RE: Compulsory License Provision

From: Charles McGarry <cmcgarry[_at_]>
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 96 17:23:17 PDT

On Fri, 30 Aug 96, SColbert[_at_] wrote:
> A group in our music department (brass quintet) is making a recording
> with the ultimate goal of either signing a contract with a recording
> company or pressing the record themselves.
> One of the works, originally written and subsequently recorded in the
> early 1900s is the subject of my inquiry. An individual is writing a
> new (brass) arrangement of the work and has requested and been denied
> permission from the copyright holder to use and record the work in
> newly arranged form.
> He has now been advised that the Compulsory License Provision (17
> U.S.C. 115) of the Copyright Act -- with special reference to
> 115(a)(2) -- will allow him to prepare and perform the arrangement
> irrespective of the denied permission. I am not particularly familiar
> with this provision of the Copyright Act; and unfortunately have not
> been any more enlightened after reading it. Any thoughts are
> appreciated.
> Stephana Colbert
> Office of the Vice President for Research
> The University of Iowa
> stephana-colbert[_at_]

-----------------End of Original Message-----------------

Dear Ms. Colbert,

If the composition has previously been recorded, you are entitled to a compulsory license at the statutory royalty rate. It cannot be refused.Moreover, it is entirely possible that the composition is now in the public domain, if it is a work copyrighted in the U.S. and published more than 75 years ago.

Name: Charles McGarry
E-mail: Charles McGarry <cmcgarry[_at_]> Date: 9/1/96
Time: 5:23:17 PM

Law Office of Charles McGarry
Entertainment Law and Civil Litigation Received on Mon Sep 02 1996 - 04:47:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:22 GMT