I would guess that if anyone, including EMI tried to issue this recording the BBC would be asking questions. They would still own the copyright to the recording wouldn't they? Anyway - lets face it... QPL are never going to release anything like this because it doesn't conform to the image of Queen that they have chosen to promote for years and "ONLY" Queen fans would be interested. What a fucking crazy idea... releasing archived material that only fans of the band would want! HA. They won't even release Hammersmith '75 on DVD because it isn't a greatest hits setlist that will appeal to everyone with just a passing interest in the band/songs.
cmsdrums - it would be the BBC who owned the copyright and it would be a stereo recording as no multitrack would have ever existed.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
cmsdrums: JSS - is the master tape you hold a multitrack recording (ie could be remixed), or is it already a mixed down final stereo mix??
Mixed down final stereo mix - so a remix would be out of the question, but, don't you find it strange that on one hand QPL 'advertise' for this sort of material, yet on the other show no interest?
As for releasing it privately, I could not afford to do that. Besides, once the first copy is made, it too could be easily bootlegged, so I could not afford to take that chance. However, leagally speaking, the tape is over 34 years old, and unless I am mistaken - renewed copyright only lasts for 25 years - is that correct?
If that is the case, and I know that the BBC have NOT renewed the copyright, does that mean I can renew or register the copyright under my own name?
Unless ofcourse someone in here wanted to buy it?
Mixed down final stereo mix - so a remix would be out of the question, but, don't you find it strange that on one hand QPL 'advertise' for this sort of material, yet on the other show no interest?
As for releasing it privately, I could not afford to do that. Besides, once the first copy is made, it too could be easily bootlegged, so I could not afford to take that chance. However, leagally speaking, the tape is over 34 years old, and unless I am mistaken - renewed copyright only lasts for 25 years - is that correct?
If that is the case, and I know that the BBC have NOT renewed the copyright, does that mean I can renew or register the copyright under my own name?
Unless ofcourse someone in here wanted to buy it?
I'll give you a fiver :D
Anyway - I'm sure that some label would be willing to pay an X-amount of money for this tape. Same thing happened with the Beatles' Hamburg tapes I think?
Anyway - I'm sure that some label would be willing to pay an X-amount of money for this tape. Same thing happened with the Beatles' Hamburg tapes I think?
yes it should be officially availeble
in the shops.
i surtainly would buy me a copy.
in the shops.
i surtainly would buy me a copy.
Only from memory, I think copyright runs out after 50 years, not 25. I remember something in hte last couple of years about the earliest CLiff Richard recordings becoming out of copyright, and as these were in the 1950's, I think this means that 50 yrs is the time frame involved.
Not knowing the logistics of releasing a record on a mass scale, it could be that you may not need to have a lump sum in order to successfully do this. If a company (for example, Pinnacle, or Eagle etc... or one if the companies that specialise in archive material) thought this project was a runner, they may offer you a cash sum to buy the tape, and then they would take all the profits. Alternatively it may be that you could arrange not to take any payment up front, but retain the ownership of the tape, then take a small percentage of the profits once they pay to have it pressed.
However, as it's now been confirmed that the BBC own the sound recording, I'm sure that they would be pretty hot on this kind of thing and so would prevent any kind of release whilst they still own it!!
I don't know if this is the sort of thing you can contact the BBC about, and negotiate to buy the sound recording as they will obviously never use it, or whether by contacting them they will say 'ah, that's where our tape went, give it back now!'
I'll buy the master off you in 16 yrs JSS, and then press a load of CDs up on my home burner!!!
Not knowing the logistics of releasing a record on a mass scale, it could be that you may not need to have a lump sum in order to successfully do this. If a company (for example, Pinnacle, or Eagle etc... or one if the companies that specialise in archive material) thought this project was a runner, they may offer you a cash sum to buy the tape, and then they would take all the profits. Alternatively it may be that you could arrange not to take any payment up front, but retain the ownership of the tape, then take a small percentage of the profits once they pay to have it pressed.
However, as it's now been confirmed that the BBC own the sound recording, I'm sure that they would be pretty hot on this kind of thing and so would prevent any kind of release whilst they still own it!!
I don't know if this is the sort of thing you can contact the BBC about, and negotiate to buy the sound recording as they will obviously never use it, or whether by contacting them they will say 'ah, that's where our tape went, give it back now!'
I'll buy the master off you in 16 yrs JSS, and then press a load of CDs up on my home burner!!!
I know for sure Queen Productions do have the unedited BBC version of Golders Green - at least on CD-R. I assume you don't have any "better" copy, John? I have no knowledge regarding radio shows but I somehow assume those are not on multitrack tapes or something :) and reel-to-reel tapes have the same quality as the CD-R made from them, right?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr. Scully wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I know for sure Queen Productions do have the unedited BBC version of Golders Green - at least on CD-R. I assume you don't have any "better" copy, John? I have no knowledge regarding radio shows but I somehow assume those are not on multitrack tapes or something :) and reel-to-reel tapes have the same quality as the CD-R made from them, right?[/QUOTE]
No Martin, If QPL DO own a copy of this disc (but based on the archivist's above reply they do NOT), I do indeed STILL own a better version: My copy is better than QPL's (alleged) CD-R, because their CD-R is three or four generations REMOVED from the BBC master.
Their tape pedigree runs:
7" reel-to-reel Master -
to cassette back-up master -
to cassette tape copy -
to mini disc copy -
to CD-R copy.
It is from this CD-R (which was later sonically 'enhanced' and EQ'd) which provided the 'master' for the popular silver CD bootleg.
My pedigree would run:
7" reel-to-reel Master -
to released CD version.
Thus improving the quality by at least THREE generations BEFORE any further sonic enhancements were needed or adopted.
Now, WE BOTH know this for 100% certainty - as WE BOTH know whom I made my sole copy of the CD-R version for. We BOTH know that this source is close to QPL, but whether he actually cut a copy for QPL or not - I really can not say - as I do not know. But no matter, even if he did, his version was only a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy (You get the picture!)
I hope that you appreciate my open and frank reply, and that this more than answers your question for you.
No Martin, If QPL DO own a copy of this disc (but based on the archivist's above reply they do NOT), I do indeed STILL own a better version: My copy is better than QPL's (alleged) CD-R, because their CD-R is three or four generations REMOVED from the BBC master.
Their tape pedigree runs:
7" reel-to-reel Master -
to cassette back-up master -
to cassette tape copy -
to mini disc copy -
to CD-R copy.
It is from this CD-R (which was later sonically 'enhanced' and EQ'd) which provided the 'master' for the popular silver CD bootleg.
My pedigree would run:
7" reel-to-reel Master -
to released CD version.
Thus improving the quality by at least THREE generations BEFORE any further sonic enhancements were needed or adopted.
Now, WE BOTH know this for 100% certainty - as WE BOTH know whom I made my sole copy of the CD-R version for. We BOTH know that this source is close to QPL, but whether he actually cut a copy for QPL or not - I really can not say - as I do not know. But no matter, even if he did, his version was only a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy (You get the picture!)
I hope that you appreciate my open and frank reply, and that this more than answers your question for you.
John S. Stuart.
Thanks for starting this thread. I have a few questions to ask you.
Firstly, just out of interest does your master tape differ in the number of songs to that broadcsat from and contained on the one Queen sided Transcription Disc?
Secondly, i have a 1973 BBC Transcription Disc of the show. Do you have any idea of the value of the record?
Lastly, would anyone be interested in purchasing this disc from me? I have no idea where i could sell it, is there a place on here to do that?
Thanks.
Thanks for starting this thread. I have a few questions to ask you.
Firstly, just out of interest does your master tape differ in the number of songs to that broadcsat from and contained on the one Queen sided Transcription Disc?
Secondly, i have a 1973 BBC Transcription Disc of the show. Do you have any idea of the value of the record?
Lastly, would anyone be interested in purchasing this disc from me? I have no idea where i could sell it, is there a place on here to do that?
Thanks.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Paulos wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
...Firstly, just out of interest does your master tape differ in the number of songs to that broadcsat from and contained on the one Queen sided Transcription Disc?
Secondly, i have a 1973 BBC Transcription Disc of the show. Do you have any idea of the value of the record?
[/QUOTE]
The BBC UNEDITED MASTER tape is of the full show including the 'Bamalama Bamaloo/Rock 'n Roll medley' etc. Musically, it contains no more than the bootlegged version - but (as from my reply to Martin above) is of vastly superior sound quality and (if I recall correctly) features additional commentary by the compare/host for the evening.
I too own a copy of the edited 1973 BBC transcription disc. I say edited because as you know the LP does not feature the 'Rock 'n Roll' medley. Nevertheless, in excellent condition, and on a good day, the disc should be valued between £800 - £1,000.
...Firstly, just out of interest does your master tape differ in the number of songs to that broadcsat from and contained on the one Queen sided Transcription Disc?
Secondly, i have a 1973 BBC Transcription Disc of the show. Do you have any idea of the value of the record?
[/QUOTE]
The BBC UNEDITED MASTER tape is of the full show including the 'Bamalama Bamaloo/Rock 'n Roll medley' etc. Musically, it contains no more than the bootlegged version - but (as from my reply to Martin above) is of vastly superior sound quality and (if I recall correctly) features additional commentary by the compare/host for the evening.
I too own a copy of the edited 1973 BBC transcription disc. I say edited because as you know the LP does not feature the 'Rock 'n Roll' medley. Nevertheless, in excellent condition, and on a good day, the disc should be valued between £800 - £1,000.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Paulos wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Lastly, would anyone be interested in purchasing this disc from me? I have no idea where i could sell it, is there a place on here to do that?[/QUOTE]
Paulos, please send me an email: bob at queenlive.ca
Thanks!
Paulos, please send me an email: bob at queenlive.ca
Thanks!
COPYRIGHT:
Lasts for the time of the author's life, plus another 50 (European Union) or 70 (USA) years.
That's the law, even though I personally think it should be life + 25.
As for the songs for which copyright expired: In 1976 the USA adopted the full of the Berne-convention regulating copyright at long last; all works at that time had to be re-copyrighted; everything that wasn't re-registered, but had not yet expired in 1976 would expire, I believe, 50 years after it was first created.
Lasts for the time of the author's life, plus another 50 (European Union) or 70 (USA) years.
That's the law, even though I personally think it should be life + 25.
As for the songs for which copyright expired: In 1976 the USA adopted the full of the Berne-convention regulating copyright at long last; all works at that time had to be re-copyrighted; everything that wasn't re-registered, but had not yet expired in 1976 would expire, I believe, 50 years after it was first created.
interesting thread!!
I'd buy it in a heartbeat!!!
John; Could you shed some light as to how you got the master tape? I've been following your posts both here and on qol and I am pretty much in awe of your collection and knowledge :) but it would be great to hear how you got your hands on some of these items :)
btw; do you have any idea how much money you have spent over the years collecting Queen stuff??
btw2; I think QOL should do an "Ask John Stuart" feature :)
I'd buy it in a heartbeat!!!
John; Could you shed some light as to how you got the master tape? I've been following your posts both here and on qol and I am pretty much in awe of your collection and knowledge :) but it would be great to hear how you got your hands on some of these items :)
btw; do you have any idea how much money you have spent over the years collecting Queen stuff??
btw2; I think QOL should do an "Ask John Stuart" feature :)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]COPYRIGHT:
Lasts for the time of the author's life, plus another 50 (European Union) or 70 (USA) years.
That's the law, even though I personally think it should be life + 25.
As for the songs for which copyright expired: In 1976 the USA adopted the full of the Berne-convention regulating copyright at long last; all works at that time had to be re-copyrighted; everything that wasn't re-registered, but had not yet expired in 1976 would expire, I believe, 50 years after it was first created.[/QUOTE]
Casper - this is spot on -nice answer...
this is why the surviving beatles/yoko and Goerge's widow are all shitting themselves over sorting their back catalogues out...the alarm bells for them were the "public domain arrival" of many early r n r records from the 50s
Lasts for the time of the author's life, plus another 50 (European Union) or 70 (USA) years.
That's the law, even though I personally think it should be life + 25.
As for the songs for which copyright expired: In 1976 the USA adopted the full of the Berne-convention regulating copyright at long last; all works at that time had to be re-copyrighted; everything that wasn't re-registered, but had not yet expired in 1976 would expire, I believe, 50 years after it was first created.[/QUOTE]
Casper - this is spot on -nice answer...
this is why the surviving beatles/yoko and Goerge's widow are all shitting themselves over sorting their back catalogues out...the alarm bells for them were the "public domain arrival" of many early r n r records from the 50s
John, i'd buy a copy definitely...this and hammy 75 should be released as a double cd - both gigs complete of course
i remember having the basic one-hr version of 75 and the 30mins version of golders for a long long time - on audio cassettes
then when i got the missing bits for hammy 75 - albeit in mono originally (in the early 90s) - i was delerious - same applied to getting the missing bits of golders a couple of years back
so any move to release these officially would be fantastic - we have had far too much in the way of repetitive "recent" releases
i remember having the basic one-hr version of 75 and the 30mins version of golders for a long long time - on audio cassettes
then when i got the missing bits for hammy 75 - albeit in mono originally (in the early 90s) - i was delerious - same applied to getting the missing bits of golders a couple of years back
so any move to release these officially would be fantastic - we have had far too much in the way of repetitive "recent" releases
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]eiricd wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
John; Could you shed some light as to how you got the master tape... it would be great to hear how you got your hands on some of these items :)
btw; do you have any idea how much money you have spent over the years collecting Queen stuff??
[/QUOTE]
eiricd: As you asked the question politely, who am I to refuse?
Around 1983, by law, the BBC HAD to destroy all audio recordings over 10 years old due to licensing reasons. Whether this is the same as copyright I am not sure, but, some BBC bosses somewhere made that stupid decision.
So all BBC audio transcript discs (LP's), and tapes were ear-marked for physical destruction, and sadly most of this material was historically irreplaceable. Bands like the Beatles, Stones, Hendrix and Queen all found their way to the great BBC furnace of destruction.
However, some of the smarter BBC employees rather than burn the stuff asked - and were given permission - to keep such material for their own personal collections. As this effectively removed the material from the public demain, everyone seemed happy.
Some time after, some of this material leaked into the collector's market, and I actually bought my tape and LP's through the specialist UK magazine 'Record Collector'. At that time it was still legal to sell and advertise such material.
Now, in a quirk of law, although it is still legal to own, it is actually illegal to advertise BBC material, and as such all similar type adverts are banned from 'Record Collector' type magazines (such as 'Goldmine' in the USA).
Nothing romantic or special there then. Just lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time.
As for your second question - I really shudder to think. Enough to buy a small house I would imagine!
John; Could you shed some light as to how you got the master tape... it would be great to hear how you got your hands on some of these items :)
btw; do you have any idea how much money you have spent over the years collecting Queen stuff??
[/QUOTE]
eiricd: As you asked the question politely, who am I to refuse?
Around 1983, by law, the BBC HAD to destroy all audio recordings over 10 years old due to licensing reasons. Whether this is the same as copyright I am not sure, but, some BBC bosses somewhere made that stupid decision.
So all BBC audio transcript discs (LP's), and tapes were ear-marked for physical destruction, and sadly most of this material was historically irreplaceable. Bands like the Beatles, Stones, Hendrix and Queen all found their way to the great BBC furnace of destruction.
However, some of the smarter BBC employees rather than burn the stuff asked - and were given permission - to keep such material for their own personal collections. As this effectively removed the material from the public demain, everyone seemed happy.
Some time after, some of this material leaked into the collector's market, and I actually bought my tape and LP's through the specialist UK magazine 'Record Collector'. At that time it was still legal to sell and advertise such material.
Now, in a quirk of law, although it is still legal to own, it is actually illegal to advertise BBC material, and as such all similar type adverts are banned from 'Record Collector' type magazines (such as 'Goldmine' in the USA).
Nothing romantic or special there then. Just lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time.
As for your second question - I really shudder to think. Enough to buy a small house I would imagine!