RE: sound recording/work made for hire

> -----Original Message-----
> From: EXT John Noble [mailto:jnoble[_at_]dgsys.com]
>
> The following is from a Copyright Office bulletin. Can
> anybody explain what
> the amendment was supposed to do, and who or what is behind
> the repeal.
>
>
> WORK MADE FOR HIRE AND COPYRIGHT CORRECTIONS ACT OF 2000 (Senate -
> October 12, 2000) (H.R. 5107)
> On October 12 the Senate passed H.R. 5107, legislation to amend
> the statutory definition of a "work made for hire," repealing the
> amendment to that definition that was made by the Intellectual
> Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999 (IPCORA).
> IPCORA had inserted the words "as a sound recording" into the second
> paragraph of the definition of "work made for hire" found in section
> 101 of the Copyright Act.

<snip>

John,

        I believe that the "as a sound recording" phrase was removed due to lobbying by (studio?) musicians. ISTM that the issue has been discussed on this list. The following post from Rich Stim touched on this issue in January. There may be other relevant posts that I missed during my quick search.
BR,
Jerry

On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Rich Stim <rwstim[_at_]aol.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/31/00, Mike Phillips <mfslaw[_at_]mailandnews.com> wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone see this definition change as significant?
>
> Absolutely. It makes it much more difficult for musicians to reclaim
> rights to sound recordings. See Geoffrey Hull's article "Copyright
> Act Amendment Seen As Blow to Artists' Sound Recording Rights" --
> Entertainment Law & Finance Jan 2000.
Received on Mon Oct 16 2000 - 21:06:41 GMT