Public domain material

11 Responses

  1. JOSERENATOC says:

    Great post. Welcome BOOTLEGERS!!!!!

  2. torp it to full forward says:

    When will the Beatles concerts dvd be out? Would be fascinating if they have a version of Day Tripper live besides the rather tame version in Japan in 1966. Other highlights will surely be able to see American tour footage in a clearer format.

  3. Sean Roper says:

    I'm really curious to know what's going on at Apple. Last year they obviously thought they needed to release something, so why not this year? My guess is they have a legal plan in place, possibly some precedence to put into play. Maybe they feel they have the financial and legal muscle to drown anyone releasing PD material? Who know. something is up though. They're not stupid.

  4. Unknown says:

    I don't think an alternate mix of the same recording would indicate a public domain possibility. i.e The Around The Beatles recordings released in stereo on Anthology – are released…and any variant mix ie mono – should not change that. (…besides, the monos were officially released on a video tape). Perhaps I misunderstood the bold / red / italic system…?!?

  5. Hugh Nique says:

    Very impressive list. What bothers me the most is this: To let this go is very unlike The Beatles and/or McCartney. There MUST be something we don't see or don't know with which they can stop Public Domain releases. One thing that came to mind is that its impossible to release anything with the name Beatles attached to it. If I am not mistaken the name is a registered trademark and cannot be used by any third party. Or can it?

  6. Anonymous says:

    I can't confirm this, but from what I hear, there's a new interpretation of the European copyright law that Apple has embraced. After 50 years, material not released doesn't go into public domain but reverts to the artist instead of the label. The releases by Dylan, the Beach Boys and last year's Beatles release weren't to maintain copyright, but to guarantee the label's rights. Apparently, Apple has made a deal with Universal covering unreleased material that might be issued in the future, thereby making one of those year-end collections unnecessary. That's the story I've heard, at least.

  7. John Medd says:

    One would think that Jimmy Nichol is rubbing his arthritic hands after reading this.

  8. LetEmOut says:

    There are two theories in play:
    1. They didn't think that there was enough material to merit a release (as aside from the BBC recordings if only a couple of takes of each studio track were released this would not make for a bumper set. And some of these takes lack vocal anyway).
    2. They have reinterpreted the copyright protection in some way and don't think they need to protect these recordings.
    Either way, it would be a very brave company to try and make a profit off of these recordings.

  9. Unknown says:

    @billking: interesting take, and yet the same label released a Beach Boys comp of unreleased material in December.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Assuming what I've heard is correct, the situation with the Beach Boys might be different in that perhaps they have not made a guarantee to Universal of rights to future releases, as Apple supposedly has done.

  11. db says:

    Apple, etc, have their eye on big sales to the general public. Partially recorded takes of songs is minority interest stuff: the fans who want that sort of thing will already be collecting it. Last year's Bootleg album will become one of those obscure, puzzling Beatle LPs like the Help!/Shell one.

Leave a Reply to UnknownCancel reply