NAXOS-EMI decision

Since this forum has weighed in at length about this matter, I only have one question: Why is Naxos STILL listing many historical EMI and RCA recordings in their historical series as 'Not available in the USA'?

Here in Canada, of course, all of the Naxos Historical products have long been easily available.

Incidentally, Canada may have been a haven for such issues for decades, as people will remember the Ross Court and Co. on Yonge Street and their Rococo issues on LP. When Len Court died suddenly Andre Ross went to live in Florida and Len's brother went back to the UK and opened up a shop north of London. I don't know if he is still alive or in business today. Canada's copyright laws must be much more flexible than those in the USA. Welcome to Soviet Canuckistan!

Anyway, I digress. Why is Naxos acting as though they didn't actually win that case?

Tom Deacon

Mr Heymann once said, long before the court victory, that the reason he couldn't sell certain historical titles in the US was because he was restrained from using PICTURES of the artists (e.g. Rubinstein, Toscanini) on the CD covers. This is an issue entirely separate from the transfers.

The case was very specific - there were a number of issues on which the Court was willing to distinguish the three contested sets of masters. The Court was also very clear that in other areas, where those specific facts don't apply, there might have been a different decision. It was not just a matter of EMI essentially waiving rights in recordings prior to 1957 or so (I forget the date), but the amount of work put into the remasterings, a failure to continue to pay royalties, etc.

I don't know, but it would be normal and prudent for any company not to take action based on a mere District Court victory until after the losing party has exhausted all appeal rights.

Also, isn't Naxos already selling all or most of the subject recordings in the USA? The opinion mentions Menuhin, E. Fischer, and Casals - older Naxos historical issues. I'm pretty sure these are generally available in the USA.

Paul Goldstein

What you say may be true.

However, in my newsletter from Naxos each month a healthy percentage of historical product is labelled 'Not for sale in the USA', and their most recent posting has not altered this percentage.

What is more they do not include only Menuhin and the other specified cases. They also include Backhaus, Casals, etc. Very curious.

The photographic element may be the sticking point here, as another poster has indicated.

Tom Deacon

Dear All,

The infamous 'Not Available in the U.S.' releases are restricted due to name and likeness issues, which are protected under publicity rights or privacy rights according to U.S. state laws. Some artists (or their estates) require permission and/or fees to use their name or image. Often these artists/estates are located in the U.S., so while other countries can release these CDs with impunity, Naxos of America occasionally is prevented from releasing them. Thus, most CDs that are not available in the U.S. are the ones that might require extra licenses for use of the artists' names or images.

~Naxos Diva

IOne finds it hard to believe that the 'estate' of Josef Szigeti would object? His latest - Prokofiev, Bartok, Bloch - is marked with the 'Not available in the US' sticker. In fact, who would even be left of his family. And din't he reside in Switzerland. The Backhaus Brahms 1 also receives this caveat.. Backhsus had NO relationship with the USA.

I personally believe that there has been a delay in the response by Naxos to this ruling.

Tom Deacon

Notwithstanding what the website says, I believe this is in fact available in the USA. I seem to recall seeing it recently at Tower.

Mark Obert-Thorn

@posting.google.com:

There is, to my thinking, a simple solution for this problem.

Pick them up on your next trip abroad?

Er, it might be less costly to simply order them from MDT.