in a store off the shelf in 1960. But not the original master tapes; thus, NOT any remasters that have occured since then? OR maybe I've got this all wrong and nothing is in the public domain yet?

Gotta admit it's still kind of tempting to pick up all these songs at such a low price despite their potential glitches in the songs and otherwise potential lesser sound quality. Most of the 30-second samples don't seem too bad, albeit just on tiny laptop speakers.

http://www.amazon.com/100-Hits-60s/dp/B009THFT56/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

 

[Haywood]

Congress has extended and extended them to the point where they last a hundred years. I honestly think that is complete bullshit, especially when someone tries to extract $12 for an eBook copy of something written fifty years ago by someone who died in the 1980s. I have absolutely no problem with acquiring old material like that via alternative means.

 

[Kazaam]

Hmmm... so probably not in the public domain then.

Maybe the album is just being heavily subsidized by Amazon and Google so they can sell it cheaply. Wouldn't surprise me if there are some re-recordings by the old farts doing their famous songs, too, to help keep costs downs. Though a couple of reviewers who seem knowledgeable believe them to mostly be the originals. Gotta say the sound quality isn't all that bad. I'm using AirFoil to stream the 30-second samples to my home theater and the sound just fine considering. Not great, but not as bad as I was expecting.

As for e-Books, yes, I wish I could get some legitimate public domain stuff that isn't limited to Mark Twain and older. Then, again, I'd consider it a major win if I could just be able to buy modern e-books without DRM. I understand why the book publishers want DRM, but dang it's annoying.

 

[Haywood]

I generally don't buy eBooks because of the DRM issue and the ridiculous prices they charge. I will continue to get most of my books off the torrents until they change their business model. If it is a new book, I usually buy a physical copy and download the electronic version off the torrents. That way the author gets paid. If it is an old book that I could just as easily score in a used book score for $1.75, I don't bother. This is doubly true if the author is dead.

 

[Flint]

The pricing often reflects the laws of supply and demand. Yes, composer/writer royalties can last a very long time, but performance royalties are typically 15 years unless tons of legal crap is done to extend things. So, most studio musicians who received royalties for a performance on a recording to not get paid for most songs recorded prior to 1997. The named artists still get paid, as do the song writers.

It can get very complicated.

That said, the rights artists and performers have today didn't exist in the 1960s and earlier. Typically the labels owned all the recordings and the artists were paid salaries and got touring monies. In those cases most of the recording rights from back then are owned by big holding companies who just want a reasonable return on their investments.

 

[Deleted member 133]

To get back to the original question regarding the copyright, copyright in a work (in the US) continues for a period of 75 from the death of the author.

That copyright could have been sold / assigned to someone (or something) else but that doesn't affect the 75 years from date of death. (I believe that in the case of multiple authors, all of whom who share in the copyright of a given work, that it goes by "last man standing." But I'm prepared to stand corrected.)

It used to be 50 years but as the 50th anniversary of old Walt's death was fast approaching and many classic Disney movies were about to become public domain, the law was changed. I wouldn't be surprised if it happens again.

Hope that clarifies things a bit.

Jeff

 

[Kazaam]

Thanks guys!

Interesting about Disney, too.