 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2004-02-04 20:00
I was toying around with the idea of writing out and maybe at some point performing some of the soft songs that I'm listening to right now (The Clarinetist - Paquito D'rivera). It'd be a watered down version with just clarinet and piano, but I was wondering if this would be against the law.
Would it be lawful as long as I announce before each song the title and original composer/performer? Is it ok to do as long as I give the credit where it's due?
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2004-02-04 20:40
Yes ... if you don't get permission first, you are breaking the law. General rule of thumb - copyright last 100 years (this varies from country to country, and such institutions as Disney/Warner seem to think they own copyright on Hans Christian Anderson fairytales, which is utter stupidity, they only own copyright on their interpretations).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2004-02-04 23:00
So basically, I need to email Paquito D'Rivera and ask for permission to arrange and perform his works before I do so. Correct?
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2004-02-04 23:17
sfalexi wrote:
> So basically, I need to email Paquito D'Rivera and ask for
> permission to arrange and perform his works before I do so.
> Correct?
It's a place to start anyway - he may or may not hold the rights to his works anymore, and the performing rights and sheet music rights are separate.
It'll take a bit more than email permission, too, but you're going in the right direction.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2004-02-05 03:53
Got it. I'll do more research (ie - go over the CD insert with a fine-toothed comb) to see if it mentions who has the rights to what and email in conjunction. Thanks all.
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ChrisC
Date: 2004-02-05 04:09
You know, if all the jazz musicians I know had to ask and receive permission from the composer/publishing company before performing their music live, they wouldn't even bother playing in public.
So what you guys are saying is that a jazz group playing a Charlie Parker tune for tips in a bar should be paying Parker's estate to do so.
Right.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2004-02-05 05:08
I was also wondering because I know there are a lot of "cover bands" out there that charge money for attending a concert however I doubt that they took the time to contact and gain proper permission from each and every artist that they cover. So I thought it might've been appropriate just to make sure to mention who the artist and composer was as they do.
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2004-02-05 05:42
Where is the venue? For performance, many venues (e.g. university concert halls) pay annual fees to BMI and ASCAP (in the US anyways), which covers performance of anything written by BMI and ASCAP members (the money is later divided among composers or the entities who may have purchased the rights). It really simplifies the process for concert venues, instead of having to write up two dozen permission contracts before each performance. If you've made your own arrangement of it, though, I'm not sure where the rules lie (it likely depends on the amount and substantiality of the changes, etc).
Rules regarding physical copies of the music are quite a bit trickier, to my understanding. For an arrangement, permission would most definitely be in order, especially if you intend to perform it.
As for the average Joe who plays on the street, I think they technically should be paying fees, but they are rarely pursued because: 1) The street performer is likely not bringing in lots of money and is therefore not worth hiring expensive lawyers to pursue, 2) It's incredibly bad publicity to demand royalties from a "real, old-fashioned musician" playing for enjoyment on the street, 3) It's a form of free publicity for the original composer, who gets their song heard more often, albeit without being paid for that particular performance, 4) It's in rather poor taste.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Pinner
Date: 2004-02-05 11:12
We have a system in Australia, similar to that described by Alex, where venues that provide entertainment, play recordings or whatever pay a yearly licence fee to our performing rights mob know as APRA. These are venue and mechanical licences. The royalties are divided up according to some sort of formula. In practice, arrangements made just for these sorts of performance are never scrutinised and neither should they be otherwise no music would ever be performed. The composer receives his or her royalties via the APRA system. This system was introduced to save the filling in of performance returns by venues which was never an adequate system.
This changes if arrangements are to be published for sale. Licences from the copyright holders, sometimes there are multiple copyright interests, are required under this circumstance. The reality of this is that music arranging, for those outside of the USA, is extremely restricted. Licences, with mandatory requirements for copyright lines etc., are given for, say, 10 copies of an arrangement only to be sold in a restricted geographical area, in our case Australia and New Zealand and occasionally the Pacific rim. More sales = further licence fees. Our local publishers have been forbidden from advertising their arrangements on web sites. American publishing companies achieve this level of control by having locally registered companies that look after their interests legally and otherwise; no private individual would have the financial means, read legal costs, to take on these multi nationals. Justice, that quaint term bandied around in America all the time, is only available to those with the deepest of pockets. All this is in aid of protecting some of the crap arrangements, I will refrain from particulars as I have been warned off before, coming out of the USA. These publications do not meet some of the standards, viz a vis copyright lines etc., that are expected of local publishers; they are not likely to sue themselves. American companies flood our market with trash, just look at some of the duet arrangements, for example, from the multi-national publishers that have flooded the market recently and then restrict the locals. Level playing field, free trade, free market.... what a load of rubbish. It is total protectionism, if American arrangements are good enough they will survive in the market place without restrictive licencing of legitimate arrangers and publishers in other countries.
If these restrictions were in the interest of protecting the incomes of composers I would not be as sceptical. I am of the view, somewhat considered after 30 years in the music business, that the restrictions applied are more in the interest of the companies themselves and the fat pay cheques of their executives. Not all rights have been obtained by fair, ethical or honest means. Fortunately there is no actual copyright of an arrangement, as such, in this country so we are at least free to play them without consulting lawyers.
If you are doing transcriptions or arrangements for academic purposes, in this country (Australia) at least, you are free to do so without penalty. A school or university exam or recital, provided it is not for profit, would be exempt, within certain parameters, from copyright restrictions.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2004-02-05 14:03
Mark Pinner wrote:
> We have a system in Australia, similar to that described by
> Alex, where venues that provide entertainment, play recordings
> or whatever pay a yearly licence fee to our performing rights
> mob know as APRA.
The same type system applies in the USA - bars and other places of entertainment, along with colleges & universities, pay a general fee to a different performing arts "mob" (I like that term ...) to allow bands to play covers.
Venues are checked regularly, and you don't want to be caught not paying - you will be paying a hefty fine or be shut down.
Universities here have some interesting arrangements: the reason you can't buy a CD of the performances at a ClarinetFest unless you actually attended the ClarinetFest are because of the copyright arrangements. The recordings cannot be commercially distributed, so if you didn't order them at the ClarinetFest, you're out of luck.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
