To All:  Many of you know me from my work in the 1960s with the IPL,
issue of three sets of catalogs, and in more recent years, the site
maintained for perpetuation of the information of the detail of the
important classical recordings produced by all of the roll companies:
http://www.rprf.org/  My question, to which I invite attention in
particular of collectors of some years experience, is what is the exact
nature of the ruling of a California judge (of unknown province), as
follows:

The late Harold Powell, of Klavier Records and roll recordings thereon,
purchased from Larry Givens, the "great guru" of in particular the
Ampico, ownership of the company, with perforators and whatever other
detail Larry possessed.  The difficulty, as was brought forth in the
trial which followed suit by Powell against a collector (of again
unknown province) who presumably was making use of the product without
permission or royalty to Powell, was that Larry didn't own the company
or the roll recordings.

As it developed, the judge in the matter threw out the suit, giving as
his ruling the opinion that the company (and as it eventuated, all the
companies) did not assign rights to any individual or organization.
In effect, to wax poetic, he indicated that the roll recordings "belong
to the world."  Further, addressing the thorny matter of copyright, 
the traditional cutoff year of 1923 was assumed to provide guidance as
to whether or not a potential user needed to search out ownership of a
given item, but could simply reissue or publish in some form that which
preceded the stricture of the Congress.

That is the general outline of what I could garner from various
sources, and I wish now to have an explanation and clarification of
anyone of you who happened to have followed the case, and could speak
with some certitude as to what actually happened.

The matter of copyright has been discussed in these pages by a number
of you, and the general consensus, as I understand it, is that the
classical compositions, in particular, are certainly free from
copyright, although many of the other pieces by various contemporary
(as of the recording date) artists, might be involved.  The majority of
the potential usage is confined to scanning, although there is moderate
activity in the matter of recut, which is intended only for
preservation, not for unlawful (read profit) to the perpetrator.

I hope you will all attempt to assist in clarifying this problem,
for all the reasons aforementioned.

Best always,

Albert M. Petrak, Founder
The Reproducing Piano Roll Foundation
Cleveland, Ohio

P.S.  Thought you might like to have this definition, the most succinct
I have encountered:

"'Classical' music is music from the past which is worth listening to."

 [ As I recall the story, Harold Powell (Klavier) filed a lawsuit
 [ against a competing firm also producing recuts of Ampico rolls.
 [ Powell argued that he had purchased from Larry Givens all the
 [ existent Ampico master rolls and all rights to produce new copies
 [ from the old masters, and therefore the competitor was infringing
 [ on Powell's copyright.  The judge asked a few questions and then
 [ declared that Powell possessed only some old production materials
 [ and that he did not hold copyright of the Ampico recorded
 [ performances.  The case was dismissed.  I believe the suit was
 [ filed and heard in Kern County Superior Court, California.
 [
 [ I don't know if the actual copyright owner of the recorded Ampico
 [ performances (the piano rolls) was ever determined.  The Aeolian-
 [ American Co. (being the combined successor of Aeolian and American
 [ Piano companies) existed for decades after the demise of the player
 [ piano and it seems this firm would have had the best claim to the
 [ compilation and performance copyrights of Ampico and Duo-Art rolls.
 [
 [ -- Robbie