Hi! Your access is limited. Please log in or contact us at info@agentive.org to create an account.
Thing 000782 - Bruits de la Nature n.2
 |
Shelf: |
 |
Presentation
Beginning in the 1950s, the bird-watcher named Jean Claude Roche recorded bird songs in France. From these recordings, he made many records and CDs with various record labels. During the 1960s, Roche released four records on the Pacific record label. These were called: Oiseaux en Camargue, Oiseaux de Soleil, Oiseaux en Bretagne and Paysage des Oiseaux.
In the 1970s, a record company in France called Vega edited a series of eight records with sound effects for films under the title Audio-Camera. Three of the records were entitled Bruit de la nature, three were entitled Bruit de la vie and two were entitled Transports. Bruits De La Nature n.2, contains among other things a section with recordings from birds. Side A of this record included in order of appearance: “1. Seagulls, 2. Gull, 3. Gulls, 4. Lark, 5. Lark inside the field, 6. Merle, 7. Nightingale, 8. Birds in forest, green woodpecker, 9. Crows, 10. Cuckoo, 11. Birds in forest, 12. Birds close to a brook”. The bird recordings for these tracks were delivered by Allaume.
Jean Claude Roche alleged that Vega copied some of his bird recordings of the Pacific records for Bruits De La Nature n.2. On October 6, 1979, the court case Roche c. Vega took place at the Cour d’appel de Paris. The Judge stated:
“[...] Considering that the recordings of bird songs don’t constitute a privileged category of recordings. [...] [T]he work of Roche, that is the multiple undertaken sound recordings, the selection of the made recordings, the elimination of certain disturbing frequencies and the augmentation of interesting frequencies, the editing of layers is not entitled as a recording of the character of a protectable oeuvre in the sense of the author law of 11 March 1957. [...] that, on the other hand, anthologies are collections of parts chosen in the oeuvres of authors in the sense of the law of 11 March 1957 and that, by consequence, the mechanical fixations of bird songs can’t be considered as such; [...] although the copying is proven by an expert who has noted that the passages of the Pacific discs were simply transposed on the Vega records [Although Allaume], in a letter of Vega of 8 December 1962 [guaranteed]: “In continuation of your letter of the 8th, I have the honor to specify that the recordings which are edited in your Audio-Camera collection were generally made during the last years at locations during my travels.” [...] from this letter, it arises well that he doesn’t dispute [...] that the records edited by Vega reproduce the magnetic tapes sold by him to this record company; [...] that, moreover, on this last point, to admit by assumption that the litigious sequences were, as Allaume claims, introduced by a company Vox, it would have belonged to him or to make original recordings or failing to blame this company; [...] it hasn’t been proved that the company Vega knew or could of known that a part of its recordings, which were sold to her by Allaume, came from a reproduction; [...] the expert report reveals how difficult it was to discover the existence [of copying]; [...] the identification of the litigious parts could only be done thanks to long and meticulous operations relevant to juridical expertise; [...]”.
The court concluded that the recordings of bird songs don’t fall under copyright protection and that the birds’ songs themselves can’t be considered works of art.
Physical copy
|
Digital copy
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||