 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2007-11-10 20:58
I just got back from a frustrating trip to the copy center. I have some 9x12 sheet music and want to copy it to 8-1/2 x 11 paper (standard sized pages). These copies will be used INSTEAD of the originals so that the players can make their own penciled notes.
I was under the impression (and still am!) that this is a "Fair Use" of the material. Copy center said, NO! and refused to 1.) help me get the pages centered and fit to the smaller sheets, and 2.) to allow me to take the copyrighted material anywhere near one of their copy machines.
When I look up fair use on the internet, the only citations I can raise are for things like making copies of a page from a work to use, say, as teaching material.
Does anyone have a quick citation of the justification for holding back copyrighted originals and making "working" copies.
At $30 a part from the publisher and $1.50 for a copy; I'd sure rather have my colleagues working with the copy.
Thanks
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-11-10 21:02
fair use doesn't have an exact definition, but copying the whole is beyond the intent of fair use. I'll gel the "fair use" cite later- but it was recorded as a suggestion rather than an absolute.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DAVE
Date: 2007-11-10 21:18
As a former employee of Kinkos I can tell you for certain that you can copy absolutely anything you want if it is for educational purposes or for an imminent performance. There is no explanation needed if you are doing the copies yourself; however, if you want the store to do them then they will need you to sign a release form stating why you are able to copy them. Just write on the form that you are using the copy for educational purposes. Simple.
Post Edited (2007-11-10 21:19)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-11-10 21:36
See http://www.halldavidson.net/FAIRUSE.PDF (The CETUS document) for a reasonably lucid explanation.
In general, during my long journey into studying copyright, I find most things are decided by varying interpretations of the law after it goes to court - and these interpretations sometimes run counter to each other. However, copying parts so that performers are free to mark up, etc., their parts would probably not fall under fair use - copying them for discussion in a classroom most probably will, excerpts published in a journal most probably will.
Printing a copy from somewhere else because a part was lost or damaged requires permission from the copyright owner if the piece is being performed in public.
However, people are free to reach their own conclusions and bear the responsibility if they're found to have violated a/some copyright(s). I noted in an earlier post or Klarinet mail message that someone was creating an archive of arrangements of public domain material. I sincerely hope they're getting permission from the arrangers for public dissemination of the arrangements. The piece might be PD, but the arrangements are copyrighted by their respective arrangers.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2007-11-10 23:09
Mark, you can almost guarantee that they aren't. It's completely amazing what is out there without permission whatsoever.
Bob, your usage doesn't come even close to being lawful. Copying music to retain the purity of the original isn't allowed as far as I have ever heard (that's the disclaimer, I'm 99.9% sure of it).
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2007-11-10 23:59
IANAL, but I would think that making copies for archival purposes would be a reasonable bit of fair use. You bought a copy. You make a copy as a backup. In software, IIRC, this has long been held as fair use, so long as the copy and the original remain in the possession of the same individual or organization and only one is in active use.
As a composer, I expect and encourage this kind of behavior with my music, and any prosecution on my behalf for such copying would be done over my dead body. If you have legally obtained a copy of my music (i.e. you bought it, I gave it to you for free, or someone else gave you their copy without keeping a xerox of it for themselves), this, in my view, entitles you to take whatever steps necessary to ensure that you continue to be able to play it. However, this just speaks for me. Your mileage with any other composer may vary.
The worst case scenario for me as a composer is to hear that an ensemble failed to perform my music because they lost the second clarinet part. That said, once I get to actually selling my stuff (perhaps in the next couple months), I plan to have very reasonably-priced replacement parts available for quick shipment at any time, as an extra safety net.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-11-11 00:17
EEBaum wrote:
> In software, IIRC, this
> has long been held as fair use, so long as the copy and the
> original remain in the possession of the same individual or
> organization and only one is in active use.
That's not fair use (it's something different), but in any case you don't give it out to everyone, do you? It's just yours, and you're not sharing it with a multitude of other participants.
> As a composer, I expect and encourage this kind of behavior
> with my music, and any prosecution on my behalf for such
> copying would be done over my dead body.
That's wonderful. Put it in writing one each and every one of your compositions. You will be both giving something and giving up something.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2007-11-11 01:27
By the way, I'm not looking down on it, just making a point. Does a band director have "legally" the right to copy a part to give out because he knows that the student is going to completely kill the music within 2 months?
Legally no, but it sure makes a lot of sense!
Places like Kinkos have to ensure that they don't get into trouble legally with infringements. It protects their bottom line and reputation.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2007-11-12 15:36
Mark wrote:
> That's not fair use (it's something different), but in any case you don't give it out to everyone, do you? It's just yours, and you're not sharing it with a multitude of other participants. <
That's just it. A piece of software is meant for one person to use at a time. A quintet is meant for use by five people, or one ensemble, at a time. It only seems reasonable that a backup copy be made for each user that would otherwise be legally entitled to use it. Five parts, five backup copies, five people rehearsing/performing it at any given time.
Now, if an ensemble buys a copy of a piece with ten parts and makes copies for their 250-part ensemble, that's a different issue. For me, that would seem to hinge on whether you're selling "parts for ten people to play" or "parts for an ensemble to play."
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2007-11-12 16:04
When copying, I think that a good rule is to do everything yourself, and make sure you're doing it for a defensible purpose.
You also have to remember that copyright laws don't allow for you to write your own arrangements. Most folks I know in small jazz and pop groups who use homemade arrangments will trade rather than sell. You can get away with a lot, but one prosecuted violation is a huge mess.
Even churches which purchase licenses for worship are under relatively heavy restrictions from the owners of Christian music. You can see that side of life at:
http://www.ccli.com
I think that the laws could stand some tweaking, but laws of this kind can easily be gutted by small adjustments. Maybe it's healthy that we all run a little scared...
Allen Cole
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D
Date: 2007-11-13 06:02
Ran into this on another thread too. Does the copying with the intent to increase the size of the copy to make it easier to read infringe copyright too? Not just teeny tiny marching band parts, but ordinary music for those of us with rubbish eyesight.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2007-11-13 12:34
And that's why I do my copying at staples, not kinkos.....hehehe![[wink]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie3.gif)
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vjoet
Date: 2007-11-13 19:43
What if you need a book that is out of print, and the publisher has no intention of re-issuing it? If you find a copy, is it fair to xerox it for your own use? I would think so.
Yesterday I borrowed my teacher's Russianoff Clarinet Method, and want to make myself a copy. Is that fair? I think so, for I'm not depriving the publisher of any income, for they don't have it to sell. If they did, I'd buy it.
Kinda off topic: Years ago (1980's) I was fairly versed in copyright law. Back then if a publisher let a work fall into the out-of-print category, all rights reverted to the original creator. (Makes sense, John creates it, wants income from sales, and publisher XYZ discontinues it, so John is earning nothing from it. In such a case it is reasonable and fair that John should get the copyright back. So it would seem Schirmer/MacMillan is really out of the picture in regards to the Russianoff Method. Maybe the daughter would permit Faxsimile -- xeroxed -- republication.)
Have just spent a couple hours with the Method so far, and I'm following the lessons right on through. What a wonderful instructor Russianoff is. Written for intermediate or advanced students. Fits the bill.
vJoe
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-11-13 22:49
vjoet wrote:
> What if you need a book that is out of print, and the publisher
> has no intention of re-issuing it? If you find a copy, is it
> fair to xerox it for your own use? I would think so.
You might think it "fair", but it isn't fair use, and is illegal on its face. The copyright owner has FULL rights to the reproduction of THEIR property. It isn't yours to do with as you please.
> Yesterday I borrowed my teacher's Russianoff Clarinet Method,
> and want to make myself a copy. Is that fair? I think so, for
> I'm not depriving the publisher of any income, for they don't
> have it to sell. If they did, I'd buy it.
See above. It's unfortunate, yes. Did you even ATTEMPT to ask the publisher if you could, and offer to pay some nominal fee? You'd be surprised at how accommodating they are.
> Kinda off topic: Years ago (1980's) I was fairly versed in
> copyright law. Back then if a publisher let a work fall into
> the out-of-print category, all rights reverted to the original
> creator.
Please quote me that one. There was a requirement to renew copyright that had absolutely nothing to do with in or out of print.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vjoet
Date: 2007-11-14 12:56
Hi Mark,
This link refers to the reversion to creator:
http://www.copylaw.com/new_articles/copy_myths.html
"When a book goes out-of-print it is a temporary state. The rights generally revert to the author, which means the underlying copyright remains unaffected."
This link refers to the lessening of copy laws in academic settings when a work is out of print:
http://www.utsystem.edu/OGC/intellectualProperty/musguid.htm
2. a) For academic purposes other than performance, multiple copies of excerpts of works may be made, provided that the excerpts do not comprise a part of the whole which would constitute a performable unit such as a section, movement or aria, but in no case more than 10% of the whole work. The number of copies may not exceed one copy per student.
b) For academic purposes other than performance, a single copy of an entire performable unit (section, movement, aria, etc.) that is
(1) confirmed by the copyright proprietor to be out of print, or
(2) unavailable except in a larger work may be made by or for a teacher solely for the purpose of his or her scholarly research or in preparation to teach a class.
My intended use certainly falls in category 2.b.1.
But following your sage advice I have emailed Shirmer asking permission to make myself a copy, and asking how much payment they want for that. :-)
vJoe
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-11-14 14:16
vjoet wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> This link refers to the reversion to creator:
Thank you. I'll go a bit deeper. I'm not sure copying a book for practice use is exactly the intent of the academic research clause (which isn't statutorily defined) ... but it might be stretched that far.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vjoet
Date: 2007-11-14 15:00
Hmmm? I wonder if I sent my request to copy to the right place?
The Russianoff was published by 'Schirmer Books, a Division of Macmillan Publishing Company, NY.'
1. schirmerbooks.com presents an absolutely bogus website, one I'm sure has no connection with Schirmer Books. (The links are all for generic search engines, etc.)
2. Macmillan.com does not list Schirmer as a division, or even mention it.
3. I sent my request to G. Schirmer, now part of Associated Music Publishers.
Does anyone know 'G. Schirmer' is the new name of Schirmer Books, or have the actual URL for Schirmer Books?
Thanks,
vJoe
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: hans
Date: 2007-11-14 18:18
It makes no sense to me that copyright lasts much longer than the 20 years that patents are protected.
I would like to see copyright holders have some responsibility in addition to their rights; i.e., make the product available or lose it.
Much of my older music is deteriorating and no longer available anywhere. So I should let it crumble to dust?
There is no point in having laws that are not strongly supported by society, can't be enforced, or would cause bigger problems if they were enforced; e.g., the shutdown of many community bands comes to mind.
It is intuitively obvious that changes are needed to create a copyright system that is simple, fair, and serves the best interests of society. IMO the current system is dysfunctional.
Hans
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philcoman
Date: 2007-11-14 18:30
Wow, quite an interesting discussion here. Having once worked at a publishing house that distributed both straight and musical plays, I can say a few things, most of which has been said here already: "fair use" is a sticky phrase. It's GENERALLY interpretted as meaning you can make a single copy of a PART of a work for certain reasons -- academic research, news reporting, a few others I think. And yes, ownership is retained whether the work is in print or not. Just because a publisher doesn't want to print the thing doesn't mean that the creator no longer owns the intellectual property.
Music rights are even stickier.
I won't get into the rights and wrongs of it all, but as you can see from reading this string, it's impossibly confusing, and I can understand why copy shops are sometimes very nervous about crossing such a fuzzy line.
I would never encourage anyone to circumvent the law or deny a copyright holder a legitimate fee. I would only note that if one wanted, theoretically, to copy something for archival purposes, or simply to reduce the size of a sheet of music to fit in a binder with no intention of selling it or giving it to another person to use, one might theoretically find a self-service copier with reduction capabilities and set the reduction to 91 percent.
"If you want to do something, you do it, and handle the obstacles as they come." --Benny Goodman
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vjoet
Date: 2007-11-14 18:46
Thanks, Mark. I've redirected my request to them.
vJoe
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-11-14 19:00
hans wrote:
> It makes no sense to me that copyright lasts much longer than
> the 20 years that patents are protected.
If you're in the US, write your congresspeople. Start a lobby. Raise (big) money. Convince composers and artists who depend on the income.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2007-11-14 19:13
Very well put, Hans, AGREE, our US Patent laws do make sense and are thereby enforcable [I have some experience here !]. Our Copyright Laws are in bad need of repair, BUT the lack of Congressional/Executive solution-seeking on the even more critical problems negates any hope for help. Most of my music copying, enlargement of marches, a rehearsal copy, an "acedemic research" copy, etc is done at public libraries, whereby I feel there is almost no threat of possible litigation problems. Comments? Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: hans
Date: 2007-11-14 20:00
I have great respect for Mark, but I must disagree on a few points.
Mark wrote: "Convince composers and artists who depend on the income."
I agree with copyright in principle; i.e., those who create should be compensated for their efforts, but that is often not the whole issue: many of the actual creators are dead and others, who are not even their heirs, hold the copyright. Maybe "restrict" is a more accurate term than "hold".
For example, I have a special interest in the 76 Leeds/MCA arrangements by Glenn Osser and have acquired many of the original charts on auction sites, but many no longer exist except as copies. Wanting to do "the right thing", I wrote to UMG (the successor company to Leeds/MCA) to see if they had any old stock that they might be able to sell to me. Nearly a year later they have not even bothered to reply either way. In view of that, as far as I am concerned, they have diminished their rights considerably, but certainly the law would not agree with me. It would be simple to substitute with copies, if the copyright restriction were not so absolute.
I'm also reminded of an experience when I sought copyright holder approval from a corporation to post a transcription (not a copy) of music on the BB. I supplied the music and all they supplied was a place to send a fee (they don't even have the music in their catalog). I don't know for sure if this company actually held the copyright to that piece and know of no way to verify it, but claiming a copyright and restricting the use of music just seems wrong, unless they want to publish it themselves. The technology is certainly availble to do so with minimal effort so that there is no valid excuse such as "unprofitable in small quantities".
With respect to lobbying legislators for a solution as Mark suggests... while no change occurs without pressure, IMO it really should not be necessary if governments are proactive.
Hans
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-11-14 20:14
hans wrote:
> With respect to lobbying legislators for a solution as Mark
> suggests... while no change occurs without pressure, IMO it
> really should not be necessary if governments are proactive.
The government was certainly proactive when it passed the "Mickey Mouse" copyright extension and conformed to the international treaty on copyrights ... it just depends on whose ox is being gored.
As I've stated in the past, it is in OUR interests to fund those entities that are trying to change copyright law to be more reasonable, yet all such efforts have been underfunded at best.
BTW - "fair use" is not an international concept. In many countries the copyright is absolute.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: davyd
Date: 2007-11-14 20:24
I'm the librarian for a community orchestra. We're playing an out-of-print rental piece. We've got 8 cellists and 3 printed copies of the part - not even enough for one per stand, and the rental company says that's all they have, so we'll have to use at least one photocopy just to get through the concert.
What's more, at least 5 of the players are actually going to woodshed the part. What to do? If I make copies, I'm committing an act that is burglary at best and murder at worst (and yes, I've been accused of murder in similar situations, though what exactly I'm killing is not clear). If I don't make copies, someone else will; to what extent am I obligated to stop them?
I know what everyone's against. But what are they for? What's the least worst solution to this problem? Are there any solutions to this problem that won't get people angry? Where does principle yield to pragmatism? Does it ever?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GeorgeL ★2017
Date: 2007-11-14 22:47
Davvd: My experience playing with community bands for a number of years says principle often yields to pragmatism, and you are in a situation where it should yield. You rented the piece for your group. The rental company does not have enough parts for your group. Make the copies you need; pass them out; and collect and destroy the copies when you collect the piece for return.
Are you infringing the copyright? Of course. Will the original author (or his heirs) care about your infringement? Probably not, as your group would not rent the music if you could not use it. Will the rental company care if you return their music on time and do not keep the copies? Probably not. Will they assume you make copies for your use? They probably expect that some copies will be made for practice purposes. Will the rental company care if you list the music, your group, and the number of copies on this bulletin board? Don't push them, and don't admit to anything. They probably do not own the copyright of the material they are renting, so they may not have the authority to grant you permission to make copies.
Of course, there are other possible legal issues. Your rental agreement may require you not to make copies. The beauty of ignoring that one is violations do not subject you to copyright law's statutory damages.
Another issue is that the material may no longer be copyrighted. It is possible for a copyright to expire due to age, or failure to be renewed for older pieces, just highly unlikely due to Congress' tendency to keep extending the copyright term. Whether or not arrangements of old pieces can maintain their copyright if they are only slightly different from the original is a subject for another thread, but the application of the law seems to favor the copyright holder - a common occurance in copyright land.
(Aside: Why is the patent term shorter than the copyright term? Compliance with the Berne Convention is usually given as the reason, but it may also have something to do with the fact that politicians are unlikely to ever invent something, but they often produce copyrighted material.)
Hope this information from a retired patent attorney is helpful. Just do not mistake my post for legal advice, as I am out of that business.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: FDF
Date: 2007-11-14 23:35
Just my opinion, but I think that the copyright laws are necessary to protect creative work. When you look at the history of what artist's have achieved and their control of the works, plus monetary compensation there's no question in my mind that the originators of work have achieved the short end and need legal protection for their originality.
On the other hand, I agree that when the author/composer is long dead and someone else is holding the copyright, different arrangments need to take place.
Meanwhile, follow the law and also ask the holder of the copyright for permission. If it makes sense and they are reasonable you'll probably get what you want.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2007-11-15 02:45
I've read a bit recently that suggests a bigger problem, especially in the U.S., that this falls into. We, as a society, are often more willing and happy to see laws stay in place but remain nudge-nudge-wink-wink unenforced.
Rather than making laws that make sense, which is "hard" and "not politically expedient" and "unpopular" and which require honest public discourse that makes sense, we keep our laws on the books (and make new and crazier ones, especially when lobbying payola is involved) and look the other way most of the time. Problem is, a good deal of the laws are not really desired by the general populace, but since they aren't enforced (or, in many cases, feasible to enforce), there is no real motivation to fix them. The problem this causes is that everyone ends up breaking the law, and it becomes commonplace.
This leads to a disrespect for laws across the board, a sense that the system of laws is no longer a sort of social contract but rather mandates from on high, and a system that makes it very easy to extort or "bring down" just about anyone by bringing the numerous transgressions that just about everyone is guilty of to light ("you may not have been speeding, but there are $800 in non-legit CDs in your passenger seat").
It's not a healthy way to run a society when everyone is just a phone call away from imprisonment or financial ruin, because they did something the vast majority of society might find completely acceptable.
Copyright laws are well-intended, and serve a very useful purpose. However, the current letter of the law and most of society's perception on what it "should be" are, I think, grossly out of synch.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2007-11-15 22:51
EEBaum wrote:
> Strangling creativity makes for less original creators to
> protect the rights of.
As much as I understand the wish to protect one's own work - IMHO a copyright shouldn't be transferrable, or at least expire after the creator retires or dies.
There are too many sharks out there whose only raison d'être is to make money out of bought patents and copyrighted work. Vultures. Yech.
And if a company that rents out sheet music is unable to produce the required number of score sheets, I'd sue the hell out of them.
(I'm glad that I live in a country where the copyright holder is paid by the number of public performances, and sheet music can be freely copied for internal use. Why punish an orchestra if they happen to have eight clarinetists than just the six the composer wrote parts for?)
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: davyd
Date: 2007-11-16 14:37
In response to GeorgeL: What I did is more or less as you suggested. I made the necessary copies, collected them after the concert, and recycled them. Hopefully I didn't get anyone horribly angry by doing this.
However, the next ensemble that rents this piece will have the same problem: not enough parts to go around. So they'll have to go through the same drill: make, use and destroy the necessary copies. This seems short-sighted and wasteful. Each copy needs 3 sheets of 11x17 paper. Sure, paper is cheap and plentiful. But why use more of it than you must?
In response to TicTacTux: I fail to see how suing the rental company would help, even if we could afford to do so. They would simply refuse to rent to us in the future, and then we would be worse off. Who is to say what the required number of parts is? In a community group, there's no way to know exactly how many players we'll have. We're not going to turn away someone simply because we don't have parts for them.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2007-11-16 15:42
davyd,
...I wouldn't sue them either. But I'd let them know I'd rent elsewhere if they couldn't come up with an unbureaucratic way of providing the missing parts.
If they have the copyright holder's blessings for renting out a piece I am quite certain they're entitled to provide extra parts if needed (and of course make sure everything is returned). What would they do if someone spilled their beer on the tuba part? Rent out a damaged part next time?
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2007-11-16 16:15
"If they have the copyright holder's blessings for renting out a piece I am quite certain they're entitled to provide extra parts if needed (and of course make sure everything is returned). "
I hardly think it's the composer who is dictating strict terms for the rental. Inflexibility and difficult communication, it is my impression, usually come from the publisher.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2007-11-16 16:24
My bad - I meant indeed the publisher (or the entity that is allowed to reproduce the score).
(Might be a tad difficult to ask Irving Berlin for extra parts of "White Christmas"...)
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-11-18 00:34
EEBaum wrote:
> It suggests that, if all copyright laws on the books were
> enforced to their greatest extent, a hypothetical typical
> American would be liable for over $4 billion per year, just for
> activities most of us would find perfectly reasonable.
"John" is far from typical, and the computation was at maximum statutory penalties, so the figure is a bit of hyperbole, but we would all most certainly be liable for something.
As I keep on suggesting, get involved! Moaning does less than nothing.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vjoet
Date: 2007-11-19 15:09
Mark,
Over a week ago you wrote: "Did you even ATTEMPT to ask the publisher if you could, and offer to pay some nominal fee? You'd be surprised at how accommodating they are."
It's been a week now, and no response from them. In my business we respond to every email the same day it is received. So I am surprised that I haven't received a Yeah, a Nay or We-don't-care.
The Russianoff is out-of-print which -- for academic purposes -- lessens its copyright protection. That's how I'm seeing it, for I've made attempt to gain permission and inquired about payment desired, and they've ignorned me.
vJoe
(amateur)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: davyd
Date: 2007-11-19 22:11
On the issue of contacting the publisher: I once found something in a library that was one of a series of charts for the ensemble of flute, 3 clarinets, and bass clarinet. I wrote to the publisher inquring about purchasing the series; this was about 30 years after the material was initially published. They wrote back to say (IIRC) that they used to publish sheet music, but didn't do so any more. I know it was the same company; they were even still in the same town.
Here, I've gone to the extent of contacting the publishers, but they've declined to be of help. Would it still be wrong to share this material with others?
Post Edited (2007-11-21 04:27)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: redwine
Date: 2007-11-20 01:31
Hello,
Only slightly off topic: I learned of a piece for clarinet choir by Henry Cowell recently. I also learned that the Library of Congress (to which I live near) houses the papers of Cowell. So, a friend and I went to the LOC to look at this piece. The librarian told me that the copyright laws are so antiquated that it is illegal to photocopy the music, however, it is technically legal to make digital camera photos of the same music. So, I went home and revisited the LOC and took photos of the music. In the meantime, I wrote to the estate of Henry Cowell (which, ironically was administered by an acquaintance of mine) to ask permission to perform the work. After permission was granted, I put together a clarinet choir of my friends and we gave the world premier (as far as we can tell) of "Tune Takes A Trip", a charming piece in 4 movements for 5 clarinets, written originally in 1948. In the notes accompanying the score, Cowell states that the piece may be played by 5 clarinets (4 b-flats and one bass) or the parts may be doubled for a choir. We chose to use 10 clarinets. The whole experience was exhiliarating and it was such an honor to be involved in this momentous occasion.
What does this have to do with the topic? I guess just that mine is a success story in obtaining permission and performing a work that has similar difficulties in obtaining permission, etc., except that the LOC librarians were very helpful. I personally would say that since you own the music, copying would be good (whether legal or not), as long as you did not keep the copies nor try to sell them, etc. I own my grandfather's and Iggy Gennusa's very old copies of several pieces that I've copied to practice from as the originals are literally falling apart. Should I purchase new parts? I guess some would argue "yes". I'd also say that if you were performing the work in a union situation, by all means use the originals, but if you are doing a "reading session" in your den, the copies are fine (even though perhaps not legal). I guess this is why there are still disputes today and attorneys still live well (my stepdaughter is an attorney, so I can say that, I think).
So, here's something to think about: What is the difference between copying the parts for a performance or calling your buddy and asking to borrow originals for a performance of a work they already own (other than one being legal and the other being illegal)? Both cases deprive the composer/publisher/retailer of a sale.
It is interesting. Thanks for the thought provoking post, Bob.
Ben Redwine, DMA
owner, RJ Music Group
Assistant Professor, The Catholic University of America
Selmer Paris artist
www.rjmusicgroup.com
www.redwinejazz.com
www.reedwizard.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-11-20 01:40
> So, here's something to think about: What is the difference
> between copying the parts for a performance or calling your
> buddy and asking to borrow originals for a performance of a
> work they already own (other than one being legal and the other
> being illegal)
Both have a good chance of being illegal. Right to perform involves a different copyright than the sheet music.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: redwine
Date: 2007-11-20 01:48
Hello,
So, what you are saying is that one would have to get permission to perform a published work? That doesn't make sense. Even in researching recording rights, the expert I consulted stated that if a piece of music was published, then you don't have to gain permission to record it, you only have to find the owner of the rights to pay royalties. Of course, I may be wrong--I'm no expert, but if one does have to obtain permission to perform a work that is published, then I've been breaking the law for 31 years now!
Ben Redwine, DMA
owner, RJ Music Group
Assistant Professor, The Catholic University of America
Selmer Paris artist
www.rjmusicgroup.com
www.redwinejazz.com
www.reedwizard.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2007-11-20 01:57
You DO have to get permission to perform a published work. However, the right to perform is usually covered by BMI/ASCAP/SESAC licenses for the venue you're performing at. So, the hall/bar/club/etc. that you're performing at has already paid an annual blanket fee in advance, saving you a lot of headache and paperwork.
Borrowing originals for performance, IIRC, would be legit for "do you have a legal copy of the parts" purposes; it's like borrowing a book from a friend. Unless, of course, they're rental parts, in which case it's a different situation because those tend to come with more strings attached.
Now, if you're borrowing a piece that's NOT registered with one of the performance rights clearinghouses without securing the rights, then yeah, shaky ground.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: redwine
Date: 2007-11-20 02:10
Hello,
OK, so does one have to research whether or not the piece is covered under BMI, etc., or just plead ignorance if caught?
I do pay BMI through my concert series to compensate composers through their "unions", but I wouldn't consider that as "permission" to perform the work. I don't have to gain the composers permission, I just have to compensate them for performing it.
Am I wrong in my thinking?
Ben Redwine, DMA
owner, RJ Music Group
Assistant Professor, The Catholic University of America
Selmer Paris artist
www.rjmusicgroup.com
www.redwinejazz.com
www.reedwizard.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-11-20 03:10
redwine wrote:
> OK, so does one have to research whether or not the piece is
> covered under BMI, etc., or just plead ignorance if caught?
I'd plead ignorance unless I were making a recording for resale... but that's just me and that's far from being any sort of legal argument.
> I do pay BMI through my concert series to compensate composers
> through their "unions", but I wouldn't consider that as
> "permission" to perform the work. I don't have to gain the
> composers permission, I just have to compensate them for
> performing it.
The compensation is required to gain the performance rights. If you want to record & sell your performance (mechanical rights) you need a different set of permissions. If you want to use the music for a movie or multimedia presentation you need yet a different set of permissions.
This, of course, is a very good thing for the legal profession, a nightmare for the rest of us!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2007-11-20 03:56
Entering the thread late...
different situation- I played a published piece once that was 7 pages with no place to turn pages. I had no choice but to copy the score, that I did purchace at full price, and place it on 3 adjacent stands. Did I break the law? Was I to use a page turner?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2007-11-20 07:22
I don't believe that page turners are legit - after all you make the printed sheet available to a second person without compensating the owner - the page turner has to read the music as much as the performer in order to turn appropriately, so he/she should learn the score a bit as well and thus need a copy of their own. (I am serious about this).
Good grief. I should hire an army of retired music lovers, strategically place them into the audience, equip them with binoculars and sue each and every musician who dares to annotate the score (or cuts and pastes ad lib in order to achieve better page turning opportunities) on a copied page. That'll teach them.
Soon contemporary live music would be a thing of the past, maybe with exception of some publishing companies who do their own CDs (and install viruses on buyers' computers). But don't be afraid - soon we will have a pay-per-listen system where you'd think twice before pressing the "rewind" button. What a brave new world!
Excuse me for being polemic.
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: redwine
Date: 2007-11-20 14:42
Hello,
Perhaps we are arguing over semantics. My take is that you do not need "permission" to record (and therefore, I assume perform) a published work, but you do need to compensate the composer/publisher for that right. The way the legal guys at the studio where I record explained it was that the publishing of the work implies permission to record/perform the work, but does not give up the compensation requirement. Perhaps your interpretation of compensation implies permission and mine does not. To argue against myself, I guess that if you did not compensate the composer/publisher, then you would not have permission to record or perform the work.
Ben Redwine, DMA
owner, RJ Music Group
Assistant Professor, The Catholic University of America
Selmer Paris artist
www.rjmusicgroup.com
www.redwinejazz.com
www.reedwizard.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-11-20 14:50
redwine wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Perhaps we are arguing over semantics. My take is that you do
> not need "permission" to record (and therefore, I assume
> perform) a published work, but you do need to compensate the
> composer/publisher for that right.
Not semantics. The performing rights and recording rights are "copyrights". The paying of fees, etc., are set up so that you can easily gain the permission of the copyrights holder(s) - they have agreements (in most cases) to let ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, Harry Fox, or some other agency collect the fees on their behalf.
A copyright holder is not REQUIRED to give you permission to perform; there are a number of pieces that are copyrighted that cannot be performed. For instance, you cannot get permission at this time to perform the Clarinet Concerto by John Williams even if you could get a copy of the music.
That's one of the many reasons performers have agencies covering them - part of the fee goes to the lawyers who negotiate for the rights to perform/record/distribute the music. It's a rather complex area of the law.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: redwine
Date: 2007-11-20 15:03
Hello,
In your example of the John Williams concerto, you state "...if you could get a copy of the music." See, according to the legal guys at my recording studio, the minute Mr. Williams publishes the work for sale, that implies permission to record or perform it publicly (not giving up the necessity to pay for the performance/recording rights).
It is a complex area of law and I don't mean to belabor the point, but our disagreement over semantics is precisely the reason that disputes still go to court for a judge to determine. It is very interesting and very "grey".
Ben Redwine, DMA
owner, RJ Music Group
Assistant Professor, The Catholic University of America
Selmer Paris artist
www.rjmusicgroup.com
www.redwinejazz.com
www.reedwizard.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-11-20 16:09
redwine wrote:
> See, according to the
> legal guys at my recording studio, the minute Mr. Williams
> publishes the work for sale, that implies permission to record
> or perform it publicly (not giving up the necessity to pay for
> the performance/recording rights).
Record it, yes (via the US Copyright Law § 115, compulsory license - except for the 1st recording, whcih can be controlled by the copyright owner! which means if no 1st recording exists, you can't utilize the compulsory license).
Perform it publicly, no (US Copyright Law § 106(4) - "... the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following ... in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly" ).
The visual arts have their own special set of circumstances (architecture, scupture, combinations of the two, photographs, ad nauseam).
I'm sure your legal guys have it all together.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2007-11-20 17:59
> See, according to the
> legal guys at my recording studio, the minute Mr. Williams
> publishes the work for sale
---------------------------------------------------------
Hey, you guys weren't aware of one fact:
The John Williams Clarinet Concerto isn't published.
Privately owned by Michele and Produced by me.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
Post Edited (2007-11-20 18:13)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-11-20 18:35
DavidBlumberg wrote:
> Hey, you guys weren't aware of one fact:
>
> The John Williams Clarinet Concerto isn't published.
It's under copyright already, though. Publication isn't a requirement of copyright. The score may never be "published", but as you have obliquly pointed out, Mr. Williams assigned 1st performance rights to Ms. Zukovsky. Now, if someone wanted to record that from memory, it would most probably be technically legal to do so after the compulsory license fees were paid. IANAL, though, but it sure would be fun to see that through!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2007-11-20 20:40
I once tried to get a copy of an out-of-print piece from a publisher. It is only 10 years old so this is not an 'ancient publication' example. They didn't want to do it even if I paied them the full price of the piece plus any service fee they wanted to tack on.
I asked them how I am supposed to play the music. 'Well, it would be okay if you go to a concert or buy a recording and transcribe it. That's legal, no problem.' The piece has multiphonics and microtonal elements.
After bothering them a lot they made a copy for me. Big job! 15 minutes that they have to spend away from their desk reading the paper. :P
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SarekOfVulcan
Date: 2007-11-20 21:05
We had a question arise in choir the other night. We've been carrying around large bags of heavy books. Some people were wondering if, since we all had the books anyway, we could copy music to put in our binders. I tried to shoot down the person who said that was fair use for "artistic purposes", but he was a little too definite. I invoked the Betamax decision claiming that it might be ok for "backup purposes", but I wasn't altogether sure that was legit.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2007-11-20 21:54
Not even close to being legal. Do groups do it?
All the time. I'd like to think that most of them are amateur players, but that probably isn't exclusively the case.
Does a head of the Copyright Org play trios using illegal real book fake books? Do Judges (as in Circuit Court) share music with each other?
Yup, that happens too. Both I have personally experienced.
Funny, but true!
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: davyd
Date: 2007-11-21 04:39
"Entering the thread late...
different situation- I played a published piece once that was 7 pages with no place to turn pages. I had no choice but to copy the score, that I did purchace at full price, and place it on 3 adjacent stands. Did I break the law? Was I to use a page turner?"
You're not entering late; you're another voice in the fugue!
I was once considering the purchase of some contemporary piece for wind quintet that had rough or impossible page turns for everyone. At the bottom of one page was verbiage stating that "Photocopying this work, even for purposes of page turns, is ILLEGAL!" or words to that effect. The work went back into the bin, a potential sale lost. Why would a publisher shoot themselves, and the composer, in the feet like this?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2007-11-21 06:04
Hmm... sounds like a ploy to sell more copies.
1. Write a piece with impossible page turns.
2. Put a nasty notice at the bottom warning that it is illegal to copy for purposes of page turns.
3. Customer now buys TWO copies!!
Or that's the plan, at least. Then, when nobody buys their music, it must be piracy or the woeful decline of classical music to blame.
It's my experience that some publishers go out of their way for you to NOT play the music they publish. And if you DO happen to convince them that your humble self is worthy of acquiring a copy of some dust-covered tome from their grand vault in a timely manner, they go out of their way to make the experience difficult and exhibit an odd paranoia in your direction. This bewilders me.
Heck, if you're playing a piece of mine, I'll go out of my way to ensure that the process is as easy and pleasant as possible. I'd be inclined to buy you lunch if you're in town. A happy performer is a repeat performer, a performer who tells his friends, a performer who takes your music on world tours. It's just good business.
I guess the whole "you can only get this from us and from nobody else" aspect of copyright leads to the customer-hostile take-it-or-leave-it philosophy. If someone wants to play Philip Glass, they can only play it if the publisher wishes it. So, essentially, you don't need good business practices unless people are willing to forgo playing the music you have control of.
If anyone has experience with a publisher that is overwhelmingly positive for both the composer and performer, I'd be quite interested in hearing more.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2007-12-14 05:11
I have a question in relation to what Ben Redwine asked:
Is borrowing from a friend legal or not?
What if a friend sold or gave a piece of music to you? What if my friend gave it to me and then I gave it to someone else and then they gave it to someone else? In that situation, there are 4 people that looked at the music (ie. 4 potential sales), but only one copy of the music was sold.
BTW- I went to a chamber music performance reciently, and I saw that ALL of the performers were using photocopies for ALL of the pieces.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-12-14 11:09
skygardener wrote:
> I have a question in relation to what Ben Redwine asked:
In the US, everything you mention is perfectly fine, as is borrowing from a library. Other country's rules may be different.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2007-12-14 11:57
I suppose I would still have to pay 'gift tax' on it, right?
-What about copying by hand? If one were to just write it all out note by note is that the same (or different) illegality as using the photocopy machine?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2007-12-14 12:26
"Is borrowing from a friend legal or not?
What if a friend sold or gave a piece of music to you? What if my friend gave it to me and then I gave it to someone else and then they gave it to someone else? In that situation, there are 4 people that looked at the music (ie. 4 potential sales), but only one copy of the music was sold."
--------------------------------------------
All legal. But still illegal if you made of a copy of the loaned piece.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
Post Edited (2007-12-14 12:34)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-12-14 12:31
skygardener wrote:
> I suppose I would still have to pay 'gift tax' on it, right?
No one I know pays "gift tax" at Christmas ... secondhand gift or not.
> -What about copying by hand? If one were to just write it all
> out note by note is that the same (or different) illegality as
> using the photocopy machine?
Different problem than the photocopy machine, but probably still a violation (an unauthorized transcription of the composer's work, and possibly a violation of an editor's work) - that no one would ever catch unless you performed publicly.
Consult a knowlegeable lawyer specializing in copyright law if you really need knowlegeable answers. We're getting into the real nitpicking stage of things 
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
