Apparently Decca/UMG own the rights to that Churchill speach. How can a politicians speach be subject to copyright? I'm a bit confused to say the least.
(, Sun 23 May 2021, 14:06, Reply)
he should tell Decca to go fuck themselves
(though youtube tend to take the side of the recording companies and I've heard it's a bit of process convincing them otherwise even if you're in the right)
(, Mon 24 May 2021, 0:05, Reply)
But Churchill also made a number of recordings of his war speeches for commercial purposes. Discogs says Decca's Churchill album was published in 1964, so their copyright claim on their recordings will expire in 2034.
(, Mon 24 May 2021, 14:01, Reply)
To be honest, I'm not totally sure which category it falls under, whether its treated as a sound recording of an existing copyrighted speech or as a new artwork, and parliamentary speeches themselves might fall under crown copyright if it's done as part of one's parliamentary duties, or be party or privately owned. it's all a bit murky for me. But if it's Decca rather than Churchill's estate complaining it's probably about the recording.
Subject to subsections (4) and (5) [F40and section 191HA(4)], copyright expires—
(a)at the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the recording is made, or
(b)if during that period the recording is published, [F41]70 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is first published
(, Mon 24 May 2021, 15:29, Reply)
thats cleared things up a bit. I assumed wrongly the original to parliament. I didnt know Decca paid Winnie to re record his speeches sometime after ww2. Guess they got me bang to rights. oh well, slap the cuffs on. Lesson learnt.
(, Thu 27 May 2021, 17:17, Reply)