Scanning Old Guitar books / Copyright Issues

[gmoon]

I've got a small collection of old Hawaiian, Steel and misc guitar instruction booklets, most of which date to the 1920s.

Most were published by Wm J. Smith Music Co., which last renewed the copyrights in the 50's. Since I work in publishing, I'm fairly conscientious / paranoid about stomping on other people's copyrights.

Any thoughts about whether these are public domain? They're interesting both from content and period...

[thermion]

Who would know/ care if you scanned them?
Perhaps the better question: what do you plan to do with the scanned copies?

[gmoon]

Yeah, I should have mentioned--I'd post them online.

[Ritchie200]

I, for one, would like to see them.  Especially the Hawaiian one.  My dad gave me his Hawaiian Supro steel resonator guitar that he got new in 1938.  That was the guitar I learned on way back when....  He also gave me some of his old books.  They are really cool to look at!  I realize my desires do not answer your question, but if the company is no longer I would think it would be public domain by now?

Jim

[gmoon]

Maybe I'll start with one or two, and see what happens. I know enough about copyright law to know if I'm not profiting, the worst they can do is tell me to remove the content...

Titles:

The Steel Guitar (Hawaiian Method) and How to Play it (Leon Coleman)
Chord and Accompaniments for Hawaiian Guitar (William J. Smith)
Smith's Famous Duets for Hawaiian Guitar and Regular Guitar (no author, pub by Wm J. Smith Music Co.)
Kamiki Hawaiian Guitar Method (no author, pub by Wm J. Smith Music Co.)
Smith's Hawaiian Melodies, No 2 (no author, pub by Wm J. Smith Music Co.)
Hawaiian Steel Guitar (C.S. De Lano)
"Feist" Popular Hits for Hawaiian Guitar (no author, pub by Wm J. Smith Music Co.)
Smith's Songs for Hawaiian Guitar (no author, pub by Wm J. Smith Music Co.)
The Superior Collection of Steel Guitar Solos (Keoki E. Awai)

also
The Paramount Method for Ukulele (Cassie M. Bacon)
Smith's Songs for Guitar

[FYL]

I've got a small collection of old Hawaiian, Steel and misc guitar instruction booklets, most of which date to the 1920s.

Most were published by Wm J. Smith Music Co., which last renewed the copyrights in the 50's. Since I work in publishing, I'm fairly conscientious / paranoid about stomping on other people's copyrights.

Any thoughts about whether these are public domain? They're interesting both from content and period...

If the copyrights haven't been renewed since the '50s they should now be in the public domain.

More info at : http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/renewals.html

[gmoon]

Good article. I may have read it when I did a "search" on some titles a couple years ago. Yeah, the way it stands now, older materials have a max of 75 yr copyright umbrella. So renewed or not, they should be PD.

...IF the law isn't changed *again*. I guess my paranoia stems from congress ("inspired" by corps like Disney) repeatedly extending copyright protections...

[RicharD]

I'm eying a lap steel on fleaBay right now.  It's got a weird 4 prong male cord hanging off of it.  Looks like something you'd see on a Hammond organ or Leslie speaker.

[gmoon]

I'm eying a lap steel on fleaBay right now.  It's got a weird 4 prong male cord hanging off of it.  Looks like something you'd see on a Hammond organ or Leslie speaker.

Weird indeed. Maybe we'll start a lap steel thread in "guitars..."

[Ritchie200]

Good article. I may have read it when I did a "search" on some titles a couple years ago. Yeah, the way it stands now, older materials have a max of 75 yr copyright umbrella. So renewed or not, they should be PD.

...IF the law isn't changed *again*. I guess my paranoia stems from congress ("inspired" by corps like Disney) repeatedly extending copyright protections...

Congress was "inspired" long before Disney came along.  Besides, Walt paid a pretty penny (at the time) for the rights to those stories - and now DisCorp are just trying to protect a huge investment.  I can also tell you Disney has paid its fair share to others just to borrow copyright material.  Tron is actually the name of a fuse that Bussman manufactures.  The great Dis had to pay a very pretty penny (now twice) to just use the name.  They are very well aware that the sword cuts both ways.  And certainly Disney is not the only one who has taken advantage of these extensions.  Besides, the copyright structures are now part of free trade agreements.  (sorry, that was brought up in the article)  I don't think Dis has that kind of womp around the globe.

Jim

[gmoon]

Good article. I may have read it when I did a "search" on some titles a couple years ago. Yeah, the way it stands now, older materials have a max of 75 yr copyright umbrella. So renewed or not, they should be PD.

...IF the law isn't changed *again*. I guess my paranoia stems from congress ("inspired" by corps like Disney) repeatedly extending copyright protections...

Congress was "inspired" long before Disney came along.  Besides, Walt paid a pretty penny (at the time) for the rights to those stories - and now DisCorp are just trying to protect a huge investment.  I can also tell you Disney has paid its fair share to others just to borrow copyright material.  Tron is actually the name of a fuse that Bussman manufactures.  The great Dis had to pay a very pretty penny (now twice) to just use the name.  They are very well aware that the sword cuts both ways.  And certainly Disney is not the only one who has taken advantage of these extensions.  Besides, the copyright structures are now part of free trade agreements.  (sorry, that was brought up in the article)  I don't think Dis has that kind of womp around the globe.
Jim

Not a lawyer, are you Ritchie200? IMHO, "inspired" by corps like Disney is completely consistent with your thoughts...

I guess even highly litigious corporations like Disney have their defenders . Frankly, I doubt Walt ever forked out that much to his authors, animators and such. And he was long gone by 1998. I doubt any of their heirs received any additional monies from the changes brought by the Copyright Term Extension Act of that year. You are, of course, absolutely right that other corporations also help to drive that (and earlier) legislation.

The irony is that entertainment corporations like Disney thrived in the era before VHS, DVD and digital streaming--all on new, original content. Fast forward to today, and they seem to be barely holding on despite holding tremendously profitable "catalogs."  New movies seem to all be old comics.

"Tron"? I don't doubt you're correct, but that would be a trademark issue, not a copyright. Entirely different area of law.

Honestly--copyright law has a direct effect on how I make a living. But (like a patent) it's essentially meaningless unless you have the deep pockets to defend your rights. Every change fundamentally benefits corporations, and only incidentally authors, artists, musicians etc. Sure--at the highest levels artists benefit greatly--it's in the best interests of everyone involved (corporation, lawyers, merchants, etc.)

So I'm not against copyrights at all. I'd quit my current job if I didn't also enjoy the benefits. But the modern changes are driven by the specter of digital media and the potential profits of the "catalogs" of Disney, etc. Am I against that? Not at all... but I am cynical.

I'm also not against PC clones, "Windows," Les Paul, tele, and Strat copies, Marshall amps or any of the myriad other products that might be copies of originals... (yeah...not really copyright issues, I know.)

[P Batty]

Cassie Bacon was active in the 1920's:

www.arcade-museum.com/mtr/MTR-1922-74.../MTR-1922-74-20-32.pdf

[RicharD]

As I understand it, if you're not profiting from it the worst that can happen is a cease and desist letter.  Many years ago, I got a cease and desist letter from a religious organization form whom we had hijacked imagery for T shirts and stickers along with a story line for a song.  (don't ask don't tell)  At any rate, they were acting all hard ball.  That asked for earnings statements from the label.  After they saw that we were seriously upside down, we never heard from them again.  I don't think you can get in that much trouble.  I know of an internet business that sells pdf's of service manuals w/o permission.  I asked GK what they thought about it and they were like, "meh.... we know.  As long as you have a valid serial number we'll send em to you for free."  50+ year old books for lap steel of all instruments...... I wouldn't worry too much about it.

I'm hoping the lappy I'm watching goes for the cheap.  That odd cord hanging off of it should discourage a lot of the buyers.  I'm also thing that odd cord means this thang has seen little use and has been sleeping happily in a closet in Amarillo.  (insert finger crossed smiley here)

[gmoon]

Good luck w/ the lap steel.

Yeah, a copyright or patent holder has to prove someone has "materially harmed" them or the IP to receive damages--and the most easy way to prove that is that someone profited from the property, or diluted the value of the IP. No profit, no foul--or at least no reason to pursue a claim.

@PBatty
Link didn't work for me, but I played with it a little, so this does. Not much "googleable" on her, but that's something.

[Ritchie200]

Not a lawyer, are you Ritchie200? IMHO, "inspired" by corps like Disney is completely consistent with your thoughts...

Hah!  Man, you just cussed me out but good!

I guess even highly litigious corporations like Disney have their defenders . Frankly, I doubt Walt ever forked out that much to his authors, animators and such. And he was long gone by 1998. I doubt any of their heirs received any additional monies from the changes brought by the Copyright Term Extension Act of that year. You are, of course, absolutely right that other corporations also help to drive that (and earlier) legislation.

The irony is that entertainment corporations like Disney thrived in the era before VHS, DVD and digital streaming--all on new, original content. Fast forward to today, and they seem to be barely holding on despite holding tremendously profitable "catalogs."  New movies seem to all be old comics.

"Tron"? I don't doubt you're correct, but that would be a trademark issue, not a copyright. Entirely different area of law.

Honestly--copyright law has a direct effect on how I make a living. But (like a patent) it's essentially meaningless unless you have the deep pockets to defend your rights. Every change fundamentally benefits corporations, and only incidentally authors, artists, musicians etc. Sure--at the highest levels artists benefit greatly--it's in the best interests of everyone involved (corporation, lawyers, merchants, etc.)

So I'm not against copyrights at all. I'd quit my current job if I didn't also enjoy the benefits. But the modern changes are driven by the specter of digital media and the potential profits of the "catalogs" of Disney, etc. Am I against that? Not at all... but I am cynical.

Actually Walt DID pay well for the stories he used - sometimes way too much according to his accountant brother and the banks.  As far as his employees, the talented became very rich.  However, he was a royal sob to work for.  Barely holding on these days?  I wish I could print money like they do with every release.  And you are right, those companies with the dough seem to make the rules, so I certainly understand you being cynical - especially since you are so close to it!  I do think that with the unique history and a historical catalog as large as theirs, Dis certainly have a vested interest in the policy to protect it.  I used to work for Bussman, so I know what they paid for Tron.  While I am not Pollyanna'ish to think Walt has any influence from the grave and they are without fault, I do think Disney is always the easy dog to kick - I'm sure there are worse!.

Did not mean to stray from the subject!  Like you said, I think we agree but with different perspectives!  Where will you be posting your scans?  Again, I would like to see them!

Thanks,
Jim    

[RicharD]

All this talk of copyrights and Disney makes me think of the piece "Gimme the Mermaid" by Negativland.

[PRR]

> conscientious / paranoid about stomping on other people's copyrights.

Examine the history of copyright. It is utterly fluid and has changed a lot.

Until the late 19th century, everything was fair game for copying, everything was free for the taking. However the cost of typesetting discouraged general copying. 

Late 19th century there is a movement for author profit, yet still the feeling that words should be generally available. Limited-term copyright appears.

Late 20th century, copyright is extended.

> thoughts about whether these are public domain?

Don't think. Don't ask musicians (often poor custodians of their own works and rights!).

Here's a well-reasoned essay:
  http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/renewals.html
 
Note that a "songbook" has copyright on the book and on EACH song. Tracing every song will be tedious.

As I read your situation, it is "unlikely" any of this material is still under copyright. Material like that is often posted as if it were common domain.

If you want to be truly moral: see if someone is selling the book or any song. While they may not have copyright, giving it away hurts them.

And of course be very sure it isn't already given-away before you spend hours over a hot scanner.

[gmoon]

Not a lawyer, are you Ritchie200? IMHO, "inspired" by corps like Disney is completely consistent with your thoughts...

Hah!  Man, you just cussed me out but good!

I guess even highly litigious corporations like Disney...

Actually Walt DID pay well for the stories he used - sometimes way too much according to his accountant brother and the banks.  As far as his employees, the talented became very rich.  However, he was a royal sob to work for.  Barely holding on these days?  I wish I could print money like they do with every release.  And you are right, those companies with the dough seem to make the rules, so I certainly understand you being cynical - especially since you are so close to it!  I do think that with the unique history and a historical catalog as large as theirs, Dis certainly have a vested interest in the policy to protect it.  I used to work for Bussman, so I know what they paid for Tron.  While I am not Pollyanna'ish to think Walt has any influence from the grave and they are without fault, I do think Disney is always the easy dog to kick - I'm sure there are worse!.

Did not mean to stray from the subject!  Like you said, I think we agree but with different perspectives!  Where will you be posting your scans?  Again, I would like to see them!

Thanks,
Jim    

That "lawyer" thing didn't come out quite like a question, did it?  Oops.

Are those guys rich like A) Michael Eisner, B) an early Microsoft employee, or C) like the plumber who lives next door?  Walt never was the greatest business man, was he? The modern corporation has certainly remedied that... Disney probably does get a little more criticism than it deserves--maybe because of the contrast between the hyper-cheerful "It's a small world after all" public image and it's hyper-litigious hardball private leanings.

Yeah, it sure it tough to feel sorry for large media corporations...but music sales have declined for a decade, retail book sales are way down, and movies have been lackluster, at least compared to the 1980's. Now they use catalogs as a financial crutch. With a safety net like that, you'd think they'd be more adventurous, and take more chances with original content. Build that future catalog, rather than strip-mining the past...

Thirty years ago I would have scoffed at the idea that laws are written by corporations. Not anymore. They are positioning themselves for the digital universe, and writing laws that are inclusive of DRM, piracy issues and the specter of YouTube and the like. So the new laws (and the draconian protection schemes) essential assume the consumer has "criminal intent." Well, we certain have the means. Maybe media companies ARE ripped off a lot...and maybe the vast majority of downloaders wouldn't have bought the music to begin with. I dunno. The scarier stuff than the retroactive copyright protections is the attacks on "fair use" and the like. Or the lawyers who are now copyrighting lawsuit judgments to prevent publication of court proceedings, etc.

Enough of my blather.

One of the booklets is copyright 1916, and two are 1919. I'll start there...

@PPR
Yes. Good, measured thoughts on the subject. I had thought about "content within content" (recursion) as well.

But if the pub is old enough to out-run any copyrights and extensions, any song within would have also passed that point. Otherwise, I'm not gonna over-think it or talk to a lawyer. If I'm in violation they can tell me and I'll remove the content.

[PRR]

> any song within would have also passed that point.

So you would think.

But the law is swiss-cheese.

Consider a song first published outside the US, and copyright renewed continuously in that country. With some more provisions, that copyright "could" still be valid in the US. Copyright in most countries is reciprocal, it would be onerous to ask the author to understand and comply with the various copyright renewal terms in every country, so in some cases simply renewing in the first country confers active copyright in the US.

Or Book from 1916 was not renewed in 1944, but book has Song from 1915 renewed in 1943 and 1971. This gets into the period where copyright on a Mouse can be extended as long as Congress listens to money. The law does not distingish Song from Mouse, little authors get indefinite copyright.

If you want a definitive answer, hire a copyright specialist who is both good and can be insured/bonded against good answers later ruled to be wrong.

As was said, likely the "worst can happen to you" is you get a take-down notice, and you have lost the hours spent over a hot scanner. Since your scan-time is surely worth far less than a good bonded copyright researcher, the harm done to other publishers is small, and your proposed income even less, it seems silly to pay for research or even for you to spend hours going through microfilm records.

Google and others are scanning huge quantities of books, often without much regard for copyright. 'Your' books may already be scanned, though Google is limiting access until they get some agreement about copyright. Hawaiian Guitar books *may* slip under their radar, but I've found the darnedest things there. MS had a scan project and those files are at Internet Archive. There's others.

[gmoon]

Interesting. So there's lots of "interpretation" of international law involved. Lawyers (and deep pockets) required. Something akin to patent law--the victory usually goes to the last litigant standing.

At first I read "Mouse" as "the Mouse"