Hi! Your access is limited. Please log in or contact us at info@agentive.org to create an account.
Thing 000921 - Current Audio Magazine, Vol. 1, No. 1, August - September 1972
Shelf: |
Jurisprudence: |
| Current Audio, Inc., and Buddah Records, Inc. v. RCA Corporation |
Presentation
On June 9 1972, shortly before his appearances in a series of concerts at Madison Square Gardens, the singer Elvis Presley held a press conference. Representatives of radio, television, newspapers, magazines and numerous other publications of all varieties attended the press conference. The conference followed the usual pattern of questions being put to Presley by the various journalists followed by his spontaneous responses thereto. It was recorded on audiotape and also on film by many reporters for later replay. Among those in attendance who taped the proceedings was a full time news reporter for a local radio station who was also employed part-time by various other news organizations including Current Audio. Since November 1955, Elvis Presley was under contract at the record company RCA. RCA had the exclusive rights to manufacture and sell recordings made by Elvis Presley, and had the exclusive publicity rights to use Elvis Presley’s name, facsimile signature and likeness and biographical material for advertising and purposes of trade, in connection with all recordings made by Elvis Presley.
RCA field suit against Current Audio for copyright infrngement. On August 1, 1972, the court case RCA v. Current Audio took place at the Supreme Court of New York. The record company, RCA claimed copyright infringement by Current Audio’s use in its talking magazine of recorded portions of the press conference given by Elvis Presley. Presiding Judge Harry Frank held that:
The court decided that Current Audio may publish, distribute and sell Current Audio Magazine, Vol. 1, No. 1, August - September 1972 including the disputed material from the Elvis Presley press conference of June 9, 1972.“[...] Elvis Presley is concededly a singer of note whose unique style is manifested in the course of his musical performances. Such, however, was not the nature of the appearance here in issue. On that occasion, Mr. Presley was in no way performing as that word has application to his form of art expression, and his distinctive and valuable property in contrast, for example, to a broadcaster’s voice and style of talking. [...] Indeed in many ways a press conference stands as the very symbol of a free and open press, using that term in its broadest sense to encompass all the media, in providing public access to, and direct communication with, the notable and newsworthy. [...] In this instance, as already noted, Presley was not in fact engaged in the performance of his art but was engaged in a public non-artistic use of his speaking voice, to which defendant was given no property rights under the contract. [...] The record which is part of plaintiffs’ publication is as much involved in the dissemination of information and matters of public interest as are these other recognized media and, as such, entitled to equivalent protection. [...]”
Physical copy
|
Digital copy
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

