Just like the aunt in our imaginary scenario, you`re probably better off documenting a written agreement. Something as simple as a promised note, detailing the nephew`s promise to repay his aunt, could have avoided any quarrel over their agreement. Finally, it is less difficult to ask family members for a written loan than to bring them to justice. These claims are not recognizable under a federal statute in force at the relevant time. The “titles” of the songs (i.e. the nine for which compensation is supposed to be less than full compensation), apart from the specific type of protection conferred by the copyright system, have never been a concern of federal law. With respect to the artistic or performance rights of the other 160 recorded songs, the federal right of acquisition has historically excluded the rights of a singer to perform from protection. Indeed, the sound recordings themselves were made by the unanimous judicial construction of the Copyright Act of 1909, 17 U.S.C. See Capitol Records, Inc.
v. Mercury Records Corp., 221 F.2d 657 (2d Cir. 1955). A fortiori, an actor would not have been able to obtain copyright protection for his sound recording style. It was only with the amendment of this law, which came into force in 1972, that the sound recordings themselves could be protected by copyright, cf. 1 Nimmer on copyright 2.10[A] to 2-139 (1978), but this amendment excluded the performance rights of a singer from protection. See Waxman, Performance Rights in Sound Recordings, 52 Texas L.Rev. 42, 46 (1973). It appears that the existing copyright law, which came into force on January 1, 1978, could amend the law. See 17 U.S.C.A. 102 (1977), which suppressed the Justice Committee`s notes, House Report No. 94-1476, U.S.Code Cong.
Admin. News 1976, 5659, 5669: The previous section, centered on “At the Christmas Ball,” assumed that both New York and Pennsylvania would recognize ownership of a singer`s performance during a recording session if the singer was not paid for the recording of that song. but was paid for others. We now need to readjust our focus. What rights did Bessie Smith acquire between 1923 and 1931 on the recordings for which she was paid? This time, we are not starting from these rights, but we are questioning their existence and the request for the release of the accused. (The applicants did not move to the summary assessment of this part of the claim). In this context, we turn to the five discrete types of rights referred to in Count IV: (1) the rights acquired in the eight songs in Appendix C of the applicants` memorandum in opposition to the defendant`s request for release, for which Ledger`s sheets denounce a partial payment (we have included it in the com , although there are no allegations; (2) the rights to the song “At the Christmas Ball”, rejected at the time of its first inscription, on November 17, 1925, and first published in 1951 and 1972; (3) the control rights of the technology used in the production of recordings; (4) registration price control rights; and (5) the rights to control the packaging of the records. Categories (1) and (2) are cross-requested for summary assessment.