Sugar Mama (unused track) WHY?

[GetTheLedOut]

Then how do you explain all the successful lawsuits which were filed in U.S. courts?

Dixon, who was still alive in the 60s and 70s, was able to sue because the copyright protection had not passed on his recordings. SBW or his estate could have done so as well in the 60s or 70s, but likely due to the fact he had been dead for some time and the fact that he probably doesn't have the publishing rights to his songs, they did not file.

Actually, UK law doesn't even extend the 50 year protection to non-UK recordings made prior to 1957. So Sonny Boy Williamson wouldn't be protected (by the British court system) either way.

Well, there you go.

[beatbo]

In the mid-60s Jimmy participated in a studio session with Sonny Boy Williamson; 11 tracks were recorded in two and one half hours before Williamson returned to North America.

Sometime in 1993 Robert visited people he knew in Helena, Arkansas, the town where Sonny Boy Williamson used to record.

In November 2006 Robert drove down from Nashville to Tutwiler, Mississippi and played harmonica at the grave of Rice Miller a.k.a. Sonny Boy Williamson.

rice miller is sonny boy williamson 2. (who did not record "sugar mama blues")

john lee (sonny boy) williamson 1 (the artist we have all been discussing) died in 1948.

[eternal light]

Music copyright in the spotlight

[SteveAJones]

rice miller is sonny boy williamson 2. (who did not record "sugar mama blues")

john lee (sonny boy) williamson 1 (the artist we have all been discussing) died in 1948.

...the hell with this thread...

[fenderguy]

Anybody here have a comment on on the vinyl release of Jimmy Page: Special Early Works (Featuring Sonny Boy Williamson)? I'm not in the mood to comment on it now because I am not in the mood for a dogfight!!

[eternal light]

In 1963, the Yardbirds recorded an album with Sonny Boy Williamson.

Also, around April 25, 1965, he recorded with Jimmy Page.

Sonny Boy, at the time, was clearly the star of the 1963 and 1964 American Negro (Folk) Blues Festivals. Along with Willie Dixon (the talent coordinator) and Horst Lippman (the promoter), he toured Europe during those two autumns along with Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf, Lightnin' Hopkins, Lonnie Johnson, Sleepy John Estes, Big Joe Williams, Otis Spann and a select cast of blues legends playing their most brilliant music with each other. Sonny Boy Williamson was the acknowledged and revered star of the tour. When he returned to Britain to tour the college circuit on his own with a very young Eric Clapton and the Yardbirds hanging on for dear life as his backup band, he extended his legend.

He recorded not only with his fellow legends Memphis Slim, Hubert Sumlin and Matt "Guitar" Murphy but also with the Clapton-era Yardbirds, the Animals and, on his final day in England, Jimmy Page, Brian Auger & The Trinity and two jazz sax players! He returned home to die a month later in his home of Helena Arkansas but not before returning to the jukes and his beloved King Biscuit Time radio show and a final jam with Levon & The Hawks (yes, the folks who became The Band) who told the story in a memorable interview segment of "The Last Waltz." movie. Sonny Boy died in sleep in his humble apartment on May 25, 1965.

bluesnet.hub.org

[fenderguy]

It really was not a Jimmy Page album, as the original title would suggest.

[beatbo]

Anybody here have a comment on on the vinyl release of Jimmy Page: Special Early Works (Featuring Sonny Boy Williamson)? I'm not in the mood to comment on it now because I am not in the mood for a dogfight!!

steve just mentioned it a coupla posts before you. no fight!

[SteveAJones]

It really was not a Jimmy Page album, as the original title would suggest.

Yeah, the record label was attempting to cash in on the popularity of Led Zeppelin. I do

like that album and always thought the front cover was awesome. It's hard to find in mint condition nowadays.

[beatbo]

hey, steve!

crazy thread, aye?

didn't mean to put you off, buddy....

[swandown]

That's true, but the infringement is not American. The publishing rights to Zeppelin's "Sugar Mama" would be British, hence the case could have to be in UK courts. Neither law supersede the other, it's a matter of jurisdiction. The hypothetical infringement would have taken place in the UK, not the US, hence the outcome I've already stated.

This could not be more incorrect. I'll cite sources as I go:

First off, you seem to have trouble understanding the concept of jurisdiction. For example, you seem to think that an American songwriter, who released a song in America, can collect royalties for a cover version also released in America.......by filing suit in British court?! This is what the legal system refers to as "asinine". You see, there was this landmark court case commonly known as Washington v. King George. I won't go into detail, but the gist of the outcome was that the U.S. and British court systems were forever separated -- by law, by the Atlantic Ocean, and by giant powder wigs. So, any violations of U.S. law must be handled only in U.S. court, and any violations of British law must be handled in -- wait for it -- British court.

Now, the "hypothetical infringement" you speak of would have taken place in BOTH the U.S. and U.K.. In other words: since U.S. record sales are collected by U.S. merchants, it falls solely under the jurisdiction of the United States. The British court has absolutely zero jurisdiction over American commerce and copyright (hence the lack of powdered wigs).

Willie Dixon, Howlin' Wolf, and every other royalty-related lawsuit has gone through the U.S. court system. Why? Because that's where the original records were released, and that's where the NEW records made most of their money.

Dixon, who was still alive in the 60s and 70s, was able to sue because the copyright protection had not passed on his recordings. SBW or his estate could have done so as well in the 60s or 70s, but likely due to the fact he had been dead for some time and the fact that he probably doesn't have the publishing rights to his songs, they did not file.

This is wrong on multiple fronts. First off, you obviously have no evidence whether Williamson's estate did (or did not) own the publishing rights to his songs. But more importantly, you've completely missed the fact that you can't file a lawsuit over a song that hasn't been released!!! What's his family going to sue for? "Your honor, we demand royalties in the amount of ZERO dollars!!" That's a neat trick. Wouldn't it be great if everyone could just file lawsuits over songs that they THINK exist?

Yes, this certainly is a crazy thread. Crazy is as crazy does.

[eternal light]

Now I'm wondering who owns the copyright, so if I'm not too busy and someday happen to pass by the copyright office, I may check.

www.copyright.gov

[swandown]

Now I'm wondering who owns the copyright, so if I'm not too busy and someday happen to pass by the copyright office, I may check.

www.copyright.gov

As I mentioned previously in this thread, both the Tampa Red and Sonny Boy Williamson versions are registered at the U.S. copyright office. However, the website does not allow you to search for registrations prior to 1978, so the only way to determine the earliest instance of "Sugar Mama" is to visit the Madison Building in Washington D.C. -- or to pay a clerk to do the research for you.

[eternal light]

As I mentioned previously in this thread, both the Tampa Red and Sonny Boy Williamson versions are registered at the U.S. copyright office. However, the website does not allow you to search for registrations prior to 1978, so the only way to determine the earliest instance of "Sugar Mama" is to visit the Madison Building in Washington D.C. -- or to pay a clerk to do the research for you.

That is certainly what the website states.

[GetTheLedOut]

This could not be more incorrect. I'll cite sources as I go:

First off, you seem to have trouble understanding the concept of jurisdiction. For example, you seem to think that an American songwriter, who released a song in America, can collect royalties for a cover version also released in America.......by filing suit in British court?! This is what the legal system refers to as "asinine". You see, there was this landmark court case commonly known as Washington v. King George. I won't go into detail, but the gist of the outcome was that the U.S. and British court systems were forever separated -- by law, by the Atlantic Ocean, and by giant powder wigs. So, any violations of U.S. law must be handled only in U.S. court, and any violations of British law must be handled in -- wait for it -- British court.

I'll give you credit for humor (a first), however you're forgetting several aspects. For starters, the question is "how could SBW or his estate sue Zeppelin?" So we're ignoring cases against Atlantic Records who, while released Zeppelin's records, do not represent them. To sue Zeppelin directly over the publishing rights they'd have to file in the British courts, which as stated several times would be thrown out because SBW's work had passed into public domain in the UK.

Now, the "hypothetical infringement" you speak of would have taken place in BOTH the U.S. and U.K.. In other words: since U.S. record sales are collected by U.S. merchants, it falls solely under the jurisdiction of the United States. The British court has absolutely zero jurisdiction over American commerce and copyright (hence the lack of powdered wigs).

Willie Dixon, Howlin' Wolf, and every other royalty-related lawsuit has gone through the U.S. court system. Why? Because that's where the original records were released, and that's where the NEW records made most of their money.

No, you're incorrect. The infringement has not happened in the UK as SBW's work is public domain there.

This is wrong on multiple fronts. First off, you obviously have no evidence whether Williamson's estate did (or did not) own the publishing rights to his songs. But more importantly, you've completely missed the fact that you can't file a lawsuit over a song that hasn't been released!!! What's his family going to sue for? "Your honor, we demand royalties in the amount of ZERO dollars!!" That's a neat trick. Wouldn't it be great if everyone could just file lawsuits over songs that they THINK exist?

Yes, this certainly is a crazy thread. Crazy is as crazy does.

That's why I called it "hypothetical" infringement as in, you know, the theoretical situation that the song had been officially released.

A. Had it been released in 1969, Sonny Boy Williamson could have filed a case against them.

Nice try, but still well short of the mark Scott.

[beatbo]

I'll give you credit for humor (a first),

that was funny, swandown. washington v. king george.......

. To sue Zeppelin directly over the publishing rights they'd have to file in the British courts, which as stated several times would be thrown out because SBW's work had passed into public domain in the UK.

any songwriter hoping to collect royalties from sales in the US must be registered with BMI or ASCAP. a grievance would start with them. it would be very easy to sue zeppelin in the US court system and the only actual recourse. there are several precedents for this, including more than one involving zeppelin themselves and willie dixon's blue heaven foundation.

[eternal light]

Someone made a good point that suing for zero damages would not make sense.

[GetTheLedOut]

any songwriter hoping to collect royalties from sales in the US must be registered with BMI or ASCAP. a grievance would start with them. it would be very easy to sue zeppelin in the US court system and the only actual recourse. there are several precedents for this, including more than one involving zeppelin themselves and willie dixon's blue heaven foundation.

Think about that for a second, that's like saying I can sue anyone anywhere... in a US court. Zeppelin and its members are not under the control of the US courts, so suing them there would not do anything. To sue Zeppelin over publishing rights, a case would have to happen in a UK court, where as it's been mentioned several times SBW's work is now public domain.

[eternal light]

^That may not be exactly true, but again it is pointless to discuss a hypothetical where there are zero damages.

[GetTheLedOut]

^That may not be exactly true, but again it is pointless to discuss a hypothetical where there are zero damages.

Unless/until the member of Zeppelin are US citizens, it is true. And if you don't want to discuss this issue you don't have to.

[beatbo]

Think about that for a second, that's like saying I can sue anyone anywhere...in a US court.

you can.

Zeppelin and its members are not under the control of the US courts, so suing them there would not do anything. To sue Zeppelin over publishing rights, a case would have to happen in a UK court, where as it's been mentioned several times SBW's work is now public domain.

zeppelin and it's SONGWRITERS are under the control of the US courts and subject to the applicable copyrights-if they want to publish and collect royalties in the US.

a ridiculous analogy but one that may serve our purposes might be this:

willie dixon, or should i say, ARC Music, successfully sued Led Zeppelin in the US over the copyright to "bring it on home". yes, a sonny boy williamson song. (sonny 2-stay with us, now). dixon never saw a penny. he wrote that song for rice miller, rice never really being a major publishing songwriter. (he was known for doing old delta tunes by other writers like Tampa Red and giving them the "once-over". he performed on the radio almost everyday for years and his repertoire was immense. dixon and muddy waters sues Arc Music, the resident publishing house for chess records and recovers the settlement after an audit. then willie sued zeppelin himself over "whole lotta love". oh, yes-in a US court.

~snip~ edited for lack of factual content...i mixed the sonny boys up meself!

i will let some real experts expound on willie dixon sometime-he was a high pirate as well, claiming he wrote songs that popped up in alan lomax's field recordings decades before. that's another story.

i must tell you-i have always been interested in this subject since the day i found out zep didn't write whole lotta love. i had read as much as i could on the subject and had researched off and on for years. i really learned the nuances of zeppelin's copyrights 15-16 years ago, when as a member of the fledgling FBO i read some heavily documented, well-written and researched e-mails on the subject written by: scott swanson. and let me tell you, if you can antagonize him enough for him to spit out the details of the willie dixon case, too....well, fuck, i ain't goin' anywhere. it will be a joy.

[eternal light]

Unless/until the member of Zeppelin are US citizens, it is true. And if you don't want to discuss this issue you don't have to.

Not necessarily, but again, zero damages, case dismissed. If these questions came up on a bar exam as to which of these assertions are true, none of the above would be my first guess.

[GetTheLedOut]

you can.

No, you can't. The US courts are not superior to any other nations courts, and the Zep members are not American citizens.

zeppelin and it's SONGWRITERS are under the control of the US courts and subject to the applicable copyrights-if they want to publish and collect royalties in the US.

Not in matters of the publication rights.

a ridiculous analogy but one that may serve our purposes might be this:

willie dixon, or should i say, ARC Music, successfully sued Led Zeppelin in the US over the copyright to "bring it on home". yes, a sonny boy williamson song. (sonny 2-stay with us, now). dixon never saw a penny. he wrote that song for rice miller, rice never really being a major publishing songwriter. (he was known for doing old delta tunes by other writers like Tampa Red and giving them the "once-over". he performed on the radio almost everyday for years and his repertoire was immense. dixon and muddy waters sues Arc Music, the resident publishing house for chess records and recovers the settlement after an audit. then willie sued zeppelin himself over "whole lotta love". oh, yes-in a US court.

I can't find anything that states it was in a US court.

[GetTheLedOut]

Not necessarily, but again, zero damages, case dismissed. If these questions came up on a bar exam as to which of these assertions are true, none of the above would be my first guess.

You're ignoring that this case is purely hypothetical. Of course there is zero damages, the song was never actually released. We were discussing the possibilities had it been.

[eternal light]

You're ignoring that this case is purely hypothetical. Of course there is zero damages, the song was never actually released. We were discussing the possibilities had it been.

In that case, I would still consider the assertions, if they were offered as answers to questions about jurisdiction on a bar exam, as meriting a none of the above response.

Additionally, they may have obtained their own copyright if they had released the song, and once again a non-issue arguably could result. There are plenty of copyrighted Sugar Mamas.