Newspaper Copyright Notices

[Nick Odell]

Scrolling down to the foot of the "i" website this morning
(inews.co.uk) I saw a copyright statement (c)2021.

This prompted me to check with some others where I saw (c)2024 or
often nothing at all.

I can't actually see the point. Does it matter?

Nick

[Roger Hayter]

It might matter in America, especially if they are regarded as publishing
anything in America. I agree it doesn't here.

--
Roger Hayter

[Colin Bignell]

It tells people to whom they should apply if they wish to reproduce any
of the copyright material.


--
Colin Bignell

[John Levine]

According to Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org>:

>> This prompted me to check with some others where I saw (c)2024 or
>> often nothing at all.
>>
>> I can't actually see the point. Does it matter?
>

>It might matter in America, especially if they are regarded as publishing
>anything in America. I agree it doesn't here.

Since the US joined the Berne convention in 1989 it doesn't matter for
us Americans either.

It's like a cargo cult, you do it because everyone else does it.



--
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

[Tim Jackson]

On 10 Feb 2024 20:49:06 -0000, John Levine wrote...

>
> According to Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org>:
> >> This prompted me to check with some others where I saw (c)2024 or
> >> often nothing at all.
> >>
> >> I can't actually see the point. Does it matter?
> >
> >It might matter in America, especially if they are regarded as publishing
> >anything in America. I agree it doesn't here.
>
> Since the US joined the Berne convention in 1989 it doesn't matter for
> us Americans either.
>
> It's like a cargo cult, you do it because everyone else does it.

In USA, the absence of a notice might affect the damages you can claim
from an infringer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_notice

[quote]

Furthermore, in the event that a work is infringed, if the work carries
a proper notice, the court will not give any weight to a defendant's use
of an innocent infringement defense - that is, to a claim that the
defendant did not realize that the work was protected. An innocent
infringement defense can result in a reduction in damages that the
copyright owner would otherwise receive.

[end quote]

Note that this article is talking about US law. See my separate post
for the UK position.

--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

[Tim Jackson]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 13:25:41 +0000, Nick Odell wrote...

It might affect the damages you can claim from an infringer.

Copyright etc Act 1988, section 97(1):
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/97

[quote]

(1) Where in an action for infringement of copyright it is shown that
at the time of the infringement the defendant did not know, and had no
reason to believe, that copyright subsisted in the work to which the
action relates, the plaintiff is not entitled to damages against him,
but without prejudice to any other remedy.

[end quote]

"But I had no reason to believe there was copyright" might not be a good
argument anyway, but a notice kills it.

[John Levine]

According to Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid>:

>> It's like a cargo cult, you do it because everyone else does it.
>
>In USA, the absence of a notice might affect the damages you can claim
>from an infringer.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_notice
>
>[quote]
>
>Furthermore, in the event that a work is infringed, if the work carries
>a proper notice, the court will not give any weight to a defendant's use
>of an innocent infringement defense - that is, to a claim that the
>defendant did not realize that the work was protected. An innocent
>infringement defense can result in a reduction in damages that the
>copyright owner would otherwise receive.
>
>[end quote]

Keep reading the next few paragraphs and you'll find it is referring
primarily to pre-1989 works. I follow US copyright law fairly closely
and I cannot recall any recent cases where the presence or absence of
a notice made a difference.

In the US if you haven't registered the copyright on something (which
has nothing to do with whether there's a notice), you can only sue for
actual damages from infringement. But once you do register, you can
get statutory damages which can quickly add up to hundreds of
thousands of dollars. Is the rule in the UK similar?

[Norman Wells]

On 11/02/2024 04:58, John Levine wrote:
> According to Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid>:
>>> It's like a cargo cult, you do it because everyone else does it.
>>
>> In USA, the absence of a notice might affect the damages you can claim
>>from an infringer.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_notice
>>
>> [quote]
>>
>> Furthermore, in the event that a work is infringed, if the work carries
>> a proper notice, the court will not give any weight to a defendant's use
>> of an innocent infringement defense - that is, to a claim that the
>> defendant did not realize that the work was protected. An innocent
>> infringement defense can result in a reduction in damages that the
>> copyright owner would otherwise receive.
>>
>> [end quote]
>
> Keep reading the next few paragraphs and you'll find it is referring
> primarily to pre-1989 works. I follow US copyright law fairly closely
> and I cannot recall any recent cases where the presence or absence of
> a notice made a difference.
>
> In the US if you haven't registered the copyright on something (which
> has nothing to do with whether there's a notice), you can only sue for
> actual damages from infringement. But once you do register, you can
> get statutory damages which can quickly add up to hundreds of
> thousands of dollars. Is the rule in the UK similar?

Not at all. There is no facility in the UK to register copyright.

And here we don't generally have the concept of punitive damages in
civil cases, the principle being merely that the wronged party should be
put back to the position he would otherwise have been in but for the
wrong, with his costs met by the losing side.

[Roger Hayter]

Given the recent change in costs rules in civil cases, I am suspect the latter
is even less true than it used to be.

--
Roger Hayter

[Tim Jackson]

On 11 Feb 2024 04:58:02 -0000, John Levine wrote...

>
> According to Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid>:
> >> It's like a cargo cult, you do it because everyone else does it.
> >
> >In USA, the absence of a notice might affect the damages you can claim
> >from an infringer.
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_notice
> >
> >[quote]
> >
> >Furthermore, in the event that a work is infringed, if the work carries
> >a proper notice, the court will not give any weight to a defendant's use
> >of an innocent infringement defense - that is, to a claim that the
> >defendant did not realize that the work was protected. An innocent
> >infringement defense can result in a reduction in damages that the
> >copyright owner would otherwise receive.
> >
> >[end quote]
>
> Keep reading the next few paragraphs and you'll find it is referring
> primarily to pre-1989 works. I follow US copyright law fairly closely
> and I cannot recall any recent cases where the presence or absence of
> a notice made a difference.

>From the horse's mouth (the US Copyright Office)
https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf

On one hand, "Notice is optional for works created after March 1, 1989,
but is generally required for works created before that date."

But on the other hand, even after 1989, see page 3:

[quote]

Advantages to Using a Copyright Notice

Although notice is optional for unpublished works, foreign works, or
works published on or after March 1, 1989, using a copyright notice
carries the following benefits:
* [....]
* In the case of a published work, a notice may prevent a defendant in a
copyright infringement action from attempting to limit his or her
liability for damages or injunctive relief based on an innocent
infringement defense.

[end quote]

[Tim Jackson]

On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 08:04:58 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...

>
> On 11/02/2024 04:58, John Levine wrote:
> >
> > In the US if you haven't registered the copyright on something (which
> > has nothing to do with whether there's a notice), you can only sue for
> > actual damages from infringement. But once you do register, you can
> > get statutory damages which can quickly add up to hundreds of
> > thousands of dollars. Is the rule in the UK similar?
>
> Not at all. There is no facility in the UK to register copyright.

On the other hand, it can be far easier and cheaper to take a small,
simple copyright claim to court. The Intellectual Property Enterprise
Court has a costs-limited small claims track designed to be used by
parties who do not have a legal representative.

[Tim Jackson]

On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 16:00:13 -0000, Tim Jackson wrote...

>
> On the other hand, it can be far easier and cheaper to take a small,
> simple copyright claim to court. The Intellectual Property Enterprise
> Court has a costs-limited small claims track designed to be used by
> parties who do not have a legal representative.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/intellectual-property-
enterprise-court-a-guide-to-small-claims

-or-

http://tinyurl.com/4sz8dczn

[John Levine]

According to Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid>:

>On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 08:04:58 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
>>
>> On 11/02/2024 04:58, John Levine wrote:
>> >
>> > In the US if you haven't registered the copyright on something (which
>> > has nothing to do with whether there's a notice), you can only sue for
>> > actual damages from infringement. But once you do register, you can
>> > get statutory damages which can quickly add up to hundreds of
>> > thousands of dollars. Is the rule in the UK similar?
>>
>> Not at all. There is no facility in the UK to register copyright.
>
>On the other hand, it can be far easier and cheaper to take a small,
>simple copyright claim to court. The Intellectual Property Enterprise
>Court has a costs-limited small claims track designed to be used by
>parties who do not have a legal representative.

The US recently instututed a Copyright Claims Board which is intended to
be the same sort of thing for claims up to $30,000, with simpler rules
for claims under $5,000. I gather it's not very popular.

https://ccb.gov/

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 22:07:16 -0000, Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid>
wrote:

>
>It might affect the damages you can claim from an infringer.
>
>Copyright etc Act 1988, section 97(1):
>https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/97
>
>[quote]
>
>(1) Where in an action for infringement of copyright it is shown that
>at the time of the infringement the defendant did not know, and had no
>reason to believe, that copyright subsisted in the work to which the
>action relates, the plaintiff is not entitled to damages against him,
>but without prejudice to any other remedy.
>
>[end quote]
>
>"But I had no reason to believe there was copyright" might not be a good
>argument anyway, but a notice kills it.

I suspect it's rarely a good argument in the majority of cases, particularly
when copying things from the web. But there are specific sectors of
publishing where the absence of a notice could be significant. Sheet music
is a good example of that. Almost any commercially published sheet music has
a copyright notice at the bottom of the page - for example, one I happen to
have (entirely legitimately!) in front of me at the moment has a notice
which says "© 1964 Warner-Tamerlane Publishing Corp."

That serves a double purpose. It both indicates that the composition is
subject to copyright, and it names the rightsholder. That's important,
because it means that you know who to ask if you want permission to copy the
music, or, alternatively, who you need to credit if you make permitted use
of it under a collective licensing scheme (eg, PRS).

If an item of commercially published sheet music were to lack a copyright
notice, therefore, it would not be unreasonable for the purchaser to assume
that it is not subject to copyright. In practice, music publishers try to
avoid any ambiguity by stating explicitly when a composition is public
domain (I just also had a look at my copy of Ode to Joy, for example, where
that is stated). But there may be a case where a copyright notice is
inadvertantly omitted. Or, more plausibly, where a work is public domain in
one country but still in copyright in another, so a sheet of music printed
by a publisher from the first country but bought by a customer from the
other will carry a PD statement that, for them, is not actually true. In
both of those situations, I suspect that section 97(1) would apply.

Mark

[Tim Jackson]

On 11 Feb 2024 18:44:27 -0000, John Levine wrote...

>
> According to Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid>:
> >On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 08:04:58 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
> >>
> >> On 11/02/2024 04:58, John Levine wrote:
> >> >
> >> > In the US if you haven't registered the copyright on something (which
> >> > has nothing to do with whether there's a notice), you can only sue for
> >> > actual damages from infringement. But once you do register, you can
> >> > get statutory damages which can quickly add up to hundreds of
> >> > thousands of dollars. Is the rule in the UK similar?
> >>
> >> Not at all. There is no facility in the UK to register copyright.
> >
> >On the other hand, it can be far easier and cheaper to take a small,
> >simple copyright claim to court. The Intellectual Property Enterprise
> >Court has a costs-limited small claims track designed to be used by
> >parties who do not have a legal representative.
>
> The US recently instututed a Copyright Claims Board which is intended to
> be the same sort of thing for claims up to $30,000, with simpler rules
> for claims under $5,000. I gather it's not very popular.
>
> https://ccb.gov/

Ah, interesting. I'd heard there was a proposal. I wonder if they'd
looked at the English small claims experience?

It started out here quite a long time ago, as the Patents County Court
(but with a wider intellectual property jurisdiction, not just patents).
It was unsuccessful for a number of years, for various reasons, and
effectively died. Although originally intended for smaller claims, it
didn't have a monetary limit, nor a specific small claims track intended
for direct lawyer-free access.

Several things changed that. One was the appointment of a dynamic new
no-nonsense judge (Colin Birss, since promoted to the Court of Appeal).
Another was integrating it into the High Court (with its current new
name). The rules were streamlined to distinguish them from the main
Patents Court in the High Court, including monetary limits. Along the
way, the direct access, costs-limited small claims track I've referenced
was introduced for suitable cases (separate from the multi-track for
more complex, higher value cases).

https://www.judiciary.uk/courts-and-tribunals/business-and-property-
courts/business-list-general-chancery/intellectual-property-
list/intellectual-property-enterprise-court-ipec/history/

[Norman Wells]

It is not just the 'composition' or 'tune', that may be the subject of
copyright. Copyright may also subsist in the particular transcription
of it, the arrangement of it on the score etc. Even if the composer
died many years ago, therefore, as Beethoven did, it does not mean you
are free to copy anyone's version of it which is still in copyright, ie
is less than about 100 years old, which is the overwhelming likelihood,
and should be appreciated.

[Mark Goodge]

On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 21:59:19 +0000, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:

>On 11/02/2024 20:48, Mark Goodge wrote:

>> If an item of commercially published sheet music were to lack a copyright
>> notice, therefore, it would not be unreasonable for the purchaser to assume
>> that it is not subject to copyright. In practice, music publishers try to
>> avoid any ambiguity by stating explicitly when a composition is public
>> domain (I just also had a look at my copy of Ode to Joy, for example, where
>> that is stated). But there may be a case where a copyright notice is
>> inadvertantly omitted. Or, more plausibly, where a work is public domain in
>> one country but still in copyright in another, so a sheet of music printed
>> by a publisher from the first country but bought by a customer from the
>> other will carry a PD statement that, for them, is not actually true. In
>> both of those situations, I suspect that section 97(1) would apply.
>
>It is not just the 'composition' or 'tune', that may be the subject of
>copyright.

A composition is far more than just the tune.

>Copyright may also subsist in the particular transcription
>of it, the arrangement of it on the score etc. Even if the composer
>died many years ago, therefore, as Beethoven did, it does not mean you
>are free to copy anyone's version of it which is still in copyright, ie
>is less than about 100 years old, which is the overwhelming likelihood,
>and should be appreciated.

Yes, but in professionally published music, that fact will be stated, if
relevant. Another example from my music collection shows the composition as
PD, but the arrangement with a copyright date of 1994. This, again, is
necessary information for collective licensing reporting. So the absence of
a separate arrangement copyright is almost always a clear indication that
the only relevant copyright is the composition.

(There can also be separate copyrights in the words and the music. Again,
this is stated if necessary in professionally published sheet music).

Mark

[Norman Wells]

It is not, however, a legal requirement, so can't be relied on in the UK.

Any score published in the UK in the last 100 years or so is very likely
to have some sort of copyright associated with it, whether indicated or
not. It is not therefore 'reasonable for the purchaser to assume that
it is not subject to copyright'.

[Theo]

Presumably the date is relevant when calculating the expiry of the
copyright? No date could mean ambiguity, much cheaper to systematically
date things.

Theo

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 08:09:58 +0000, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:

>On 12/02/2024 00:24, Mark Goodge wrote:

>> Yes, but in professionally published music, that fact will be stated, if
>> relevant. Another example from my music collection shows the composition as
>> PD, but the arrangement with a copyright date of 1994. This, again, is
>> necessary information for collective licensing reporting. So the absence of
>> a separate arrangement copyright is almost always a clear indication that
>> the only relevant copyright is the composition.
>>
>> (There can also be separate copyrights in the words and the music. Again,
>> this is stated if necessary in professionally published sheet music).
>
>It is not, however, a legal requirement, so can't be relied on in the UK.

It's not a legal requirement, no. But it's a practical necessity for the
functioning of a collective licensing scheme. So, in practice, it is so
ubiquitous on commercially published sheet music that purchasers can
reasonably be allowed to draw an inference from its absence.

>Any score published in the UK in the last 100 years or so is very likely
>to have some sort of copyright associated with it, whether indicated or
>not. It is not therefore 'reasonable for the purchaser to assume that
>it is not subject to copyright'.

Any score *first* published in the last 100 years or so is very likely to be
still in copyright. But I would be willing to bet you a reasonable sum of
money that you will not find commercially published sheet music in the UK
that does not include all the applicable copyright statements. Music
publishing in the UK is a fairly niche industry where the industry body, the
Music Publishers Association, has developed a set of common standards for
publishing music that are almost universally adhered to even by non-member
publishers. And one of those is that all the relevant copyright information
must be explicitly stated. Where music is published as part of a collective
licensing scheme (eg, the Schools Printed Music Licence), the provision of
that information is part of the licence requirements. So including it is the
normal, done thing, and consumers of sheet music will be familiar with that.
Which means that they are entitled to assume that the copyright statement(s)
on the published material does contain all the necessary information.

Mark

[Andy Walker]

On 12/02/2024 10:32, Mark Goodge wrote:
> Any score *first* published in the last 100 years or so is very likely to be
> still in copyright. But I would be willing to bet you a reasonable sum of
> money that you will not find commercially published sheet music in the UK
> that does not include all the applicable copyright statements.

Um. I have a decent-sized collection of sheet music [about six
Billy bookcase (!) shelves], and I would take a reasonable bet that at
least half of it has no copyright statement at all. After that, I
suppose it depends what you mean by "applicable". A large majority of
the composers represented have been dead more than 70 years, but a lot
of the pieces have been edited more recently and most of the publishers
are still going strong [though often after mergers, which makes tracing
them non-trivial].

[As near as I can judge from a quick sample, the earliest musical
copyrights in my collection date from ~1910, but I have some pieces
published as late as the 1930s without copyright notices.]

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Raff

[Norman Wells]

On 12/02/2024 13:50, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 12/02/2024 10:32, Mark Goodge wrote:

>> Any score *first* published in the last 100 years or so is very likely
>> to be
>> still in copyright. But I would be willing to bet you a reasonable sum of
>> money that you will not find commercially published sheet music in the UK
>> that does not include all the applicable copyright statements.
>
>     Um.  I have a decent-sized collection of sheet music [about six
> Billy bookcase (!) shelves], and I would take a reasonable bet that at
> least half of it has no copyright statement at all.  After that, I
> suppose it depends what you mean by "applicable".  A large majority of
> the composers represented have been dead more than 70 years, but a lot
> of the pieces have been edited more recently and most of the publishers
> are still going strong [though often after mergers, which makes tracing
> them non-trivial].
>
>     [As near as I can judge from a quick sample, the earliest musical
> copyrights in my collection date from ~1910, but I have some pieces
> published as late as the 1930s without copyright notices.]

Can I claim my 'reasonable sum' then now, please?

[Mark Goodge]

Take a photo of the commercially published sheet music you've got that you
know to be in copyright but doesn't have a copyright statement, post it
somewhere on the web that I can look at it, and then yes, if it's legitimate
I'll pay up.

Mark

[Andy Walker]

On 12/02/2024 14:50, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 12/02/2024 13:50, Andy Walker wrote:
>> On 12/02/2024 10:32, Mark Goodge wrote:

["You" is Norman.]

>>> Any score *first* published in the last 100 years or so is very likely to be
>>> still in copyright. But I would be willing to bet you a reasonable sum of
>>> money that you will not find commercially published sheet music in the UK
>>> that does not include all the applicable copyright statements.
>>      Um.  I have a decent-sized collection of sheet music [about six
>> Billy bookcase (!) shelves], and I would take a reasonable bet that at
>> least half of it has no copyright statement at all.  After that, I

>> suppose it depends what you mean by "applicable". [...]

> Can I claim my 'reasonable sum' then now, please?

You first need Mark to explain what he means by "applicable". Does
he mean copyrights that would have applied on publication, or copyrights
that still unexpired today? The latter would be more difficult to establish;
you'd need a composer/editor whose first pieces date from ~1900 and who lived
to a ripe old age; you could then search his early work.

[billy bookcase]

"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ohrjsilfbtosubgg6...@4ax.com...

Before the advent of photocopying and desk top publishing there would seem
little point in copyrighting sheet music, per se.

Sheet music publishers profits will have derived from marketing and selling
actual physical copies of sheet music to be subsequently performed by both
amateurs and professionals regardless of the actual content. A fairly
niche market.

Given the likely expenses involved there would seem little point in
setting up a rival bootleg music printing operation even for the
most popular songs as purchasers would have no guarantee there
might not be notes missing in the scores etc.

Bootleg publishing in foreign countries without ready access to
legitimate sheet music may have be different matter; although in
that instance the possibility of enforcement on the ground, as
with publishing standards may have been somewhat lacking.


bb


>

[Norman Wells]

I don't have it, but it seems to follow from what Mr Walker claims.

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 13:50:23 +0000, Andy Walker <a...@cuboid.co.uk> wrote:

>On 12/02/2024 10:32, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> Any score *first* published in the last 100 years or so is very likely to be
>> still in copyright. But I would be willing to bet you a reasonable sum of
>> money that you will not find commercially published sheet music in the UK
>> that does not include all the applicable copyright statements.
>
> Um. I have a decent-sized collection of sheet music [about six
>Billy bookcase (!) shelves], and I would take a reasonable bet that at
>least half of it has no copyright statement at all. After that, I
>suppose it depends what you mean by "applicable". A large majority of
>the composers represented have been dead more than 70 years, but a lot
>of the pieces have been edited more recently and most of the publishers
>are still going strong [though often after mergers, which makes tracing
>them non-trivial].

By "applicable" I mean a copyright statement that was correct as of the date
the sheet was printed.

> [As near as I can judge from a quick sample, the earliest musical
>copyrights in my collection date from ~1910, but I have some pieces
>published as late as the 1930s without copyright notices.]

By "published" do you mean the music was first issued to the public in that
year (composition publication), or do you mean that the copy you have was
printed in that year (manuscript publication)? If the latter, then I suspect
that antique music books are not really germane to the matter at hand.

Mark

[Nick Odell]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 13:50:23 +0000, Andy Walker <a...@cuboid.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 12/02/2024 10:32, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> Any score *first* published in the last 100 years or so is very likely to be
>> still in copyright. But I would be willing to bet you a reasonable sum of
>> money that you will not find commercially published sheet music in the UK
>> that does not include all the applicable copyright statements.
>
> Um. I have a decent-sized collection of sheet music [about six
>Billy bookcase (!) shelves], and I would take a reasonable bet that at
>least half of it has no copyright statement at all. After that, I
>suppose it depends what you mean by "applicable". A large majority of
>the composers represented have been dead more than 70 years, but a lot
>of the pieces have been edited more recently and most of the publishers
>are still going strong [though often after mergers, which makes tracing
>them non-trivial].
>
> [As near as I can judge from a quick sample, the earliest musical
>copyrights in my collection date from ~1910, but I have some pieces
>published as late as the 1930s without copyright notices.]

As you are nearer your stash of sheet music than I am mine, I wonder
if you might check something for me? If I were at home I'd be looking
for the copyright statements on some songs and tunes that I know to be
traditional and which I recall the performer has claimed copyright for
without doing any more than performing, unaltered, the traditional
piece. "Composed by Xxxxxxxx" not even "traditional, arranged Xxxxxx."

Obviously Mr/Mrs/Miss/Mx Traditional is not going to rise up from the
grave and sue and it's an obvious way of earning the composer's wodge
when nobody else is going to but, really????

Nick

Nick

[billy bookcase]

"Nick Odell" <nicko...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:qf6lsitlm7ah7vqfh...@4ax.com...

The most notorious example of which was possibly "The House of The
Rising Sun" a traditional ballad, Alan Price, and the limited space
available on record labels. As wikipedia explains

quote

The Animals version was played in 6/8 meter, unlike the 4/4 of most
earlier versions. Arranging credit went only to Alan Price. According
to Burdon, this was simply because there was insufficient room to name
all five band members on the record label, and Alan Price's first
name was first alphabetically. However, this meant that only Price
received songwriter's royalties for the hit, a fact that has caused
bitterness among the other band members ever since.[3][43]

unquote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_House_of_the_Rising_Sun





bb

[Andy Walker]

On 12/02/2024 21:25, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>> Any score *first* published in the last 100 years or so is very likely to be
>>> still in copyright. But I would be willing to bet you a reasonable sum of
>>> money that you will not find commercially published sheet music in the UK
>>> that does not include all the applicable copyright statements.
>> Um. I have a decent-sized collection of sheet music [about six
>> Billy bookcase (!) shelves], and I would take a reasonable bet that at
>> least half of it has no copyright statement at all. After that, I

>> suppose it depends what you mean by "applicable". [...]

> By "applicable" I mean a copyright statement that was correct as of the date
> the sheet was printed.

But a lot of [commercially published] music from before WW1 or even
more recently has no copyright statement at all, even though, AIUI [but IANAL],
it would still have the normal copyright protections under Berne even today.
For an example, I give you early Stravinsky [the first I found at IMSLP, not
one in my personal collection -- I'm not a fan of IS!]: see

https://imslp.org/wiki/4_Etudes,_K009_(Stravinsky,_Igor)

[scroll down to "Selections", then on the next line "1. Con moto" click on
the "View" icon], and note the absence of any copyright notice but also the
red warning "Non-PD EU". If I understand the rules correctly, Stravinsky is
protected until 2042. Does this not win your proposed bet for NW? If there
is some quibble because IS was Russian, you could try Sibelius [until 2028]
or various other slightly less well-known composers.

>> [As near as I can judge from a quick sample, the earliest musical
>> copyrights in my collection date from ~1910, but I have some pieces
>> published as late as the 1930s without copyright notices.]
> By "published" do you mean the music was first issued to the public in that
> year (composition publication), or do you mean that the copy you have was
> printed in that year (manuscript publication)? If the latter, then I suspect
> that antique music books are not really germane to the matter at hand.

I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make. Quite a lot
of printed music has no copyright notice at all, but can still be dated
in various ways. I'm not clear why you think [your example of] a Beethoven
piece edited in 1964 has "all applicable copyrights" but pieces from a few
years earlier are "not really germane" when they have no copyright notice
at all but are [in some cases] still protected in 2024. 1964 is 60 years
back, so you weren't thinking only of recent publications.

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music

Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Sinding

[Tim Jackson]

On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 21:59:19 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...

> It is not just the 'composition' or 'tune', that may be the subject of
> copyright. Copyright may also subsist in the particular transcription
> of it, the arrangement of it on the score etc. Even if the composer
> died many years ago, therefore, as Beethoven did, it does not mean you
> are free to copy anyone's version of it which is still in copyright, ie
> is less than about 100 years old, which is the overwhelming likelihood,
> and should be appreciated.

When you refer to copyright in the "transcription", there may be
confusion between two different copyrights.

One is if there has been significant editing of the original work. So
for example, if someone edits Beethoven to make a simpler version that
is easier for an inexperienced musician to play, that may well benefit
from a new copyright. Life of the editor plus 70 years (which could
exceed 100 years as you say).

The other is that a publisher also has a separate copyright in the
typographical arrangement of a new published edition of an old Beethoven
work. This applies even if musically it is note-for-note identical to
the original. It only covers that particular typographical arrangement,
and only lasts for 25 years from publication.

Copyright etc Act 1988, section 1(1)(c), section 8 and section 15.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/contents

A music publisher can legitimately put a copyright notice on a new
published edition, even if musically it is identical to the original.
Nothing says a publisher has to declare that it only lasts 25 years.

Where it might get murky is if there is an argument about whether a
newly-published edition has sufficient musical changes from the original
to generate a new "life-of-editor-plus-70-years" copyright.
For example:
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2004/1530.html
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/565.html

[Tim Jackson]

On 12 Feb 2024 09:05:20 +0000 (GMT), Theo wrote...

For most things, the copyright expires 70 years from the death of the
author, so is not related to any date in a copyright notice. A notice
may help when claiming damages (as discussed earlier in the thread) but
doesn't necessarily have to include a date.

The original requirement for a notice with the publication date came
from US law before it joined the Berne Convention. Back then, I think
the term of US copyright did depend on the publication date. It does no
harm, and may still be useful there and in non-Berne countries.

[Andy Walker]

On 12/02/2024 22:29, Nick Odell wrote:
> As you are nearer your stash of sheet music than I am mine, I wonder
> if you might check something for me? If I were at home I'd be looking
> for the copyright statements on some songs and tunes that I know to be
> traditional and which I recall the performer has claimed copyright for
> without doing any more than performing, unaltered, the traditional
> piece. "Composed by Xxxxxxxx" not even "traditional, arranged Xxxxxx."

I'd be happy to if I knew how to! I can't think offhand of any
pieces in my collection that fit that description, but that's largely
because I have almost no "folk" music or "pop" music, and therefore v
little with a "performer". Other than Tom Lehrer and Trevor Stanford,
that is; but AFAIK they didn't steal Trad's or Anon's work.

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music

Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Sinding

[Mark Goodge]

My original statement referred to sheet music with a contemporary document
publication date. The example I gave of a 1964 copyright was from an online
source accessed at the time I wrote the statement. Obviously the website, as
a whole, has its own copyright and its own copyright date, but the
indidividual works it makes available all have specific, older copyright
dates (or, in some cases, PD statements).

Mark

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 22:29:26 +0000, Nick Odell <nicko...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>As you are nearer your stash of sheet music than I am mine, I wonder
>if you might check something for me? If I were at home I'd be looking
>for the copyright statements on some songs and tunes that I know to be
>traditional and which I recall the performer has claimed copyright for
>without doing any more than performing, unaltered, the traditional
>piece. "Composed by Xxxxxxxx" not even "traditional, arranged Xxxxxx."

I'm not, offhand, aware of any like that in the music I've got to hand.

>Obviously Mr/Mrs/Miss/Mx Traditional is not going to rise up from the
>grave and sue and it's an obvious way of earning the composer's wodge
>when nobody else is going to but, really????

Claiming copyright on something which is actually out of copyright is
common. Another area in which it happens a lot is digitised photos and
artworks. It's generally accepted that mere format-shifting does not create
a new copyright (although significant post-processing applied to a digital
copy of something can do so), but that doesn't stop people claiming to own
the copyright of old photos that they've scanned and put up for digital sale
on the web. In a lot of cases that's just simple ignorance - many people
genuinely, albeit wrongly, believe that the person who owns a physical
photograph or artwork owns the copyright in it - but there are some who are
deliberately making a claim they know to be false.

The difficulty, as you say, is that there is no rightsholder to take action
against anyone doing that. And in one sense, it doesn't matter, because
anyone who knows the reality can simply ignore the claim. But that doesn't
make it any less annoying.

Mark

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 01:39:13 -0000, Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid>
wrote:

>Where it might get murky is if there is an argument about whether a
>newly-published edition has sufficient musical changes from the original
>to generate a new "life-of-editor-plus-70-years" copyright.
>For example:
>https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2004/1530.html

There can't be many judgments where the opening paragraph refers to events
of 1657 to 1726.

>https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/565.html

And the judge here appears to have coined the word "photocopyists", which I
can't find anywhere else on the web but which nonetheless has a clear and
obvious meaning.

FWIW, I think that both courts got that one right. Even though Sawkins was
explicitly *not* arranging Lalande's music - on the contrary, he was trying
to be as faithful as possible to the original composition - his
transcription of it into modern musical notation was more than just copying,
it was creating something new.

Dr Sawkins appears to be something of an expert in making music of the era
playable by modern orchestras and ensembles. I presume his motto is, if it
ain't Baroque, don't mix it.

Mark

[John Levine]

According to billy bookcase <bi...@anon.com>:

>Before the advent of photocopying and desk top publishing there would seem
>little point in copyrighting sheet music, per se.

In the 1800s perhaps, but by the 1911 act there were records and soon
after there was radio.

[billy bookcase]

"John Levine" <jo...@taugh.com> wrote in message news:uqg7md$m6c$1...@gal.iecc.com...

> According to billy bookcase <bi...@anon.com>:

>>Before the advent of photocopying and desk top publishing there would seem
>>little point in copyrighting sheet music, per se.
>
> In the 1800s perhaps, but by the 1911 act there were records and soon
> after there was radio.

The point at issue, is whether or not, prior to the advent of photocopying
it would have been economical for rivals to market and publish direct copies
of the existing sheet music being published by reputable firms. The
suggestion is not

As soon as a composer or songwriter commits their work to paper
then copyright exists in that work.

This is irrespective of whether that work is subsequently published
by one or more sheet music publishers.

So that the presence or absence of a copyright notice on a particular
piece of sheet music had no bearing whatsoever on whether a recording
company would be entitled to record that music, nor a radio station to
broadcast a subsequent recording.

However in the days of widespread photocopying, it would obviously be
tempting for say amateur orchestras to produce multiple scores
by that means, rather than going to the expense of buying multiple
original copies. Which would be a clear breach of copyright which
would impact directly on the publishers profits; hence the need for
the copyright notice.


bb
>

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 18:57:48 -0000, "billy bookcase" <bi...@anon.com> wrote:

>
>Before the advent of photocopying and desk top publishing there would seem
>little point in copyrighting sheet music, per se.

Copyright in the UK has always been automatic; there has never been any need
to use the word as a verb. But yes, prior to the advent of cheap personal
copying equipment, there was little need to ensure that copyright statements
were prominent on published material. Also, although the concept of
collective licensing agreements dates back to 1914, it didn't really take
off until the 1960s. Collective licensing (whereby you don't need to
explicitly ask for permission to publish or perform the music of a member
rightsholder provided you pay the stipulated royalties) is the basis for the
vast majority of secondary music publishing these days, but one of the
requirements of utilising a collective licensing agreement is that you
include the copyright statement on each work published.

>Sheet music publishers profits will have derived from marketing and selling
>actual physical copies of sheet music to be subsequently performed by both
>amateurs and professionals regardless of the actual content. A fairly
>niche market.

It's not a huge market, but it's not that niche. Pretty much anyone who can
play an instrument and reads music, even if only at beginner level, will
have bought sheet music at some point. This sort of thing sells well enough:

https://amzn.to/4bERPlG

Even those who couldn't read music would probably have bought it in the
past, because they were buying something which contained the music staves as
well as the guitar chords that they really wanted. But that particular
market has pretty much disappeared now with the ready availability of
popular (and even fairly unpopular) music chords on the Internet.

Mark

[John Levine]

According to billy bookcase <bi...@anon.com>:

>> In the 1800s perhaps, but by the 1911 act there were records and soon
>> after there was radio.

>So that the presence or absence of a copyright notice on a particular
>piece of sheet music had no bearing whatsoever on whether a recording
>company would be entitled to record that music, nor a radio station to
>broadcast a subsequent recording.

Nor whether someone else can reprint the sheet music. What's the difference?

>However in the days of widespread photocopying, it would obviously be
>tempting for say amateur orchestras to produce multiple scores
>by that means, rather than going to the expense of buying multiple
>original copies. Which would be a clear breach of copyright which
>would impact directly on the publishers profits; hence the need for
>the copyright notice.

Having been in several church and secular choirs, I can assure you
that they are quite aware of the rules around copying sheet music,
with or without a notice. That's not to say they always follow the
rules, but it's not for lack of notice.

[billy bookcase]

"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message

news:s1knsidveovtvtarb...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 18:57:48 -0000, "billy bookcase" <bi...@anon.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Before the advent of photocopying and desk top publishing there would seem
>>little point in copyrighting sheet music, per se.
>
> Copyright in the UK has always been automatic; there has never been any need
> to use the word as a verb. But yes, prior to the advent of cheap personal
> copying equipment, there was little need to ensure that copyright statements
> were prominent on published material. Also, although the concept of
> collective licensing agreements dates back to 1914, it didn't really take
> off until the 1960s. Collective licensing (whereby you don't need to
> explicitly ask for permission to publish or perform the music of a member
> rightsholder provided you pay the stipulated royalties) is the basis for the
> vast majority of secondary music publishing these days, but one of the
> requirements of utilising a collective licensing agreement is that you
> include the copyright statement on each work published.
>
>>Sheet music publishers profits will have derived from marketing and selling
>>actual physical copies of sheet music to be subsequently performed by both
>>amateurs and professionals regardless of the actual content. A fairly
>>niche market.
>
> It's not a huge market, but it's not that niche. Pretty much anyone who can
> play an instrument and reads music, even if only at beginner level, will
> have bought sheet music at some point. This sort of thing sells well enough:

>
> https://amzn.to/4bERPlG

Well yes. But that's nowadays with the internet.

The sales of sheet music would always have been niche because presumably
there would have been relatively few sales outlets for it. Possibly the same
places people bought their musical instruments. Or "respectable" vendors
like W.H.Smith. And while quite possibly some smaller newsagents might have
also carried a line in popular sheet music for the pianos in the front rooms
I'd imagine this market would have been pretty well tied up by sales
representatives of the major publishers. Who would soon have reported back
to HQ on the arrival of any new, possibly illegitimate, kids on the block.


bb

[billy bookcase]

"John Levine" <jo...@taugh.com> wrote in message news:uqglrm$2btc$1...@gal.iecc.com...

> According to billy bookcase <bi...@anon.com>:
>>> In the 1800s perhaps, but by the 1911 act there were records and soon
>>> after there was radio.
>>So that the presence or absence of a copyright notice on a particular
>>piece of sheet music had no bearing whatsoever on whether a recording
>>company would be entitled to record that music, nor a radio station to
>>broadcast a subsequent recording.
>
> Nor whether someone else can reprint the sheet music. What's the difference?

Because as was stated before (as indeed with recording) it would have taken
substantial resources to both produce and market bootleg sheet music even so
as cover the costs to an essentialy "niche market" Where any infringement
would most likely soon come to the attention of legitimate publishers with far
greater resoruces who were already supplying their "trusted" product to the
niche market.

>
>>However in the days of widespread photocopying, it would obviously be
>>tempting for say amateur orchestras to produce multiple scores
>>by that means, rather than going to the expense of buying multiple
>>original copies. Which would be a clear breach of copyright which
>>would impact directly on the publishers profits; hence the need for
>>the copyright notice.
>
> Having been in several church and secular choirs, I can assure you
> that they are quite aware of the rules around copying sheet music,
> with or without a notice. That's not to say they always follow the
> rules, but it's not for lack of notice.

So they make photocopies in other words. Which before the advent of
photocopiers would have been impossible. The point I am making is that
copyright can reside just as much in the actual typographical layout
of the sheet music as in the music itself

quote:

So, even though a text may be considered out of copyright, the layout
produced by a publisher for a particular edition receives copyright
protection.

:unquote

https://www.uwe.ac.uk/study/library/using-the-library/printing-and-copying/comply-with-copyright-law/what-is-copyright


bb

[Theo]

Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
> For most things, the copyright expires 70 years from the death of the
> author, so is not related to any date in a copyright notice. A notice
> may help when claiming damages (as discussed earlier in the thread) but
> doesn't necessarily have to include a date.

Does that apply to a newspaper website? Some items have bylines, some
don't. The articles often have multiple authors, editors, etc, who each
generate a copyright in the work that they do.

The people doing the writing presumably assign the copyright to their
employer as part of their contract of employment, and don't receive any
later royalties. In other words, the works aren't (c) Charles Dickens,
they're (c) Associated Newspapers Ltd. If Associated Newspapers or their
IP-holding descendant is still around in 70 years time, how does the date of
death rule work?

(Presumably Mr Dickens' works also had editors etc - how does it work if his
understudy actually wrote part of Chapter 5? Does the copyright not expire
until 70 years after the death of the understudy?)

Theo

[Norman Wells]

It works as set out in Section 12 of the Copyright Designs and Patents
Act 1988:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/12

It's ludicrously complicated and indeterminate, and the whole matter of
copyright law needs to be considered again from scratch, especially
given the absolute ease of copying anything now. There is no
justification for copyright lasting anything like as long as it does
(originally justified as being for two generations after the author's
death), which is many times longer than a patent for an invention for
example. However, we are bound, as are most other countries, by the
Berne Convention, and it's most unlikely that anything will ever be done
about it. In the meantime, it will increasingly fall into disrepute and
be ignored despite futile attempts to rein it in again which are
ultimately doomed to fail.

[Simon Parker]

I have nothing of note to add, but I have to acknowledge the "If it
ain't Baroque, don't mix it" line.

I doff my symbolic cap in your general direction, sir.

Regards

S.P.

[Mark Goodge]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 10:45:14 -0000, "billy bookcase" <bi...@anon.com> wrote:

>
>"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:s1knsidveovtvtarb...@4ax.com...
>>

>> It's not a huge market, but it's not that niche. Pretty much anyone who can
>> play an instrument and reads music, even if only at beginner level, will
>> have bought sheet music at some point. This sort of thing sells well enough:
>>
>> https://amzn.to/4bERPlG
>
>Well yes. But that's nowadays with the internet.
>
>The sales of sheet music would always have been niche because presumably
>there would have been relatively few sales outlets for it.

On the contrary, pretty much any bookshop would have had a music section.
That's where I used to buy mine, pre-Internet. Music shops would have had it
as well, of course, but they were a long way from being the only outlet.

Book shops in general, of course, have been a big casualty of online retail,
and those which remain have mostly dropped music books from their range -
not just because of online sales of the type of publication I linked to, but
also because of the growth in print-at-home digital copy sales, and even
digital-only versions that you view on a screen rather than on paper - but,
historically, music books were just one of many genres they would have sold.

Just over 10% of the population is functionally competant at playing an
instrument, and does so regularly either for personal pleasure or for
performance. Pre-Covid that was on a general downward trend, although
there's evidence that lockdown signifcantly boosted it, at least in the
short term. Historically, it was higher. Pre-war, if you were middle class
and couldn't play an instrument (typically, the piano) then you'd have been
the outlier. So music sales were also historically higher than they are now.
There was easily enough demand to sustain sales through non-specialist
retailers. Music sales have become more, not less, niche as a result of the
Internet.

>I'd imagine this market would have been pretty well tied up by sales
>representatives of the major publishers. Who would soon have reported back
>to HQ on the arrival of any new, possibly illegitimate, kids on the block.

I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm merely pointing out that your impression
of music publication as some obscure, tiny niche market is inaccurate.

(I don't know if you're familiar with the common social media meme, but your
responses in this subthread are all perfect examples of "Tell me you're not
a musician without telling me you're not a musician").

Mark

[Tim Jackson]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 16:20:08 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote...

>
> Dr Sawkins appears to be something of an expert in making music of the era
> playable by modern orchestras and ensembles. I presume his motto is, if it
> ain't Baroque, don't mix it.

<groan>
Oh dear...

[Tim Jackson]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 13:00:26 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...

[Copyright expiry]

> It works as set out in Section 12 of the Copyright Designs and Patents
> Act 1988:
>
> https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/12
>

> It's ludicrously complicated and indeterminate....

> There is no justification for copyright lasting anything like as long

> as it does....

> However, we are bound, as are most other countries, by the Berne
> Convention, and it's most unlikely that anything will ever be done

> about it....

A significant part of the complexity is to specify shorter durations
than life of author plus 70 years in particular circumstances.

For example, where the author is unknown, so life plus 70 would be
indeterminate. That actually makes it more determinate, not less.

Also, Berne only requires life plus 50 years, whereas many major
countries nowadays give life plus 70.

This is the reason for subsection (6), which says that works
originating in other countries only get UK copyright for 70 years if
they give it to us.

[billy bookcase]

"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message

news:2gfpsidg1nru0c90v...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 10:45:14 -0000, "billy bookcase" <bi...@anon.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:s1knsidveovtvtarb...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> It's not a huge market, but it's not that niche. Pretty much anyone who can
>>> play an instrument and reads music, even if only at beginner level, will
>>> have bought sheet music at some point. This sort of thing sells well enough:
>>>
>>> https://amzn.to/4bERPlG
>>
>>Well yes. But that's nowadays with the internet.
>>
>>The sales of sheet music would always have been niche because presumably
>>there would have been relatively few sales outlets for it.
>
> On the contrary, pretty much any bookshop would have had a music section.
> That's where I used to buy mine, pre-Internet. Music shops would have had it
> as well, of course, but they were a long way from being the only outlet.
>
> Book shops in general, of course, have been a big casualty of online retail,
> and those which remain have mostly dropped music books from their range -
> not just because of online sales of the type of publication I linked to, but
> also because of the growth in print-at-home digital copy sales, and even
> digital-only versions that you view on a screen rather than on paper - but,
> historically, music books were just one of many genres they would have sold.

O.K let's try another approach, Python

def bar room scene(cleese,palin):

The scene is a bar in a tavern or a pub at any time between say
1870 - 1950

Cleese is standing at the bar quaffing something or other,

Pssssst ! Psssst ! He looks in the direction of the sound
and there is a shifty looking Palin clutching a carrier bag.

Palin "Oi Guv wanna buy some cheap sheet music ?"

Cleese. "Maybe. What have you got ?"

Palin looks in the bag

Palin " Well Gov I've got Rachmaninoffs 3rd piano concerto
and God Save the King!"

Cleese " Right Oh lets have a look at the Rachmaninoffs 3rd Piano
Concerto, and how much is it ?

Palin hands it over "That there's 7/6 in the shops Guv; but to
you only two bob"

Cleese looks therough the score. "Hold on there's no woodwind in
here and where are the drums ?"

Palin "Come on what do expect for two bob ? There's really no
pleasing some people is there ?

Cleese hands it back " OK lets have a look at God Save the King"

Palin "To you guv a tanner. Two bob in the shops that one.

Cleese "Hold on, This is 1912. How comes its says "God Save the
Queen" on the front and all the way through ? its even spelt Quoon
in the fourth chorus.

Palin: Well you obviously have to improvise, pencil in King over
the top. What do you expect for a tanner ? All right you're
twisting my arm here, but to you guv, tuppence



bb

[Norman Wells]

If there is any justification at all for such terms, why should it
*ever* end?

A perpetual term would at least provide certainty, and could be
justified on the basis that no-one is entitled just to take someone
else's creativity for their own benefit.

As it is, it's an absolute mess based on no discernible or supportable
principle.

[Mark Goodge]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 14:56:09 -0000, "billy bookcase" <bi...@anon.com> wrote:

>
>"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message

>news:2gfpsidg1nru0c90v...@4ax.com...

>> On the contrary, pretty much any bookshop would have had a music section.
>> That's where I used to buy mine, pre-Internet. Music shops would have had it
>> as well, of course, but they were a long way from being the only outlet.
>>
>> Book shops in general, of course, have been a big casualty of online retail,
>> and those which remain have mostly dropped music books from their range -
>> not just because of online sales of the type of publication I linked to, but
>> also because of the growth in print-at-home digital copy sales, and even
>> digital-only versions that you view on a screen rather than on paper - but,
>> historically, music books were just one of many genres they would have sold.
>
>O.K let's try another approach, Python

[snip]

Even after re-reading that several times, I have absolutely no idea what
point you are trying to make.

Mark

[billy bookcase]

"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message

news:qndqsitravsb9ohsc...@4ax.com...

That while there would have been plenty of legitimate outlets of all sorts
for the sheet music published by reputable publishers, which nobody has ever
disputed, there would have very few if any outlets for pirated sheet music.
Unlike other illegitimate stolen/counterfeit goods, which were often sold
in pubs.

This was the point about it being a niche market. Buyers only ever bought
legitimate sheet music from legitimate sellers. Simply because they
would be largely be unaware of counterfeit sheet music, even if it existed.
As any attempt to market it would soon come to the attention of the
major publishers.

Hence my original point that in the absence of pirated sheet music there
was little point in legitimate publishers appending copyright notices to
their offerings.

Which changed with the advent of photocopying which allowed the
unscrupulous to produce copies at will.


bb

[Tim Jackson]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 18:25:57 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...

So, in summary:

(a) Norman complains about how long copyright lasts. But then says that
a perpetual term would be better than the current situation.

(b) Norman complains about how complicated and indeterminate it is. But
then fails to address the explanation about how the complications arise
from situations where the term is made shorter and more determinate.

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not saying that the normal 70 year term
is right or wrong. I'm just pointing out the illogicality of Norman's
position.

[Mark Goodge]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 22:58:56 -0000, "billy bookcase" <bi...@anon.com> wrote:

>
>"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message

>news:qndqsitravsb9ohsc...@4ax.com...

>> Even after re-reading that several times, I have absolutely no idea what
>> point you are trying to make.
>
>That while there would have been plenty of legitimate outlets of all sorts
>for the sheet music published by reputable publishers, which nobody has ever
>disputed, there would have very few if any outlets for pirated sheet music.
>Unlike other illegitimate stolen/counterfeit goods, which were often sold
>in pubs.

A point with which I have not disagreed.

>This was the point about it being a niche market. Buyers only ever bought
>legitimate sheet music from legitimate sellers. Simply because they
>would be largely be unaware of counterfeit sheet music, even if it existed.
>As any attempt to market it would soon come to the attention of the
>major publishers.

But it's not a particularly niche market. People didn't sell counterfeit
copies of novels or newspapers, either. And nobody would describe those as
niche markets.

>Hence my original point that in the absence of pirated sheet music there
>was little point in legitimate publishers appending copyright notices to
>their offerings.

Again, I have not disputed that. I'm merely disagreeing with your
description of music publishing as "niche", when in fact it has always been
a significant part of the publishing sector.

Mark

[Andy Walker]

On 13/02/2024 15:33, Mark Goodge wrote:
> My original statement referred to sheet music with a contemporary document
> publication date. The example I gave of a 1964 copyright was from an online
> source accessed at the time I wrote the statement. Obviously the website, as
> a whole, has its own copyright and its own copyright date, but the
> indidividual works it makes available all have specific, older copyright
> dates (or, in some cases, PD statements).

Obviously I don't know which site you're referring to, but if they
are selling older music then ITYWF that almost anything published before ~1910
[and some published into the 1930s] will not have a printed copyright notice.
/Most/ of that will /now/ be PD, but /some/ isn't. If there has been a new
edition, then that may, as in the example you gave, have a modern copyright,
but that's unusual for the sort of music I personally tend to buy [which I
admit is not the common taste].

As an addendum, the same applies to books; but whereas it is common
for composers to start young, say 20-ish, so that a composer born ~1890 and
living to age 80-odd is quite likely to have unnoticed works still in copyright,
authors usually start later and so works still in copyright [despite lack of a
notice] will be correspondingly rarer.

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music

Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Pridham

[Andy Walker]

On 14/02/2024 10:45, billy bookcase wrote:
> The sales of sheet music would always have been niche because presumably
> there would have been relatively few sales outlets for it.

Just to agree with MarkG's analysis in a nearby article: in the
days before radio and TV, people made their own entertainment. Pianos were
as ubiquitous in 1900 as TVs are today. Correspondingly, sheet music sold
in the same sorts of quantity as records or CDs more recently. Worth noting
too that music became very cheap in the late Victorian and Edwardian era;
whereas books [before paperbacks] cost shillings, piano music and popular
songs often sold for pence [printed on very cheap paper and unbound]. Some
was more expensive, of course.

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music

Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Mayer

[billy bookcase]

"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message

news:5uursi5inrs9q8ur8...@4ax.com...

>
> But it's not a particularly niche market. People didn't sell counterfeit
> copies of novels or newspapers, either. And nobody would describe those as
> niche markets.

For a start far more people read newspapers than read novels. And there
would be no point in printing counterfeit newspapers as the news would
be out of date before they even hit the street.

So that leaves novels. Clearly in this present day and age with them
being sold in supermarkets novels clearly aren't a niche market
any more . And maybe slightly better off people have been buying novels
in Penguin since the late 30's. The first publishers to do paperback
deals with "serious" authors

Nevertheless the majority of novels will have been borrowed from
libraries either Public Libraries or private in the case of say Boots.
And my local Public Library also stocked sheet music up until around
maybe 20 years ago.

>
>>Hence my original point that in the absence of pirated sheet music there
>>was little point in legitimate publishers appending copyright notices to
>>their offerings.
>
> Again, I have not disputed that. I'm merely disagreeing with your
> description of music publishing as "niche", when in fact it has always been
> a significant part of the publishing sector.

Indeed But how far has the publishing sector impacted on many people's lives
apart from maybe formerly newspapers and magazines ? And are you really
going to insist, that that many people really did have a piano in the
front room. Or blew (their own) trumpets etc. etc. ?


bb

[Norman Wells]

Yes, and ...?

There's no inconsistency or illogicality there.

> (b) Norman complains about how complicated and indeterminate it is.

Yes. It is.

> But then fails to address the explanation about how the complications arise
> from situations where the term is made shorter and more determinate.

Complications existed before. On your own admission, they still do.

Who but an idiot would base a legal term on the year of the unpublicised
and unrecorded death of an author who, maybe a hundred years or more on,
very often can't be identified with accuracy anyway, and is long gone,
with no easy determination or discovery of the current owner?

It's absurd. And nothing short of root and branch reform can correct it.

> For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not saying that the normal 70 year term
> is right or wrong. I'm just pointing out the illogicality of Norman's
> position.

There is no illogicality at all. A perpetual term would be better than
the current position but is not the answer.

[billy bookcase]

"Andy Walker" <a...@cuboid.co.uk> wrote in message news:uqlrfr$3f8os$2...@dont-email.me...

.
> Pianos were as ubiquitous in 1900 as TVs are today.

And so were tin baths

While I have no doubt that pianos were probably a lot more
popular at the time than is commonly supposed, I very much doubt
they were *that* popular; given their cost and living conditions
at the time

quote:

Culture has changed over the last century, but so has home,
to such an extent that one might reasonably question whether
it is the same thing. A home without IKEA, without electronic
or communication devices, with very few labour-saving devices,
no frozen food or detergents, in the same street if not the same
house as extended families. Homes were often cramped: a century ago,
for millions of people, home was one or two rooms for five or
six people, who might be extended family or lodgers. Poverty
was very common: a quarter of the people who died in London in
1901 were buried at the expense of the parish (Pearsall 1973:20).
Poor children wore no shoes, working hours were long, and
unemployment frequent. All these social conditions are bound
to affect leisure in the home

:unquote

https://normandie-univ.hal.science/hal-02561889/document

From

”Music in the home in Britain, 1900 to 1925”
John Mullen

A very informative link; with coloured illustrations of
highly decorative sheet music covers on pps 19,20

Although obviously things got better as the century progressed; as
did also ownership of gramophones and radios.

> Correspondingly, sheet music sold
> in the same sorts of quantity as records or CDs more recently.
> Worth noting too that music became very cheap in the late Victorian and
> Edwardian era; whereas books [before paperbacks] cost shillings, piano
> music and popular songs often sold for pence [printed on very cheap
> paper and unbound]. Some was more expensive, of course.

Many possibly bought as much for the lyrics, as for the music.
It's easy to forget that in pre-Internet days the lyrics of popular
songs or just the top 20 hits weren't so readily available. Presumably
being rigorously licensed. In the 50's and 60's there was one popular
weekly magazine maybe "Reveille", one of whose features was the inclusion
of the words of a current hit. .


bb

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 13:09:34 -0000, "billy bookcase" <bi...@anon.com> wrote:

>
>"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:5uursi5inrs9q8ur8...@4ax.com...
>>

>> Again, I have not disputed that. I'm merely disagreeing with your
>> description of music publishing as "niche", when in fact it has always been
>> a significant part of the publishing sector.
>
>Indeed But how far has the publishing sector impacted on many people's lives
>apart from maybe formerly newspapers and magazines ? And are you really
>going to insist, that that many people really did have a piano in the
>front room. Or blew (their own) trumpets etc. etc. ?

I wouldn't go quite as far as Andy Walker in his parallel reply where he
stated that pianos were once as ubiquitous as TVs are today. I suspect that,
as you suggest, tin baths were more popular :-)

But, certainly, prior to the widespeard availability of recorded music
almost every middle class household had a piano (or sometimes an organ),
even if only a relatively cheap one. And anyone who had been to grammar
school would be able to read music. Even now, around 10% of the population
are in the target market for music publishers, and it has been much higher
in the past.

Mark

[billy bookcase]

"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message

news:7cfvsitpcvmasu391...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 13:09:34 -0000, "billy bookcase" <bi...@anon.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:5uursi5inrs9q8ur8...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> Again, I have not disputed that. I'm merely disagreeing with your
>>> description of music publishing as "niche", when in fact it has always been
>>> a significant part of the publishing sector.
>>
>>Indeed But how far has the publishing sector impacted on many people's lives
>>apart from maybe formerly newspapers and magazines ? And are you really
>>going to insist, that that many people really did have a piano in the
>>front room. Or blew (their own) trumpets etc. etc. ?
>
> I wouldn't go quite as far as Andy Walker in his parallel reply where he
> stated that pianos were once as ubiquitous as TVs are today. I suspect that,
> as you suggest, tin baths were more popular :-)
>
> But, certainly, prior to the widespeard availability of recorded music
> almost every middle class household had a piano (or sometimes an organ),
> even if only a relatively cheap one. And anyone who had been to grammar
> school would be able to read music.

The highlight of my musical education was probably witnessing the music
teacher hammering out "Nut Rocker" (by Bee Bumble and the Stingers)
on the piano, in the music room. During a class.

> Even now, around 10% of the population
> are in the target market for music publishers, and it has been much higher
> in the past.

Fair enough. And also I suspect as with incest, musical activity possibly
also runs in families. And that as with books, if there are already musical
indtuments in the home, that can act as an incentive.


bb