Klarinet Archive - Posting 000055.txt from 1998/04
From: Roger Garrett <rgarrett@-----.edu>
Subj: Re: Copyright
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 23:16:48 -0500
On Wed, 1 Apr 1998, Mark Charette wrote:
> my understanding is that there are possibly two copyrights in
> effect at once; one for the music, and one for the representation.
> A performance of copyrighted _music_, even from memory, is
> technically in violation. A recording of a popular tune on a
> commercial without paying the copyright owner for performance
> rights seems to be a very common copyright litigation suit.
Your first statement is absolutely correct. A performance of copyrighted
music, even from memory, is technically an infrigement of copyright.
UNLESS the person owns a copy. Then it gets a bit technical.......and the
burden of proof then shifts to the person filing suit to prove that the
person actually broke copyright.
The second one is much easier to prosecute - and is something anyone with
half a brain would want to avoid! Excellent points Mark.
> Even after a copyright on the _music_ expires, a representation
> of the music can have a copyright attached - the _music_ is no
> longer copyrighted, but you have no legal right to make a photocopy
> of a representation under copyright. You are allowed, however, to
> make your own copy of the music and play it from memory if you
> so desire.
You are correct about the former. A way around is to rewrite it
yourself....either by hand or on computer. It is then your work - by law.
You do state that......again ........very perceptive!!
> The files I have on sneezy with printable music are almost all of
> music out of copyright, and the only reason I can let people have
> those files is because people like Oliver Seely and others who
> created representations have given permission for the files to
> be distributed.
I wouldn't want to face you in court!