Summertime - Copyright

[OneWorld]

Seeing as Gershwin wrote Summertime in 1934, and AFAIK copyright last for 70 years after the composer's death? am I right in thinking Summertime is out of copyright?

Hold that question, I might have got my answer, I have found the following......

"Q. Is George Gershwin's song "Summertime" in the public domain in the U.S.?

A. No "Summertime" is not in the public domain in the U.S.

The music for "Summertime" was composed in 1935 by George Gershwin for the opera Porgy and Bess. The lyrics were written by DuBose Heyward, the author of the novel on which the opera was based, and co-written by Ira Gershwin.

The copyright for Porgy and Bess was registered under the Copyright Act of 1909 for an initial term of 28 years. The copyright was renewed for an additional 28 years, expiring in 1991. It was extended for another 19 years by the Copyright Act of 1976, and slated to expire in 2010. However, Porgy and Bess was still under copyright protection in 1998 when the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act was passed, and was granted an additional 20 years, for a total of 95 years.

Barring a change in the U.S. Copyright Law, “Summertime” will not enter the public domain in the U.S. until 2030.

These conditions and expiration dates apply in the U.S. only and do not reflect those of other countries. "

However, it does say this only aplies to USA?

[Drew Stephenson]

Yep, copyright law is national not international. There does tend to be a fair bit of alignment as IP law is often bundled in with trade agreements so you get a ratcheting effect going on where nation A is life +50 years, but they sign a trade deal with nation B who has life +75 years. So 'in order to meet our international obligations' nation A extends their copyright to life +75.
UK is currently life +70 for composition and registration +70 for recordings.
(though I think it's broadcast date +50 for broadcast materials?)
Further complications arise in that some territories term extensions were made retrospective but some weren't, so somethings are public domain in some countries but not in others, and some things have been protected, unprotected, and are now back in protection again.
Literature has more fun and games as things like Sherlock Holmes (the character) is public domain but not all the stories are. Similarly, Winnie the Pooh is public domain, but the version of him in a little red waistcoat is still in copyright.

There is currently some talk of the EU moving to Life +95 years, which will doubtless be immediately followed by the UK and US.

[OneWorld]

Yep, copyright law is national not international.
There is currently some talk of the EU moving to Life +95 years, which will doubtless be immediately followed by the UK and US.

That makes sense, seeing as people are living longer, means the composer's offspring can cash in

[Drew Stephenson]

Yep, copyright law is national not international.
There is currently some talk of the EU moving to Life +95 years, which will doubtless be immediately followed by the UK and US.

That makes sense, seeing as people are living longer, means the composer's offspring can cash in

Makes sense from that perspective I guess, but not from the original purpose of copyright.

[Sam Spoons]

Yep, copyright law is national not international.
There is currently some talk of the EU moving to Life +95 years, which will doubtless be immediately followed by the UK and US.

That makes sense, seeing as people are living longer, means the composer's offspring can cash in

I wonder how they'll access it's value for IHT

[BWC]

Yep, copyright law is national not international.
There is currently some talk of the EU moving to Life +95 years, which will doubtless be immediately followed by the UK and US.

That makes sense, seeing as people are living longer, means the composer's offspring can cash in

Really?!? That makes sense to you? That's exactly the sort of greed that copyright was supposed to protect the public from.

Makes sense from that perspective I guess, but not from the original purpose of copyright.

Shocking how far from that purpose we've strayed.

[OneWorld]

Yep, copyright law is national not international.
There is currently some talk of the EU moving to Life +95 years, which will doubtless be immediately followed by the UK and US.

That makes sense, seeing as people are living longer, means the composer's offspring can cash in

Really?!? That makes sense to you? That's exactly the sort of greed that copyright was supposed to protect the public from.

Makes sense from that perspective I guess, but not from the original purpose of copyright.

Shocking how far from that purpose we've strayed.

Really?!? That makes sense to you? That's exactly the sort of greed that copyright was supposed to protect the public from.

So, the composer, with a wish to bequeath the fruits of his/her labours to his partner, offspring, siblings is greed? How do you work that out? How does that protect the public?

[Drew Stephenson]

The purpose of copyright is to encourage the creation of new works.
The mechanism chosen is a limited-term monopoly. This is a restriction on the rights of the public with the pay-off being that more works are created that subsequently enter the public domain.
The longer copyright terms endure the less incentive there is to create (anything post the life of the creator is plainly nonsense in this context, dead people are not that creative), and it also keeps things out of the public domain longer.
Both of which serve to undermine the public respect of copyright law.

[merlyn]

... So, the composer, with a wish to bequeath the fruits of his/her labours to his partner, offspring, siblings is greed? How do you work that out? How does that protect the public?

After ninety-five years, the composer's partner isn't going to be around either. Leaving that aside it often isn't the composer who holds the rights -- it's a publishing company, and the composer has a publishing deal with the record label.

Copyright benefits record companies. You may remember that Michael Jackson bought Northern Songs, The Beatles' publishing company, outbidding Paul McCartney, who you would think should own Northern Songs. It doesn't work like that.

[OneWorld]

... So, the composer, with a wish to bequeath the fruits of his/her labours to his partner, offspring, siblings is greed? How do you work that out? How does that protect the public?

After ninety-five years, the composer's partner isn't going to be around either. Leaving that aside it often isn't the composer who holds the rights -- it's a publishing company, and the composer has a publishing deal with the record label.

Copyright benefits record companies. You may remember that Michael Jackson bought Northern Songs, The Beatles' publishing company, outbidding Paul McCartney, who you would think should own Northern Songs. It doesn't work like that.

Please read "... So, the composer, with a wish to bequeath the fruits of his/her labours to his partner, OFFSPRING, siblings is greed? How do you work that out? How does that protect the public?"

Frankly I don't give a hoot over who owns Northern Songs, if the Beatles wanted to keep them then they shouldn't have sold them, and fat lot of good they did Michael Jackson. The way I see it, if someone creates something, it's theirs unless they want to dispose of it, in the way they choose. Simple.

[merlyn]

... Please read "... So, the composer, with a wish to bequeath the fruits of his/her labours to his partner, OFFSPRING, siblings is greed? How do you work that out? How does that protect the public?"

Please add 95 onto say 60, possibly a median age for a child when their parent dies.

[OneWorld]

... Please read "... So, the composer, with a wish to bequeath the fruits of his/her labours to his partner, OFFSPRING, siblings is greed? How do you work that out? How does that protect the public?"

Please add 95 onto say 60, possibly a median age for a child when their parent dies.

Yeah, am full of tricks like that - NOT, do your own arithmetic and factor in the fact that living into ones 90's is not such a rare thing these days. And what I am saying is copyright passes to the offspring on the death of the composer, no matter what age they are.

BTW - it's not 95 yet

[merlyn]

I remember it changing from fifty years to seventy years in 1995. I was aware of that as Bartok was due to come up. He died in 1945.

If you think that was because people are living longer, eh ...

[Folderol]

The thing is they are killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. Hardly anybody cares anymore. The kids in my day were somewhat careful, but now they make no attempt to hide ripping music and there are so many avenues for getting it to their mates, there's little likelihood of being caught. And they know it!

Also there are hours of unique and original music being posted on line for free by the people who compose and play it - much of it to a very high quality and equally freely downloadable.

The player I use in the car has over 700 such tunes and songs. I just let it run when driving, and I stop it where it is when I get out of the car. That's about 35 hours playing time before it loops round!

[BWC]

Please read...

Yes, got that you included "offspring", but you also included partners and siblings, neither of whom would likely outlive the composer by 95, 70, or even 50 years. ...and "life+" means we're talking about offspring of the offspring at least, even with the increased life expectancy (77.28 here in the US as of 2020).

Current

Frankly I don't give a hoot over who owns...

...and this is why you're struggling with what we're saying. Current copyright law has nothing to do with composers / creators. It's about owners looking to squeeze the long tail more and more, in a word, greed.

[OneWorld]

Please read...

Yes, got that you included "offspring", but you also included partners and siblings, neither of whom would likely outlive the composer by 95, 70, or even 50 years. ...and "life+" means we're talking about offspring of the offspring at least, even with the increased life expectancy (77.28 here in the US as of 2020).

Current

Frankly I don't give a hoot over who owns...

...and this is why you're struggling with what we're saying. Current copyright law has nothing to do with composers / creators. It's about owners looking to squeeze the long tail more and more, in a word, greed.

So I can walk into your house and help myself to something just because you’ve had it a long time? It’s hard enough for a writer to earn a living as it is. And you’re trying to say a composer doesn’t own one of his/her compositions, well how come a song can be bought and sold, the very fact something can be bought and sold implies transfer of ownership. If making an honest living from your endeavours is greed then step forward he that works for nothing and if a composer can make a good living then best of luck to them. Remember, playing music under certain circumstances and where that music is copyrighted is legally considered to be theft. I buy music, I buy dvds, I buy software, and happy to pay the price, if I thought the creator was being greedy I wouldn’t buy it, I am happy with arrangement, works for me. Hence my asking the question in the first place.

[BWC]

Sorry, but all of that is missing my point beyond what I can help you to sort out. "And you're trying to say..." When did I say that? That's not at all what I'm saying. Please do read.

[merlyn]

... So I can walk into your house and help myself to something just because you’ve had it a long time?

No. It's called copyright. Using an example ... a song is not like a hamburger. If I give you my hamburger I have nothing to eat. If I give you a copy of a song, I still have the song. We both now have the song. Hackers would say "information wants to be free". Information does naturally flow around, and there have to be baroque laws to control the flow.