Editing Bootleg recording (section)

==Copyright==
{{Main|Copyright infringement}}

The [[Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works]] has protected the copyrights on literary, scientific, and artistic works since 1886. Article 9 of the Convention states that: ''Authors of literary and artistic works protected by this Convention shall have the exclusive right of authorising the reproduction of these works, in any manner or form.&nbsp;... Any sound or visual recording shall be considered as a reproduction for the purposes of this Convention.''<ref name="Berne">{{cite web
| url = https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/283698#P140_25350
| title = Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, Article 9
| access-date = 21 May 2025
| date = September 1886
| publisher = World Intellectual Property Organisation
}}</ref> This means a composer has [[performing rights]] and control over how [[derivative works]] should be used, and the rights are retained at least 50 years after death, or even longer. Even if a song is a traditional arrangement in the [[public domain]], performing rights can still be violated.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/7.html|title=Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works|publisher=Cornell University Law School|access-date=20 December 2015}}</ref> Where they exist, performers rights may have a shorter duration than full copyright; for example, the [[Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations|Rome Convention]] sets a minimum term of twenty years after the performance. This created a market for bootleg CDs in the late 1980s, containing 1960s recordings.{{sfn|Heylin|2010|p=289}}

In the US, bootlegs had been a grey area in legality, but the 1976 Copyright Act extended copyright protection to all recordings, including "all misappropriated recordings, both counterfeit and pirate". This meant bootleggers would take a much greater risk, and several were arrested.{{sfn|Heylin|1994|p=125}} Bootlegs have been prohibited by federal law (17 USC 1101) since the introduction of the [[Uruguay Round Agreements Act]] (URAA, PL 103-465) in 1994, as well as by state law. The federal bootleg statute does not pre-empt state laws, which also apply both prior to and since the passage of the federal bootleg statute. The ''[[US v. Martignon]]'' case challenged the constitutionality of the federal bootleg statute, and in 2004, U.S. District Judge [[Harold Baer&nbsp;Jr.]] struck down the part banning the sale of bootleg recordings of live music, ruling that the law unfairly grants a seemingly perpetual copyright period to the original performances.<ref>{{cite web
| url = https://www.iprinfo.com/julkaisut/iprinfo-lehti/lehtiarkisto/2005/IPRinfo_4-2005/fi_FI/constitutional-impediments-to-protect/
| title = Constitutional Impediments to Protecting the Live Musical Performance Right in the United States
| access-date = 16 October 2017
| last = Landau
| first = Michael
| date = April 2005
| work = IPRinfo Magazine
| publisher = IPR University Center
}}{{Dead link|date=October 2019 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref><ref>{{cite news
| url = https://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2004-09-24-copyright-has-limits_x.htm
| title = N.Y. judge strikes down anti-bootleg law
| access-date = 23 September 2006
| last = McClam
| first = Erin
|date=September 2004
| work = USA Today
| agency = Associated Press
}}</ref> In 2007, Judge Baer's ruling was overruled, and the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit]] found that the anti-bootlegging statute was within the power of Congress.<ref>''[[US v. Martignon]]'', 492 F. 3d 140 (2d Cir. 2007).</ref>