copyright question
mpam76895_15961369c9
Posts: 294
Some youtuber uploaded a vid of Aliester Crowley recitals which has been taken down. He however gave me permission to use some of that beforehand. I've put a good amount of effort creating both video and sounds for these old scratchy invocations. So what would be the best way to present this without getting the stuff swiped and presented without due credit? There is no way as far as I know.
Seeing it is recordings by Uncle AC and not my own, would it be inappropriate to ask for a minimal fee? I was thinking donation if not.
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
It really kinda' depends on the actual rights the Youtuber had to the material they originally posted. Giving someone permission to use something you yourself didn't have the right to post is rather worthless. You need to find out what rights they had, or contact any Crowley estate, or whoever controls the rights to any Crowley material.
Wich would probably be the descendants of his descendants, if anyone could ever get round to disambiguating all the myths surrounding his possible, probable or supposed offspring.
His estate is still a going concern. "The Ordo Templi Orientis is the owner of the Crowley literary estate and the owner of his copyrights" - pulled from a google search. So this doesn't look good. You should contact the Ordo Templi Orientis and see if they are willing to pay you for your work. But if you feel this is a large amount of money you should probably consult with a copyright lawyer.
It depends on the when the recordings were made, and where (and if) copyright was ever applied for them. In the US copyright has expired for (nearly) everything prior to 1923. That sunset year will start to move soon. Copyright in the UK is a shorter term. For audio recordings, a copyright notice was required for any works released before 1989, and proper renewals were necessary for any work that might have been published during Crowley's lifetime. In other words, depending on the circumstances surrounding thr work, it may or may not be public domain. Your best bet is to consult with an IP attorney.
You mention "Some youtuber uploaded a vid of Aleister Crowley recitals which has been taken down. He however gave me permission to use some of that beforehand." It's not clear whether you mean Crowley, or the YouTube uploader. Obviously, if the uploader didn't have the rights to begin with, he/she can not confer them to you.
In the case that Crowley or his managing estate provided permission, all that gives you is the right to publish in accordance with the terms of that permission, not to serve takedown notices, or act as agent to Crowley's copyright interests. Either could be construed as fraud. Your best approach would be to team up the audio recordings -- even if they are public domain -- with your own copyrighted visuals. This derivative work is copyrightable. You would then have the right to serve takedowns on *that* work. If you register it with the copyright office, the registration would allow for claiming beyond actual damages.
The above is not legal advice.
A fee would be inappropriate in my opinion. Not necessarily for the rights issue, but for the spirit in which he made those recordings in the first place.
There is this list: https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Works_of_Aleister_Crowley_publication_data
Let's try this again.
Crowly died in '47. The United States has one of the longest terms of copyright of any nation (and least in the spirit of the law as it was originally drafted). Crowley's works will enter the public domain in the United States at the end of 2017, so worse comes to worst you can wait until the of 2017 and not have to worry about the copyright.
Maybe, maybe not. If the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is passed, copyrights could be extended to life plus 100 years. That will include all copyrights from the signing countries. Within that time, there is also the possibility of copyright being even further extended. In addition, the US is calling for harsher penalties for infringement, even if the work was not used for commercial purposes. Talking to a lawyer soon would be a good idea..
or 70 years from first publication, for posthumous publication.
This document may be of some help: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf . There is also a wealth of information at the US Copyriht Office: http://www.copyright.gov
As someone else mentioned, contacting an IP lawyer is often helpful. Many lawyers will give an initial consultation for free. Often it seems that people balk at the idea of paying to ask a few questions, but it's good to remember that free legal advice is worth what you paid for it.
In the case of Crowley, some of his works may still be protected, so verify before you do anything.
The table is useful, but doesn't include date of copyright registration in the US. Without this -- and date of renewal for works this old -- even the ones younger than 1923 may actually be public domain. Age alone cannot predict copyright status.
The OP mentioned "scratchy" sound recordings. Mechanical recordings have a different copyright status than the underlying text. In the US at least, audio recordings before 1971 did not enjoy federal copyright protection. Any protection was generally common law copyright, and some of these provisions had no sunset expiration. This is tricky territory, and not worth going into without the able assistance of an attorney.
Someone brought up TPP: there are no specific expirations stated, just minimums, and for the US, the Constitution requires that only Congress can set these; it can't be done solely by a trade agreement. The minimums already reflect current US copyright law, which is where these limitations come from: 70 years after the death of a human creator; 95 years from publication for a legal entity. The 1923 sunset cannot be retroactively revised. Once in the public domain, they remain there.
The above is not legal advice.