On Sat, 18 Mar 2000, Xiao Jinhong <limabean[_at_]pobox.org.sg> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2000, Colin Seeger <seeger[_at_]ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > In the absence of any copyright or proprietary rights being granted
> > to a performance (sorry for the apparent oxymoron, but it seems to
> > be the only way to describe the legislative thinking), the fact
> > that a recording was made without the artist's or the record
> > company's consent, is immaterial.
>
> Didn't TRIPS (and therefore signatories' implementations of it) change
> that picture by mandating the protection of performances? Singapore,
> at least, amended her Copyright Act in 1998 for TRIPS compliance,
> introducing new "performance rights" aimed at bootlegs.
>
> I'm not sure how the transitional provisions deal with to pre-1998
> performances though.
Absolutely. Most countries have or are in the process of introducing "performers' protection" provisions which enable performers to authorise recordings (audio and/or visual) of their performances. I protects aun unfixed performancem, which is why I don't like to think of it as a true copyright-based right, even though most are shoe-horned into Copyrigth legislation (e.g the Australian Copyright Act)
I don't know of any which are retrospective in effect, save to the extent of giving a cluse of action to performers to enable them to take action to prohibit commercial expolitation of any recordings which are "unauthorised".
CS
"Galvanising Ideas"
Colin Seeger, Consultant, Management of Intellectual Property. P.O Box 3227, Tamarama, Sydney, Australia 2026 Tel: (61) (02) 9365 1186, Fax (61) (02) 9365 1286 <seeger[_at_]ozemail.com.au> Received on Wed Mar 22 2000 - 04:59:02 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:38 GMT