We seem to be getting lost here in our own interpretation of the word bootleg and getting very pedantic about types of illegal releases or unauthorised releases when the term bootleg actually does apply to them all. The Wikipedia defines "bootleg" as "A bootleg recording is an audio or video recording of a performance not officially released by the artist or under other legal authority." Note here that it does not have to be a live in concert recording the term also applies to studio work not sanctioned by the artist.
Some of us seem to think the term only applies to crowd sourced recordings of artists in concert. That though has never really been the case as bootlegs can be studio recordings that have or have not been previously released as this Rolling Stones record proves. Leonard you do raise an interesting point about out of copyright work though which is a very dubious area indeed. For instance a lot of the Charly label catalogue would not have been sanctioned for release by the artist but are technically legal due to being out of copyright. That is where I would draw the line though, if someone releases something that is out of copyright on a legitimate label then it would be an official release.
The point I'm trying to make is that the source of a recording does not make it a bootleg it is the illegal, unofficial or unauthorised release of of the work that determines a bootleg.
This album comes from the BBC Rock Hour live broadcasts and is not an official Led Zeppelin release and therefore a bootleg. The Cult Legends label specialises in these kind of releases but also to confuse things do releases legitimate recordings of Dutch artists. So not everything on the label is a bootleg release but a lot of their releases are. Clear as mud??
Yes, that is not so clear. I have heard, in case of so called Radio-Broadcast-recordings, that the involved Radio-station is the owner of the live-recording only, not for the studio-recordings by a band. So such a record-company like Cult-Legends can release it, maybe for a certain time, legally.
There is another record-company called Rox-Vox-Records. They released some older Springsteen live gigs as vinyl-sets, too.
They aren't bootlegs legally, but unofficial records (not approved by artist, record company) but considering copyright out of date. I agree they all should be under the same moniker. But where do we draw the line?