Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: Harold Prince:I refer you all to the documentary 'Behind the Mask' | |
| Posted by: ryhog 12:57 pm EST 12/03/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Harold Prince:I refer you all to the documentary 'Behind the Mask' - sirpupnyc 11:05 am EST 12/03/18 | |
|
|
|
| I don't know. I have spent most of my adult life ignoring Phantom. What I DO know is that the opera is dated 1910, that the musical is dated 1986, and that in 1986 the duration of a copyright was 70 years. So either he settled for no reason, or their was new material added to the opera at a later date. I was just going on the math so if there is more here I plead ignorant. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: Harold Prince:I refer you all to the documentary 'Behind the Mask' | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 05:49 pm EST 12/03/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Harold Prince:I refer you all to the documentary 'Behind the Mask' - ryhog 12:57 pm EST 12/03/18 | |
|
|
|
| Trying to get definitive answers is tough, or at least I'm finding it tough, but Italian copyright law is different from that of other countries, as showtunetrivia notes below. This may have changed since POTO but that doesn't matter. I'm pretty sure that at the time POTO came along, much of Puccini was still under copyright in Italy and perhaps in other countries. It may be that the Puccini estate and Ricordi (if Ricordi was also involved) would have lost if it it had come to trial, but it's said that ALW settled out of court, perhaps just wanting to avoid adverse publicity. I don't really know what happened, but the info I'm finding suggests that the Puccini estate and Ricordi might well have had at least enough of a case that ALW and his lawyers felt compelled to settle. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Harold Prince:I refer you all to the documentary 'Behind the Mask' | |
| Posted by: fosse76 02:09 pm EST 12/03/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Harold Prince:I refer you all to the documentary 'Behind the Mask' - ryhog 12:57 pm EST 12/03/18 | |
|
|
|
| All work created before 1924 were in the public domain by in the 1970s. The 1976 Copyright Law overhauled copyright protections. Even if new material had been added, the "original" would be in the public domain. There is nothing in Title 17 (that I could find) that extends the length of protection due to changes in the protected work. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Harold Prince:I refer you all to the documentary 'Behind the Mask' | |
| Posted by: ryhog 03:02 pm EST 12/03/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Harold Prince:I refer you all to the documentary 'Behind the Mask' - fosse76 02:09 pm EST 12/03/18 | |
|
|
|
| yes. I was just laying out every possible scenario that came to mind. In order for the copyright date to have been different than 1910, the song would have to have been written later and added to the opera (or not). Regarding UK vs US mentioned in the next post, the former has shorter duration (70 years) because Disney was not able to buy a piece of legislation in parliament the way it was in the US Congress. In any case, a song published in 1910 would be in the public domain in both countries. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Harold Prince:I refer you all to the documentary 'Behind the Mask' | |
| Posted by: showtunetrivia 02:46 pm EST 12/03/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Harold Prince:I refer you all to the documentary 'Behind the Mask' - fosse76 02:09 pm EST 12/03/18 | |
|
|
|
| But British and American coptright laws are different, as Maury Yeston found out with his PHANTOM. Laura |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.012450 seconds.