You are here: / / NO STATE COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT PROTECTION FOR PRE-1972 RECORDINGS PLAYED...
,

NO STATE COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT PROTECTION FOR PRE-1972 RECORDINGS PLAYED BY RADIO STATIONS.

In an extensive opinion by Judge Stein, with a concurrence and a two-judge dissent, the Court of Appeals determined the owner of master recordings of songs by the band “The Turtles” did not have a state common-law copyright interest in the public performance of pre-1972 recordings (i.e., recordings broadcast by radio stations). A federal law controls post-1972 recordings:

… [C]ommon sense supports the explanation … that the record companies and artists had a symbiotic relationship with radio stations, and wanted them to play their records to encourage name recognition and corresponding album sales … . … [T]he Federal Copyright Office explicitly recognized the technological advances affecting the interests of the various participants in the music industry as early as 1991 … . Nevertheless, those participants have co-existed for many years and, until now, were apparently “happy together.” While changing technology may have rendered it more challenging for the record companies and performing artists to profit from the sale of recordings, these changes, alone, do not now warrant the precipitous creation of a common-law right that has not previously existed.

Simply stated, New York’s common-law copyright has never recognized a right of public performance for pre-1972 sound recordings. Because the consequences of doing so could be extensive and far-reaching, and there are many competing interests at stake, which we are not equipped to address, we decline to create such a right for the first time now. … Under these circumstances, the recognition of such a right should be left to the legislature. Flo & Eddie, Inc. v Sirius XM Radio, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 08480, CtApp 12-20-16

 

COPYRIGHT (NO STATE COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT PROTECTION FOR PRE-1972 RECORDINGS PLAYED BY RADIO STATIONS)/SOUND RECORDINGS (NO STATE COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT PROTECTION FOR PRE-1972 RECORDINGS PLAYED BY RADIO STATIONS)/RADIO STATIONS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT PROTECTION FOR PRE-1972 RECORDINGS PLAYED BY RADIO STATIONS)/PUBLIC PERFORMANCE, RIGHT OF (NO STATE COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT PROTECTION FOR PRE-1972 RECORDINGS PLAYED BY RADIO STATIONS)

You might also like
Uncle Was Properly Found to Be a “Person Legally Responsible” for the Abused Child—He Was Therefore a Proper “Respondent” in a Child Abuse/Neglect Proceeding
FUNDS FOR PERSONAL CARE SERVICES ARE MEDICAID FUNDS SUBJECT TO THE AUDIT AND RECOUPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION; APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED (CT APP)..
DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF WAS PROPERLY DENIED AND THERE WAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD FOR THE EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST (CT APP).
THE INTERSATE COMPACT ON THE PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN (ICPC) APPLIES ONLY TO PLACEMENT IN FOSTER CARE OR PLACEMENT RELATED TO ADOPTION; THEREFORE THE ICPC DID NOT APPLY HERE WHERE FATHER, A NORTH CAROLINA RESIDENT, SOUGHT CUSTODY OF THE CHILD; NORTH CAROLINA, APPLYING THE ICPC, DID NOT APPROVE PLACEMENT WITH FATHER; THE APPELLATE DIVISION’S DENIAL OF FATHER’S CUSTODY PETITION ON THAT GROUND WAS REVERSED (CT APP).
ALTHOUGH THE POLICE HAD VISITED PLAINTIFF SEVERAL TIMES IN RESPONSE TO HER CALLS ABOUT HER EX-BOYFRIEND’S VIOLATIONS OF THE ORDER OF PROTECTION AND THE POLICE HAD SPOKEN TO HER EX-BOYFRIEND (WHO LIVED DIRECTLY ABOVE HER), THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THERE WAS NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND THE POLICE SUCH THAT PLAINTIFF COULD HAVE JUSTIFIABLY RELIED ON THE POLICE FOR PROTECTION; HER EX-BOYFRIEND SUBSEQUENTLY THREW HER OUT OF A SECOND-FLOOR WINDOW (CT APP).
PROCEDURE USED TO EXCUSE PROSPECTIVE JURORS ON HARDSHIP GROUNDS WAS NOT A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR; FAILURE TO OBJECT TO PROSECUTOR’S APPEAL TO GENDER BIAS DID NOT CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE.
AFTER MAKING THE LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUM PAYMENTS FOR 15 YEARS ON THE PREMIUM DUE DATE (JANUARY 14), PAYMENT WAS NOT TIMELY MADE IN 2018 AND DECEDENT DIED ON FEBRUARY 18, 2018, AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE 31-DAY GRACE PERIOD; COVERAGE WAS PROPERLY DENIED; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE POLICY WAS AMBIGUOUS AND SHOULD BE INTERPRETED SUCH THAT THE GRACE PERIOD HAD NOT EXPIRED AT THE TIME OF DEATH (CT APP).
Defendant Entitled to Jury Charge on Extreme Emotional Disturbance Despite Lack of CPL 250.10 Notice

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FORMULAIC LANGUAGE INDICATING THE ACCEPTANCE OF A BID WAS SUBJECT TO A WRITTEN... PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PROSECUTOR’S INITIAL STATEMENT OF...