Amsterdam Russ

Nothing to do with memory, Ricky (although I wish it was). I like Bunny Paul and so was curious enough to Google the track, which I'd not heard of before. A couple of clicks later and I was on the forum page where I found the same info you did!

Amazing, you wrote exactly the same words as appears in topic 15 of this forum thread from 2010... https://vintagedetroittvandmovieboard.yuku.com/topic/1757/R-I-P-Fess-Parker

Some of us aren't as old as you, Pete

Much as with Popsike... As for the boot guide, I much prefer it in the back of the main publication where you can cross reference the actual listings with images of legitimate and not so legitimate copies.

A wonderful resource for those like me who don't have encyclopaedic minds when it comes to artists, labels and songs. And then there's the price guide part of it. The key is never to forget that - like all reference works of its kind - it is a guide, not a tablet carved in stone! Couldn't do without it nowadays...

I suspect that the heightened security because of the Olympics may be having an effect. Packages, especially from abroad, may be coming under closer scrutiny. Just a thought...

It's great to know that I'm not alone in appreciating what for me is an over-looked soul masterpiece. Can't say that Dee Dee's version does anything for me at all - 'lily' and 'gilded' are the words that come to mind as far as her take is concerned.

From January 1965 - I'm comin' home / Rainin' in my heart From March 1965 - Good lovin' / Olympic shuffle From July 1965 - Baby I'm yours / No more will I cry I have to say that Baby I'm yours is an absolutely sublime track, my favourite by the group and one of the best on the label (IMHO). All scans taken from the website Discography of Loma Records

That's the one...

Well done that man! Your prize is a two week holiday - in Tehran! Thanks for that. Wow, some high prices being paid for these things! Peter Andre? Not the arse who went around with Jordan for a time? Nice. Australian? I also have an EP by him on the same Brazilian label...

Based on the programme write-up, a more appropriate tune might be 'In my tenement'!

Thanks for the info, links and scans. I'd half expected this to have been released in various countries across Europe, but it seems to be just Italy (anyone else?). I must admit to being curious because of a foreign release of the track I found recently. It's a rather odd release because it's on an EP with 'Gimme Little Sign' and The Supremes 'You keep me hanging on' on one side. On the other is Aretha Franklin with the brilliantly typo'd 'The house that Jack boilt'! and the even better 'Psychotis Reaction'! I was initially drawn to it because the cover listing gives the impression that it's Aretha performing 'Psychotis Reaction', but that just turns out to be yet another graphical error on a very poorly put together sleeve (air-guitar to The Supremes anyone?). Can you guess where this EP comes from??

I didn't know that it was the same backing track, so thanks for that. Always thought it sounded remarkably close - I just didn't figure it was 'that' close...

Brenton Wood's great cover of 'Psychotic Reaction' - did it get a 45 release in Europe at all? I believe it's LP only in the US and UK, but what about other major markets?

Thanks, both. That convinces me of the authenticity of the test pressing. Much appreciated.

Brilliant! Thanks for confirming...

Hypothetically speaking, if the owner of the photo did not give their permission for it to be reproduced in the book then they should have taken legal advice or at the very least made contact with the author and publisher to discuss the following options: a) have the photo removed from future editions of the book, and/or b) negotiate a fee for the prior use of it c) negotiate a fee for future usage of the image If the author & publisher refuse to discuss 'b' and/or 'c', refer to 'a' - and a solicitor. However, if you're talking about a book that was printed some years ago and the copyright owner of the photo has failed to act during that period of time - and knew the image was being used - it is unlikely that any claims will be listened to. However, if the image owner were to learn that the book might be reprinted, then they should make contact with the publisher/author and raise the three points mentioned...

I have a test pressing of this with blank white labels & matrix numbers in the dead wax that read: 3071 (and then in small letters) IRC/45. The flip says: 3092 IRC/45. Does this correspond with genuine releases? I believe the release number for this in the OneDerful catalogue is 4828, so I would have expected this to show in the deadwax, not the numbers I've given. Can anyone let me know if this a reissue, boot or genuine release? TIA...

Copyright Law is a very complex area with countless grey areas. As a loose guideline, you can take pictures in public places and use these for private and commercial use. There are exceptions. For example, you cannot take photos in Trafalgar Square and use them commercially - not without a permit. It is the same with the London Gherkin, which is one of the only buildings in the UK with copyrights relating to photography. This is similar to the absurd situation that prevents professional photographers from using images of the Eiffel Tower in Paris commercially - if they are taken at night, but not if they are taken during daylight hours. Back to the point, whilst in the UK you are free to take and make use of photos taken whilst in public places, the inside a building is not a public place. Therefore photographers looking to take professional photos (ie images for commercial use), ought to have permission from the management who have the right to refuse. Likewise, members of the public in private places have a clear right to refuse to have their photo taken - unless there is explicit agreement in the terms and conditions associated with entry to that private place. For example, when you go to a football match, the terms and conditions surrounding your purchase of a ticket explicitly state that you give your permission a) to be photographed and b) for those photographs to be used as they see fit, including commercially. At the end of that day, and relative to the issues being discussed here, if you want to take more than snapshots at a venue you should: a) get permission from the management, and b) at the very least, and as a matter of common courtesy, you should ask permission of the people you are taking photos of. It's the decent thing to do.

To the best of my knowledge it is unreleased except for an appearance on a CD comp. It is not for sale.

I've four or five acetates on78s, but that's all - and here's two of 'em... https://youtu.be/Nmx0FMionEs https://youtu.be/lgWWOfEj2Lk

A link to what I presume is the Facebook page... https://www.facebook.com/groups/202691913127846/

Oh, it is exceptionally unlikely that any copyright owner would waste their time suing anyone on a forum, or elsewhere in the internet, because they'd used a protected image in or as an avatar. The context in which copyright infringement takes places is the guiding force behind nearly all judgely decisions. One of the prime motivating factors for a copyright owner suing is loss of earnings - or the earnings that the infringer is making through the illegal use of the copyrighted work. As no one here is using an avatar image for commercial gain, there would be no point (and nothing to gain) in suing. It just wouldn't be worth the effort.

If you were to turn the scans into 'works of art', ie, do something original with respect to how they were presented, but do it in an artist/creative way, then it is highly unlikely that you would be in breach of copyright and so would not run the risk of being sued. If you were sufficiently creative, you would then have something artistically unique that in turn would be automatically protected by copyright law as what you had made could be considered to be a derivative work. Here's a passage from a Wikipedia page about derivatives and copyright... Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work Do have a read. I hope you find it enlightening...

Linda Jones - with backing that included strings.