------------------------------
The Old-Time Radio Digest!
Volume 01 : Issue 176
A Part of the [removed]!
ISSN: 1533-9289
Today's Topics:
radio documentaries ["Ryan Osentowski" <rosentowski@neb.]
Re: COPYRIGHTS [Michael Biel <mbiel@[removed]; ]
An Olan Soule Real Life Roll [Conrad Binyon <conradab@[removed]]
Maverick Sounds? ["Stephen A Kallis, Jr." <skallisjr@]
Lines In The Sand ["Stephen A Kallis, Jr." <skallisjr@]
British copyrights ["J. Alec West" <Alec@[removed];]
The "hootchi Cootchi" lyrics [hal stone <dualxtwo@[removed]; ]
copyright & OTR: may be time to move [BRC Productions <platecap@brcradio.]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 10:20:01 -0400
From: "Ryan Osentowski" <rosentowski@[removed];
To: "old time radio" <[removed]@[removed];
Subject: radio documentaries
Hi all:
I own a copy of a radio documentary from 1975 on, Gunsmoke. I also own a
copy of a documentary about The Shadow called, Voices From the Shadows. Can
anyone tell me if there are any other documentaries of radio shows that I
could get? Hearing interviews with the actors is really a neat thing!
RyanO
"It don't matter how a man [removed]'s how he lives that's important."
CPT. Augustus McCrae "Lonesome Dove"
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 10:33:25 -0400
From: Michael Biel <mbiel@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject: Re: COPYRIGHTS
From: ANTHONY TOLLIN SanctumOTR@[removed]
***Are MOST copyrights corporate held, or just the ones that
generate huge profits (MICKEY MOUSE, SUPERMAN, X-MEN, major
movies, etc.) or those in the recording industry?
Because motion pictures, television program, and sound recordings are
group creations of a hired team, you will find that almost every
copyright for these total works are held by corporations. Individual
segments of the movie might be copyrighted separately like the songs or
the script, but the movie itself is a corporate copyright. Since OTR is
part of the media, I concentrated on the media copyrights.
It seems to me that most of the copyrights on published fiction
and books are held by the author (or can be claimed by the author
once the book goes out of print and he's no longer receiving
royalties from the publisher; many contracts provide for the
copyright to be returned to the creator 18 months after the
book goes out of print).
That is purely a contractual deal. That is not a part of the copyright
law. If the book publisher wishes to retain the copyright for the
entire duration, they can do so if they were the ones who had registered
the copyright in the first place. And whether the author or the
publisher can register the copyright is usually part of the publishing
contract. Don't you remember about a month or so ago there was a big
flap when it was disclosed that the standard recording contracts denied
the rights of the musicians to regain the copyrights of out-of-print
recordings? They are held by the record companies and would have to be
purchased. For big bucks.
Regardless, it's not uncommon for a creator to benefit from copyrights
owned by a publisher. Walter Gibson received half the royalties from
paperback and hardcover reprints of his SHADOW pulp novels up until
his death in 1985. A number of DC Comics freelancers from the 1940s
and 1950s are receiving reprint checks for archive reprints of their
old comic book stories, partly due to the efforts of fans like Rich
Morrissey (who passed away last week) to identify who did what and
locate the writers and artists who were still alive.
If you look at a comic book you will see that the book is copyright in
the name of the corporation, in this case DC Comics or perhaps
DC/Time/Warner. The CONTRACTS the writers, artists, etc. might have
made with the publisher might include royalty clauses. Otherwise, they
are works-for-hire and only the publisher gets the money--unless they
voluntarily pay some royalties out of the goodness of their hearts. The
comic book community is a small and close-knit bunch. The publishers
have learned that it pays to be nice--it gets them good press and good
will.
And while Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster sold the copyright to SUPERMAN
for $130 in 1938, they were splittingm $100,000 annually during the
1940s and in later years were receiving a pension of around $50,000
each annually, plus medical insurance and survivor benefits for their
families. And Bob Kane, who never sued for copyright, made millions
in royalties in recent decades off the creation of BATMAN.***
In all of these instances it either involved a contractual arrangement,
or as in the case of Siegel and Shuster, it was a retroactive deal
because DC was starting to get bad press about the creators of Superman
being ill, out of work, and destitute. That might not have been totally
true, but think of the hundreds of millions that have been made from
their creation. If they had made a better deal they could have had a
pension of $500,000 a year instead of $50,000. If they had held onto
their copyright the company might now be called Time/Seigel & Shuster
instead of Time/Warner.
Currently the copyright term for corporate copyrighted sound
recordings in the European Common Union is 50 years from time
of creation.
***Hmmn, is it 50 years from time of creation or 50 years past
the death of the creator?
There IS no lifetime for a CORPORATION. The movie or sound recording
goes [removed] 50 years from creation.
I thought one of the arguments for extending copyright terms was
to bring them in line with British and European copyright terms.
That's where it started. Now because of nincompoops like Sonny Bono,
and the big bucks paid to buy our legislators by the big corporations
and the RIAA, the [removed] terms are longer than the Europeans'.
Is the European term for personally-held copyrights 'til 50 years
after the creator's death? There is some valid logic to extending
copyright protection since people are living longer these days.***
But NOBODY is still alive 50 years after their death no matter how long
they live!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you want to use pure logic, the
post-death term should be SHORTER if people are living longer. If
someone writes a song when they are 25 and they live to be 75, if the
copyright runs for life plus 50 then the song would stay in copyright
for 100 years. BUT if the person died when he was 30, then the song is
in copyright for only 55 years. Thus, to be fair, the term should be
longer if their lifetime is shorter. You got it backwards.
If terms are not increased, look out in 2012 when the
Beatles recordings start hitting [removed] WOW, will the fur fly!
***And in 2012, the surviving Beatles will be in their very early
seventies. Are you saying they SHOULDN'T receive revenue for their
songs after that point (or that we shouldn't still love them after
they're sixty-four)? Or that thier widows and children shouldn't benefit?
The SONGS will still be covered by copyright because those were
individual efforts and are covered by personal copyrights in their
name. Since they were lucky enough to mostly sing songs that they
wrote, they will still get royalties as the songwriters. But since the
copyrights of the sound recordings are held by EMI, THOSE will go [removed]
in Europe. Besides, remember that there is no provision for PERFORMER
ROYALTIES in the copyright laws. Those are only CONTRACTUAL agreements
between the artists and the record company. EMI will probably still pay
them. But the other companies won't.
And by the way, the record publishers who would be rushing to release
unauthorized versions of copyright-expired songs would most likely
be corporations. I'd far rather see the original creators and their
families sharing a piece of the financial pie.
In this case the songwriters will, the performers will not. Remember,
we are talking apples and oranges here. The recordings would be [removed] but
the songs might not. It is also possible for it to work the other way
around. If you record a Beethoven symphony, the recording is
copyrighted but the symphony is [removed] When a copy of the record is sold,
the record company gets whatever money they are able to squeeze out of
the record store. The conductor gets a royalty ONLY if it was in his
contract. The musicians in the orchestra might get nothing more than a
payment into the orchestra's pension plan IF that was written into the
contract. They did get a session fee when the recording was made. But
Beethoven's heirs and publisher get NOTHING.
Copyright laws also pertain to an editor's work in selecting stories
for an anthology. One can't just lift the exact contents of a
best-selling short story anthology because some of the stories
are public domain. There is some copyright protection for the
collection as a whole, and the work that has gone into the
selection of the contents.
No there isn't. This contention is on very shaky ground. If you look
at the copyright page of any anthology of [removed] material you will see
that the only copyright claimed is for the additional material that has
been newly written and perhaps some editing to individual items that
might have been altered. If the stories themselves have been altered,
those alterations are copyrightable. Any additional explanatory
material is copyrightable. But I can go to the same original sources
and reprint the same [removed] stories the way they originally appeared or
with changes of my own.
If someone prints an anthology of the works of Edgar Allen Poe, so can
anyone else. I can't use their intros. I can't use their modifications
to the stories--if they would have dared to change Poe's words. But I
could print my own Poe anthology. Even using the same stories. If I
pick ten [removed] stories from ten different authors it still doesn't
matter. To use the analogy of the Beethoven symphony--if I go out and
publish a CD set of the nine Beethoven symphonies that I have newly
recorded, the publishers of other previous sets of the nine Beethoven
symphonies can't sue me. If someone makes a set of CDs with nine [removed]
symphonies of nine different composers, I could go out and hire an
orchestra and record those same nine symphonies and put out my own set
without any fear whatsoever that the other company can sue for any
reason whatsoever. Look thru any record catalog and you will see
THOUSANDS of examples of different albums with identical couplings of
several different classical works. You can't sue just because they
chose to couple the same works together.
And while Walter Cronkite had the final say on the programs in
that collection, I was paid by RSI to compile a list of nearly
100 shows from which Cronkite later made his final selections.
It cost RSI additional money to select those particular programs
I was paid by RSI to help in the selection, and I'd rather see
the company that paid me for that research profit from my efforts
than a company who had no investment in that process.)
That's mighty nice of you, but if you had instead compiled a set of the
60 greatest [removed] classical works, so could anybody else.
(Things could be a whole lot worse. Remember when Radiola and
Conde Nast launched $100,000 lawsuits against a number of OTR
dealers who had sold SHADOW tapes a few years ago?
While the details are different, there are some that see similar tactics
from the heirs to Radiola, RSI. There was malice involved in the Radio
Yesteryear case, so logic and fairness went out the window. Logic and
fairness also seem to be at question when RSI keeps their list of
copyright holdings secret even when threatening prosecution over
violation of those secret copyright holdings.
One lister recently questioned whether Joan Benny, etc. actually
owned the complete rights to their parents' shows. Well,
personally, I'd like to think that Joan and the kids of George
and Gracie, Edgar Bergen, etc. were getting something for the
commercial use of their parents' talents.
Well so would we, but life isn't always fair. Didn't most of the other
performers on those shows also have kids? (Dennis Day sure did!!!!!)
Why shouldn't they also get something for the commercial use of THEIR
parents' talents???????????? Just because someone's name is on the
title of the program doesn't mean that they automatically own the rights
to the program. Someone else might, or perhaps nobody does. Just
because somebody might be named Sam Brooklyn doesn't mean that he has
the right to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.
I might have discussed this here before, but I remember back when
Richard Lamparski started his "What Ever Became Of . . ." series he
interviewed the elderly Stan Laurel. It came out that neither Laurel or
Hardy were getting any money out of all of the hundreds of thousands of
dollars that producer Hal Roach, Sr. was making from selling these films
for TV use in the 50s. Residuals had not been in their contract. They
were hired actors who had received their salary when the films were
made. Hal Roach had put up the money to make the movies and his company
owned the copyright. But he was starting to feel a little guilty. So
he went to the two of them and offered to produce a NEW L&H movie and
this time there would be generous royalty and residual payments written
into the contract. But before the movie was able to be made, Hardy had
a stroke and that ended the idea. Roach COULD have rewritten a contract
that allowed for residuals for the TV plays of the old movies--but he
DIDN'T. It would have been nice if he did, but he didn't. However, the
writer of the theme song for these movies was probably getting
performance royalties whenever the films were shown on TV. Remember,
there are no provisions for royalties for performers in the copyright
law like their are for composers, authors, and publishers.
And also stars like Milton Berle and Bob Hope who are still around,
These two were smart enough to own their shows. BUT, unless they had it
written into their contracts at the time their films were made, they are
getting nothing for the playing or the sale of their old movies. Those
movies are owned by the studios--Paramount in the case of most of Hope's
films--and probably only Paramount and the songwriters are making any
money off of those movies. Unless Hope Enterprises did own the
copyrights and leased distribution to Paramount.
and creators like Norman Corwin, David Kogan (of THE MYSTERIOUS
TRAVELER, THE STRANGE DOCTOR WEIRD and TEH SEALED BOOK who
receives royalties from RSI)
They probably had personal copyrights on the scripts. But the sound
recordings are most likely not owned by these writers. CBS might own
the common-law copyright on Corwin's recordings--are THEY getting
paid??? Remember that "On A Note of Triumph" was released on Columbia
Records. Did RSI license the use of the recording from Sony??????
and the descendents of Howard Koch.
You yourself mention a bunch of other writers who contributed to WOTW
and are not entitled to any royalties. It THAT fair? No, but it is
KOCH who got the copyright.
In many cases, an author doesn't receive renumeration from the
publisher for reprints of work-for-hire writings. However, he
WAS paid when he first sold the story.
ALL of the performers you mentioned were paid for performing on the
broadcasts. That includes Benny, Burns & Allen, Bergen, Berle, and
Hope.
Should he have received a better deal from the publisher? Sure,
just as most of us would like to be better paid by our employers.
But he/she did receive some compensation in the first place.
So why should we feel sorry for the children of Benny, Burns & Allen,
Bergen, and Berle, and Hope?
... I still don't begrudge Golden Books the current copyright owner
from benefiting from their purchase of the LONE RANGER copyright.
But we KNOW who the owner of the Lone Ranger copyright is. Golden Books
doesn't go around pretending to own copyrights to things they might not
own the copyright to.
One thing is for sure: It's collections like RSI's and programs
like WHEN RADIO WAS that are keeping OTR in the public eye and
introducing new generations to radio's wonderful "theatre of
the imagination."
Charles Michelson, George Garabedian, and the Longines Symphonette set
started it. If Charles Michelson had not been skunked out of his rights
to The Shadow by the predecessor to RSI, Radio Yesteryear, his company
might still be a major force. Garabedian was unlucky enough to die.
But these were the entities which did things legally, cleared the proper
rights, paid royalties when royalties were due. And they didn't scare
or bully other people out of business while doing it.
If not for publishers like Carl Amari, this hobby would be in
danger of becoming a "last man's club." --ANTHONY TOLLIN***
But the BUSINESS of OTR IS in the danger of becoming a last man's club.
While it might not be true, on the surface it appears that he is intent
on being the last man. And using a club to become a club of one. (Pun
intended.) If DC Comics had been perceived to not care about Superman's
creators, their public image would have sunk so low that nobody in the
comic hobby would have bought another DC Comic. In the OTR hobby, RSI's
public image couldn't be much lower. That might not be deserved, but it
is happening. I'll state again, the only major problem is the tactic of
going after perceived copyright violators without telling them what
copyrights they might have violated. It is like a cop stopping you and
giving you a blank ticket, saying you are guilty but not stating what
offense you are guilty of. If RSI thinks that protecting this tactic is
worth losing the good will and business of the entire OTR family, so be
it.
Michael Biel mbiel@[removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 10:33:22 -0400
From: Conrad Binyon <conradab@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject: An Olan Soule Real Life Roll
[removed]@[removed] has Richard Veit writing:
Among lots of other credits, Olan Soule will be remembered
in the role of John Masters, the hotel clerk and choir
director on "The Andy Griffith Show."
and Dave Phaneuf asking:
Didn't Olan Soule also have one of the lead roles in the
1950's TV version of Captain Midnight?
Can't tell you for sure about either of the above comments, but
I know for sure about the following link:
[removed]
CAB
--
conradab@[removed] (Conrad A. Binyon)
From the Home of the Stars who loved Ranches and Farms
Encino, California.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 10:33:21 -0400
From: "Stephen A Kallis, Jr." <skallisjr@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject: Maverick Sounds?
Kenneth Clarke asks,
If a program is 'public domain', can another individual get the
copyright to the program by purchasing it?
When a program is in Public Domain, it _can't_ be copyrighted. Anyone
can make copies and sell it. However, if someone alters a program, say,
adds music to a show that originally didn't have it, it's possible to
copyright _that version_ of the show, but the copyright doesn't pull the
original out of Public Domain.
Now suppose I have a copy of a Public Domain recording of a show. Say
the only recording known to exist is noisy -- has hiss, crackle, and
possibly even a repeat or two from a stuck needle when being transferred
from a (now broken) disk. Let's further suppose I have the equipment to
clean up the recording, creating a result that sounds nearly "studio"
quality. I could copyright _that _ version, protecting my work in making
a better-than-existing "copy" of the program. However, if anybody else
can clean up the recording on their own, it might be difficult --
probably impossible -- to demonstrate that another clean copy of the
program came from my handiwork. Nor does my "clean" version preclude
anyone else copying and selling the Public Domain version.
Stephen A. Kallis, Jr.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 10:33:19 -0400
From: "Stephen A Kallis, Jr." <skallisjr@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject: Lines In The Sand
Rusty [G. A. Wolfe], speaking of RSI and copyrights, noted that,
Some of the shows he [Amari] highlighted included "The Lone Ranger,"
"Our Miss Brooks," Judy Canova," "lum And Abner,' "The Cinnamon Bear,"
"The Railroad Hour" and "Let's Pretend."
Two points: at least he apparently reacted to specific shows. I believe
that, for instance, The Lone Ranger _is_ protected. If so, he may have a
legitimate claim on it; however, if he hasn't _exclusive_ rights to
distribute that show, it could be that a dealer should contact the
ultimate owner, which is probably someone else (it once was the Wrather
Corpotation, but I don't think it is now).
He then demanded that I turn over my sales records to him so he could
look at them and determine which shows he owned the distribution rights
to.
Wel, fair's fair. It would be equally appropriate for the dealer to
demand that he supply documentary proof that he had the exclusive rights
to the shows he highlighted. If he turns out to have such rights, then
that's legitimate (though such a thing should be done through lawyers);
however, if the documentation shows him to have nonexclusive rights,
that's different. But asking for unilateral disclosure is naive at best.
The major majority of the old radio stars that are still around
couldn't care less about a residual.
People like Phil Harris, Alice Faye, Dennis Day, Eve Arden, Jimmy Stewart
and Bob Hope were happy that there work was entertaining people 50 years
later.
But fair _is_ fair. If anyone does have exclusive rights to a work, even
if the original artists might not mind not getting residuals, they might
still be entitled to them. If, however, residual money is collected but
not distributed, that would be another kettle of fish altogether. I have
no idea what the case is with RSI, and so cannot comment knowingly on the
specific case.
Hopefully from reading this you've found out exactly how the afore
mentioned threatens other
radio dealers. But is it wrong to keep this wonderful material alive?
Well, that's two or three diverse points. That he might have treated
people in a less than gentlemanly fashion is one thing. That he may have
implied that RSI owns rights to more than he really has, is another,
possibly related one. Keeping the material alive is yet a third.
I have no problem at all with anyone legitimately defending their
property, including RSI. The key is "legitimately." If the reports of
vague Cease * Desist letters is accurate, then that is more restraint of
trade than protecting one's rights. But a proper communication,
delineating which programs a specific dealer is offering may be
infringing on protected shows for which anyone has exclusive rights to is
something entirely different.
Stephen A. Kallis, Jr.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 10:33:18 -0400
From: "J. Alec West" <Alec@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject: British copyrights
Michael Biel wrote:
If terms are not increased, look out in 2012 when the Beatles recordings
start hitting [removed] WOW, will the fur fly!
To which SanctumOTR@[removed] replied:
Are you saying they SHOULDN'T receive revenue for their songs after that
point (or that we shouldn't still love them after they're sixty-four)?
I'm not sure what Mr. Biel would say, but _I'd_ say that (the revenue part, not
the love part <grin>). It will be interesting to see what the British do. It
was their own "Statute of Anne" that finally stripped the Stationer's Guild of
its "rights kingdom" just prior to our Revolutionary War -- and championed the
notion that the rights of the public domain were higher than those of the
creator (while allowing for a "limited period" in which the creator and ONLY
the creator could profit from works ... not companies, not corporations, not
licenseers, not even estates -- only the creator). Since our founding fathers
didn't want the creation of rights kingdoms in this country, they based the
Copyright Act of 1789 on the Statute of Anne -- and made the "limited period"
concept part of our Constitution. Tell me something, and be honest. Does
life-plus-fifty sound more like a "limited period" for the creator -- or like a
"prison sentence" for the public domain?
Or that thier widows and children shouldn't benefit?
Or Michael Jackson? I thought it was Jackson who owned rights to the earlier
Beatles recordings.
Regards,
J. Alec
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 10:33:16 -0400
From: hal stone <dualxtwo@[removed];
To: <[removed]@[removed];
Subject: The "hootchi Cootchi" lyrics
Hey Jay: the lyrics for Egyptian Dance (Ballet) that you quote are obviously
the clean version.
I recall some actor on the radio or in the movies in the old days made
up words to Egyptian Dance -- like this --
"Oh the things you did,
When you used to be a kid!"
When we were kids, here's how the song went.
"Oh they don't wear pants
In the southern part of France
But they do wear grass
to cover up their a--. :)
But then again, we were rowdy kids from N. Y. But we sure giggled a lot
when we had a chance to sing it.
Behave yourself. (and thanks for the recent update on the project)
Hal(Harlan)Stone
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 10:33:11 -0400
From: BRC Productions <platecap@[removed];
To: <[removed]@[removed];
Subject: copyright & OTR: may be time to move on
While the copyright topic bores me to tears these [removed]
>From Anthony Tollin's [removed]
He made many good [removed] old, some new, some rehashed, some blue
(slap me for being poetic, please).
Things could be a whole lot worse. Remember when Radiola and Conde Nast
launched $100,000 lawsuits against a number of OTR dealers who had sold
SHADOW tapes a few years ago?
An incredibly minor point, but that was actually TEN years ago (shall we
celebrate the 10 year anniversary -- I think not!_).
Anyway, the whole story of that incident for those who care is still
readable online at [removed]
As a side note, my company produces the Wild West Show with Montie Montana
Jr. whose father was the great cowboy trick roper and made some radio
appearances. Although my company does all the work to make his creative
efforts a marketable package (and Fred Foy's drops makes us sound even
better!), I can assure you Mr. Montana Jr. not only owns the show lock,
stock and DAT [removed] but he also pays us and invested tens of thousands of
dollars to develop the radio show. I can assure you that while he's not in
it for the money, he would never authorize Napster or anyone else to freely
bootleg it.
Yet the case with the various OTR shows, at the time, no one realized the
shows would have any long term value so it's amazing they survived at all.
Old time radio is in fact, a dying hobby. Has been for years. I am in the
syndication business and OTR is considered niche or nostalgia programming by
broadcasters today. Regardless of how fine Carl Amari's program may be, for
the most part, you don't hear it in prime time in many or any of the top 10
markets on stations with powerful signals. That's because mass appeal shows
like Rush Limbaugh and Dr. Laura Schlessinger have more established track
records. Advertisers will gladly pay top dollar to support those shows.
My company stopped marketing shows years ago, not because of pressure from
RSI or anyone else, but we needed to diversify to survive. "Keeping the
shows alive" is a fine and noble cause, but after all, this is the year
2,001. It's time to move on.
Bob Burnham
--
--------------------------------
End of [removed] Digest V01 Issue #176
*******************************************
Copyright [removed] Communications, York, PA; All Rights Reserved,
including republication in any form.
If you enjoy this list, please consider financially supporting it:
[removed]
For Help: [removed]@[removed]
To Unsubscribe: [removed]@[removed]
For Help with the Archive Server, send the command ARCHIVE HELP
in the SUBJECT of a message to [removed]@[removed]
To contact the listmaster, mail to listmaster@[removed]
To Send Mail to the list, simply send to [removed]@[removed]