In what seems to be a nice spin off from the new Transformers Movie, Sony are re-releasing the original animated Transformers: The Movie on DVD.

The movie has been "cleaned up" (whatever than means) and both the widescreen (cropped) edition and the full screen (original) version are available, as well as commentary with the director, Nelson Shin, and other special features. Included is a "fan commentary" which I'm sure is terrible.

Sony are also releasing the TV series. It will probably be cheaper than the Rhino released versions.

Discovered via Branded in the 80's who added this nice comment:

It's funny that Sony would go through all the trouble to clean this flick up for a nice speical edition when George Lucas can't get off his ass to put out nice versions of the Original Trilogy to save his life.

In the 90s I bought a tape of theme tunes from TV and the movies including The Simpsons theme, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles etc.

It was only $5.

Turned out it was a cover band playing the songs and not the original recordings.

Oh how this annoyed me at the time. To the point of tears.

I was hormonal.

From this I can only assume it is (was?) cheaper to pay for the right to make a cover version than it is to pay for the mechanical right to copy the recording, otherwise such a tape would make no economic sense at all?

These kinds of releases are very rare these days. Most compilations along these lines advertise "all original artists and recordings!".

Perhaps the law changed making it cheaper to release the originals?

I suspect it strongly depends on the particular rights created in the artists' original recording contract and who actually owns the mechanical copyright.

Last time I researched this, the cost to create a cover version and release it commercially was around $1000 a song depending on how many copies you intended to sell.

Have a read of this article explaining the steps taking by an artist to gain mechanical copy rights for a cover album he wanted to release. The different agencies involved, mechanical vs. digital copyright all make this sound like a nightmare to organise.

Neil Gaiman asks a good question:

I'm a bit puzzled by an article on the BBC website about copyright terms in the UK for recorded music that seems to claim that the day after the copyright term expires, the people who made the music will no longer be paid for it.

[...]

... but if you were getting royalties from a record you made you would, I assume, still be getting money from records sold through that record deal. The difference is that other people could now also bring out or use the material without paying a licensing fee to the record company who wouldn't pay you.

The way I understand it is this:

• The copyright that is set to expire is the "right to copy". That is, the copyright of the audio recording that was released back in the 50s is set to expire, so that recording will be able to be freely copied.
• A third party could release (reprint, sell) the recording and make money from that. But there is nothing stopping the original copyright holder from re-releasing new versions of the songs (something no-one else could do without their permission) which would gain another 50 years of copyright.
• It's important to remember the copyright is expiring on the recording, not the composition.

The UK Copyright Law fact sheet sort of clears it up:

• Copyright on musical creative works is 70 years from the last authors death.
• Copyright on sound recordings is 50 years from the creation of the recording.

I'm unsure how this effects the right to "use" the song. For example radio broadcasts and cover bands require a royalty payment (around a $1 per play in Australia via APRA) for the use of the song. Because the money goes to the composer of the song and not the musician playing the song, I suspect this requirement for a royalty payment would still exists after the mechanical 50 year copyright expires.

I guess this would mean that P2P distribution of these songs would be legal. Depending on your definition of broadcast, "use" and "copy".

If I read this right, the UK copyright laws are actually protecting the correct people. The composer still gets rights for 70 years after their death. The sound recording slips out of copyright.

This means Tom Jones and Elvis (and their record companies) stop making money from the cover songs they recorded, but the original composers of those songs still make money.

The law punishes those that don't actually do any creating themselves.

Which is the whole point.

More from the UK copyright site, Duration Of Copyright:

Sound recordings will have a individual copyright separate to the underlying composition. If the underlying composition is in the public domain, it does not follow that a sound recording is.

You cannot reproduce a more recent sound recording of a public domain work, though you may create your own sound recording from the public domain composition.

And from Music Copyright:

What copyright exists in music?

There are principally 2 types of copyright to consider when we talk about music copyright.

• The traditional ©, "C in a circle" copyright, applies to the composition, musical score, lyrics, as well as any artwork or cover designs, as all of these are individually subject to copyright in their own rights, (though when you register, you can include them all in a single registration provided they have the same copyright owner(s)).
• The second type of copyright applies to the sound recording itself, and is signified by the "P in a circle" phonogram copyright symbol.

How does this work?

Suppose you want to record and sell your own version of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture. This would not present a problem as Tchaikovsky has certainly been dead for over 70 years*, the work itself would now be out of copyright, and available as a work in the public domain. Provided you performed and recorded the work yourself, no infringement would have occurred.

* Actual duration may vary due to national laws

You would however be justifiably annoyed if someone else simply copied your recording and started selling it themselves. This is where the copyright in the sound recording comes into play. Copyright law recognises the problematic nature of this situation which is unique to sound recordings, and gives sound recordings distinct protection in their own right that is separate from that in the underlying work. The copyright in the sound recording will run for 50 years from the year of recording, or 50 years from date of release if released in that time. Again actual duration may vary slightly from one country to another depending on national laws.

To me this reads that selling and distribution of the recording would be completely legal, royalty free. But no-one could "create a new version" or "use" the composition without first asking the composer, which definitely includes cover versions but might not including remixing? It might even mean that remastering of the recording would be illegal by anyone but the composer?

I think my point about protecting the composer still stands. If they want to keep making money from their composition they need to keep using it by recording new versions of it.

My only outstanding question is how much use can you make of the mechanical copyright expiry and what is a "new" recording?...

• Is remastering the old recording a new recording, and thus now copyrighted for another 50 years? Who owns that copyright? The composer or the remaster-er?
• Is remixing (as in DJ doof doof) of the out of copyright recording now legal? Or would that count as a cover version requiring the composers permission?
• Am I right about broadcast royalties still being required?