Elvis 24K Hits - Logo Issue?

[njwiv]

Can someone remind me again what BMG's objection was to the arwork as rendered by DCC?

Thanks,

Jay

[Dave B]

Jay as I recall, Steve said they were unhappy with the use of the original RCA logo. Personally I think they were less happy that a small independent lable had done such a better job at remastering one of thier most important back-catalog artists then they have. (Remember - This is just my opinion)

[njwiv]

Originally posted by Dave B
Jay as I recall, Steve said they were unhappy with the use of the original RCA logo. Personally I think they were less happy that a small independent lable had done such a better job at remastering one of thier most important back-catalog artists then they have. (Remember - This is just my opinion)

Thanks, Dave. I'm curious -- what element of that logo is objectionable to BMG?

[Bob Lovely]

Probably any reference to RCA and Nipper...?

Bob

[Dave B]

Jay - Here's a link to the original thread http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1634&highlight=karat+hits although Steve doesn't offer an in depth explaination. I assume that BMG would like everyone to forget that RCA ever existed. Why? Who knows?

[David Powell]

I believe the problem lies in the use of the "Living Stereo" with "Miracle Surface" logos flanked by the pictures of gold speaker drivers, along with the "RCA Victor" logo with the picture of Nipper the dog listening to "his master's voice". All of these are registered trademarks. Maybe this says something about the current state of the recording industry when a major label seems more concerned with the licensing rights of album cover artwork than the actual recording itself.

[Alan T]

When Ariola/BMG bought out the RCA record division in the 1980’s, Ariola/BMG did not get the rights to use any RCA logo or mascot. General Electric still uses the RCA logo to sell televisions and other home appliances and it is still a very popular brand name. Ariola/BMG soon found that without brand identification, it was very difficult to sell Elvis and other artists, so they leased one version of the RCA logo and nipper from General Electric to retain brand identification. The use of logo is highly regulated and cost BMG big bucks.

Was the use of these logos the reason volume two of “24 Karat Hits!” didn’t come out?

[John Oteri]

First of all, Steve H. said that BMG approved the artwork for the DCC Elvis release. If they changed their mind later, who's fault was that?

Second of all, I remember Steve saying that BMG upped the licensing fee for Volume II to an unrealistic amount.

[Andrew]

It's possible BMG is having problems licensing the old "Nipper" logo: it is no longer being used on their "Living Stereo" classical reissues. Just my 2 cents.

[John Oteri]

You are right, Andrew. BMG cannot use this logo in the USA anymore.

That's a fine kettle of fish.

[njwiv]

Thanks, Alan, John and Andrew! Very informative, and just the information I was looking for.

I've always been interested in understanding the legalities of the ownership of the Nipper logo worldwide, since HMV (historically an EMI label, if I recall correctly) uses (or used) the logo too. I know that you can even see it at the HMV record store's Australian website.

Jay

[njwiv]

In searching for further information, I located the following that include some more interesting information regarding the logo:

http://www.nipperhead.com/nipperf2.htm

http://www.classicrecs.com/newsletter/newsletter/newsletter.cfm?Article=35

I suppose that the logo predates multi-national record companies, leading to the present state of affairs where different conglomerates control the logo in different parts of the world.

[njwiv]

Here's another couple with mostly the same information, but a little additional information on the transfer of rights in the US and Japan:

http://rcadog.tripod.com/historyofnipper.htm

http://www.ais.org/~lsa/nipper.html

[Dan C]

This is interesting, as I've been wondering why Nipper hasn't been on BMG CD's for at least a few years now.

I had guessed that it was simply cheaper to print non-Nipper packaging for the whole world, rather than have to print Nipper packaging for North American only.

To add to this 'mystery', I recently bought an RCA Red Seal CD by the pianist Alicia de Larrocha playing Mendelssohn and Chopin. It has a 2001 copyright AND the Nipper logo. Hmmmm.:confused:
Dan C

[Steve Hoffman]

Dan, where was it recorded. That's the key.

[Dan C]

Originally posted by Steve Hoffman
Dan, where was it recorded. That's the key.

Right here in the U.S.
As an example, The Rubinstein Collection was remastered in America, and so was the recent Richter Rediscovered CD (amazing, BTW). Both collections are missing Nipper. From what I can tell, they were both manufactured here as well. The de Larrocha CD is the first time I've seen Nipper on a new issue in a while (but the recordings are from the mid-90's).

Dan C

[Steve Hoffman]

Not a clue. A mistake?

[Paul Chang]

Originally posted by Dave B
Jay as I recall, Steve said they were unhappy with the use of the original RCA logo. Personally I think they were less happy that a small independent lable had done such a better job at remastering one of thier most important back-catalog artists then they have. (Remember - This is just my opinion)
Dave,

I think you are right, unless BMG was equally unhappy with Harry Belafonte Jump Up Calypso.
http://dcccompactclassics.com/images/belafontecalypso.gif

[Paul Chang]

Originally posted by njwiv
I've always been interested in understanding the legalities of the ownership of the Nipper logo worldwide, since HMV (historically an EMI label, if I recall correctly) uses (or used) the logo too. I know that you can even see it at the HMV record store's Australian website.

Jay Jay,

You are right about HMV being an EMI label (for classical music). BTW, EMI is the initial of Electric & Musical Industries Limited, as printed on the back cover of my E.M.I. Technical Test Record (TCS 102). (Also see Chronological History of EMI (http://www.ebs.hw.ac.uk/EDC/CAC/m100/emichron.html).)

I'm translating from the Chinese version of EMI Classical Catalog published in 1982 by EMI's then Taiwan distributor, Tai Fu Audio Co., Limited (now Audio Professional Inc. (http://www.autek.com.tw/)):
"... , from Hong Kong (included) westward to the Atlantic, excluding British territories, the 'Dog and Gramophone' trademark can be used by all. From Taiwan (included) eastward to the United States of America, excluding British territories, the rights of the trademark belongs to Japan Victor Company (JVC). Therefore, British EMI classical records, tapes, etc. exported to Taiwan and eastward should be pasted with the EMI/Angel stickers" to cover the Nipper logo. (After 1980?,) EMI has the rights of the trademark only in British territories.

Here is a press release from The UK Patent Office in 2000.
http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/press/releases/2000/nipper.htm

[Paul Chang]

Originally posted by njwiv
In searching for further information, I located the following that include some more interesting information regarding the logo:

http://www.nipperhead.com/nipperf2.htm

http://www.classicrecs.com/newsletter/newsletter/newsletter.cfm?Article=35

I suppose that the logo predates multi-national record companies, leading to the present state of affairs where different conglomerates control the logo in different parts of the world. I think if Classic Records really wants to be authentic about their RCA titles for the US market, they should print the Nipper trademark on jackets of all Living Stereo reissues then cover it with sticker labels (a la EMI/Angel) for exports to Europe and Japan. They are using the original catalog numbers for crying out loud!