31:
189:, 4 N.Y.3d 540 (2005), is one of "the most notable case" concerning the copyright status of US-published sound recordings issued before February 15, 1972 (frequently called "pre-1972 sound recordings"). In this case, the New York Court of Appeals held that pre-1972 sound recordings, which are not given copyright under U.S. federal law, may be covered under state common law copyright.
221:
held that while federal copyright protection was not available, the state of New York may or may not have common law copyright. The Second
Circuit certified the question to the state of New York, which considered several questions, including the question of whether a state's common law copyright
229:
held that, because
Congress had not preempted common law copyright for pre-1972 sound recordings, that common law copyright was available. Because common law copyright was not bound by federal and international rules regarding expiration into the public domain, Capitol's claim survived.
233:
The case was hailed in some quarters, and critiqued in others, but most commentators acknowledged that it was a "landmark", and "groundbreaking" decision, carrying significance for both music preservation and commercialization of recordings before 1972.
410:
214:
237:
On
December 20, 2016, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that this common-law right includes only the exclusive right to duplication and publication, and not to public performance. That case,
388:
414:
218:
217:, which held that because the items were in the public domain in their country of origin (the United Kingdom), they were also in the public domain in the US. On appeal, the
307:
512:
604:
609:
385:
599:
614:
619:
532:
Michael Smith, "Gotta Fight for Your Right to
Perform: Scope of New York Common Law Copyright for Pre-1972 Sound Recordings Post-
207:. Capitol Records, which held the U.S. licenses for those works, also remastered and reissued on CD the same recordings.
195:
restored and issued on CD a number of mid-20th century sound recordings, including several classical music performances by
304:
489:
467:
226:
147:
41:
334:
330:
108:
104:
356:
119:
30:
554:
581:
509:"As Our Heritage Crumbles Into Dust: The Threat of State Law Protection for Pre-1972 Sound Recordings"
282:
76:
563:
476:
159:
155:
519:
497:
143:
437:
508:
151:
373:
392:
311:
243:
210:
163:
264:
222:
protection might survive the expiration of a work's copyright in its country of origin.
239:
204:
139:
572:
593:
200:
192:
372:
Brandy Karl, "Finding
Traditional Contours in the Common Law", Tulane Law J. 2008 (
196:
247:, ruled that no such common law right to public performance existed in New York.
327:
101:
84:
338:
112:
360:
123:
80:
487:(2005): Just Another Footnote in the History of Copyright?", 53
116:
411:"OWNERS OF 1967 HIT SONG 'HAPPY TOGETHER' LOSE COPYRIGHT CASE"
472:: The Persistence of Copyright on That Old Time Rock n' Roll"
265:"Federal Copyright Protection for Pre-1972 Sound Recordings"
174:
169:
135:
130:
96:
91:
72:
57:
47:
37:
23:
305:"Pre-1972 Sound Recordings -- A Legal Breed Apart"
52:Capitol Records, Inc. v. Naxos of America, Inc.
548:Capitol Records, Inc. v. Naxos of America, Inc.
470:Capitol Records, Inc. v. Naxos of America, Inc.
352:Capitol Records, Inc. v. Naxos of America, Inc.
324:Capitol Records, Inc. v. Naxos of America, Inc.
278:Capitol Records, Inc. v. Naxos of America, Inc.
186:Capitol Records, Inc. v. Naxos of America, Inc.
24:Capitol Records, Inc. v. Naxos of America, Inc.
522:Capitol Records, Inc. v. Naxos of America Inc.
438:"Flo & Eddie, Inc. v Sirius XM Radio, Inc"
8:
536:", 30 Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 589 (2009-2010)
29:
20:
550:, 4 N.Y.3d 540 (2005) is available from:
256:
299:
297:
295:
293:
291:
444:. New York State Law Reporting Bureau
7:
409:Klepper, David (December 20, 2016).
485:Capitol Records v. Naxos of America
303:Neil J. Rosini, Michael I. Rudell,
413:. Associated Press. Archived from
374:draft of article available online)
14:
605:United States copyright case law
263:United States Copyright Office,
610:New York (state) state case law
115:2003); question certified, 372
600:2005 in United States case law
513:Wake Forest Intell. Prop. L.J.
100:Summary judgment granted, 262
1:
215:Southern District of New York
498:"Whose Music Is It Anyway?"
636:
615:Capitol Records litigation
490:J. Copyright Soc'y U.S.A.
227:New York Court of Appeals
148:Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick
42:New York Court of Appeals
28:
620:2005 in New York (state)
79:; 797 N.Y.S.2d 352; 830
391:April 15, 2014, at the
61:April 5, 2005
16:US copyright legal case
314:, FWRV, Oct. 28, 2013.
384:Joseph I. Rosenbaum,
417:on December 21, 2016
357:372 F.3d 471
283:4 N.Y.3d 540
477:Berkeley Tech. L.J.
267:, Dec. 2011 (p.32).
160:Susan Phillips Read
156:Victoria A. Graffeo
333:, 274 F. Supp. 2d
310:2014-04-15 at the
213:sued Naxos in the
144:George Bundy Smith
107:, 274 F. Supp. 2d
502:La Scena Musicale
496:Norman Lebrecht,
466:Timothy P. Best,
399:, April 29, 2005.
182:
181:
152:Albert Rosenblatt
627:
586:
580:
577:
571:
568:
562:
559:
553:
529:, April 13, 2005
507:Henry Lee Mann,
504:, April 13, 2005
483:Ronan Deazley, "
454:
453:
451:
449:
433:
427:
426:
424:
422:
406:
400:
382:
376:
370:
364:
354:
348:
342:
321:
315:
301:
286:
280:
274:
268:
261:
131:Court membership
68:
66:
33:
21:
635:
634:
630:
629:
628:
626:
625:
624:
590:
589:
584:
582:New York Courts
578:
575:
569:
566:
560:
557:
551:
543:
520:"Some Notes on
518:Brendan Scott,
493:23 (2005-2006).
463:
461:Further reading
458:
457:
447:
445:
435:
434:
430:
420:
418:
408:
407:
403:
393:Wayback Machine
386:"Music on Hold"
383:
379:
371:
367:
350:
349:
345:
322:
318:
312:Wayback Machine
302:
289:
276:
275:
271:
262:
258:
253:
244:Sirius XM Radio
240:Flo & Eddie
164:Robert S. Smith
64:
62:
17:
12:
11:
5:
633:
631:
623:
622:
617:
612:
607:
602:
592:
591:
588:
587:
564:Google Scholar
542:
541:External links
539:
538:
537:
530:
516:
505:
494:
481:
462:
459:
456:
455:
428:
401:
377:
365:
343:
316:
287:
269:
255:
254:
252:
249:
219:Second Circuit
205:Yehudi Menuhin
180:
179:
176:
172:
171:
167:
166:
140:Judith S. Kaye
137:
136:Judges sitting
133:
132:
128:
127:
98:
94:
93:
89:
88:
74:
70:
69:
59:
55:
54:
49:
48:Full case name
45:
44:
39:
35:
34:
26:
25:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
632:
621:
618:
616:
613:
611:
608:
606:
603:
601:
598:
597:
595:
583:
574:
565:
556:
555:CourtListener
549:
545:
544:
540:
535:
531:
528:
524:
523:
517:
514:
510:
506:
503:
499:
495:
492:
491:
486:
482:
479:
478:
473:
471:
465:
464:
460:
443:
439:
432:
429:
416:
412:
405:
402:
398:
394:
390:
387:
381:
378:
375:
369:
366:
362:
358:
353:
347:
344:
340:
336:
332:
329:
325:
320:
317:
313:
309:
306:
300:
298:
296:
294:
292:
288:
284:
279:
273:
270:
266:
260:
257:
250:
248:
246:
245:
241:
235:
231:
228:
223:
220:
216:
212:
208:
206:
202:
201:Edwin Fischer
198:
194:
193:Naxos Records
190:
188:
187:
177:
173:
170:Case opinions
168:
165:
161:
157:
153:
149:
145:
141:
138:
134:
129:
125:
121:
118:
114:
110:
106:
103:
99:
97:Prior actions
95:
90:
86:
82:
78:
75:
71:
60:
56:
53:
50:
46:
43:
40:
36:
32:
27:
22:
19:
547:
533:
526:
521:
501:
488:
484:
475:
469:
448:December 24,
446:. Retrieved
442:NYCourts.gov
441:
431:
421:December 20,
419:. Retrieved
415:the original
404:
396:
380:
368:
351:
346:
323:
319:
285: (2005).
277:
272:
259:
238:
236:
232:
224:
209:
197:Pablo Casals
191:
185:
184:
183:
92:Case history
77:4 N.Y.3d 540
51:
18:
363: 2004).
328:F. Supp. 2d
175:Decision by
102:F. Supp. 2d
594:Categories
480:335 (2006)
436:Stein, J.
397:LegalBytes
85:U.S.P.Q.2d
65:2005-04-05
515:45 (2006)
73:Citations
546:Text of
389:Archived
339:S.D.N.Y.
308:Archived
113:S.D.N.Y.
83:250; 74
527:Groklaw
361:2d Cir.
211:Capitol
178:Graffeo
124:2d Cir.
63: (
58:Decided
585:
579:
576:
573:Leagle
570:
567:
561:
558:
552:
359: (
355:,
341:2003).
326:, 262
281:,
203:, and
126:2004).
81:N.E.2d
534:Naxos
474:, 21
251:Notes
38:Court
511:, 6
450:2016
423:2016
225:The
117:F.3d
87:1331
335:472
331:204
242:v.
120:471
109:472
105:204
596::
525:,
500:,
440:.
395:,
290:^
199:,
162:,
158:,
154:,
150:,
146:,
142:,
468:"
452:.
425:.
337:(
122:(
111:(
67:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
