Is London Records the owner of all the New Order back catalogue? I mean, did their contract with New Order give them the copyright on all Factory prior release? or does it still belong to New Order..?
Anyone knows this?
Dates
· UTC
Copyright questions...!
Archived11 replies · 618 views
This is an archived legacy thread. Replies are closed, but the discussion is preserved.
← Back to Digital Republic
12 posts
I think they are. i saw a re-edited version of JD substance CD and i think it was by London.
I think that Factory didn't own the back catalogue (the bands owned it, that was all part of the farce), so couldn't sell it to London Records. The band still own it, leasing it to London Records as and when Steve needs a new tank or Hooky a motorbike :)
As stated in the credits of Permanent: "The copyright in this sound recording is owned by London Records 90 Ltd."
I think so. According to "From Joy Division To New Order" London made a deal with Factory for its back catalogue and a separate one with New Order. I'm not sure if this source is reliable as there are a lot of mistakes in this book.
The idea is to find who I should ask about the files that are online, if it's ok or not... :D
I think you'd be safest only including unreleased (i.e. live covers) material, unless it is just a 30 second snippet of tracks. Even the demos that later evolved into songs may be covered by the publishing contract, and the last thing you want to do is to get collared for big copyright fees !
Recorded media is a tricky one - minimal 'samples' of non-copyright held tracks is also an infringement (technically) so NOTHING is 100% safe. Most (reasonable) companies would recognise a minor infringement that actually promotes rather than harms their product as a benefit and overlook it. Not sure about London/Centredate though. At the time, Factory would probably have sent you the original tapes if you'd asked!
As for the written word/photographs, etc, in the UK at least, the following applies (I would imagine US/Canadian/International law would mirror this):
Quotation of a portion of text which is copyrighted by a third party is acceptable, provided that:
a. The whole article is not reproduced b. The original author is credited in full and a reference to the original work is included c. The original publication in which the article appeared (if applicable) is credited d. A written article may be reproduced in full only where written or otherwise documented permission is expressly given by the copyright holder e. Reproduction of photographic or other graphic media is restricted to use only where written or otherwise documented permission is given and granted in full by the original copyright holder
That's my own 'simple to understand' (!!!) interpretation of copyright law, though I may well have made a mis-translation or five.
Doesn't make encouraging reading, but hope that helps...
Mind you, try finding a website that adheres to all of the above!
Now I really must have that 
before my meagre brain expands well beyond the limitations of my skull.
Back sometime later...
But we have to agree, there is NO WAY a fan site can be 100% without breaking any copyright rules.
Just look at the header, there is a picture of them, the true faith leaf, the saville color code, and the NAME, as far as I know, using their name for a site is also breaking a copyright law!
All the pictures we have on the site, the lyrics (even if we all know it's not anything official because there is no such thing as New Order real written lyrics), the articles we have, there is no end to this (Procession)....
So, my pick was from the beginning, let's do it, if someone complain, I'll remove it. Problem is, the label didn't complain, they just ignored us when we were looking for promotional items and other stuff.
Originally posted by Spotnick as far as I know, using their name for a site is also breaking a copyright law!
Not at all!!!
And by the way, you speak too much.
Using their name alone does NOT break any rules but if it were to be utilised for any third party financial gain then there WOULD be a problem.
I wouldn't provoke the beast that IS London Records to be honest for fear that you might be asked "officially" to remove ALL the media files that London owned the copyright on - save for the aformentioned 30 second clips - I think you could be straying into the arena of legal nightmares otherwise...For the time being, if it ain't broke...
