Copyright status of music transcription
Ian Chard
If I transcribe (by ear) a score from a recorded performance of a
musical work, and both the work and the recording are protected by
copyright, what is the copyright status of my transcription? Would I be
permitted to distribute it (at no charge)?
Assume for the sake of argument that the original score has never been
published (if this matters; I suspect it doesn't).
Thanks
- Ian
Tim Jackson
> If I transcribe (by ear) a score from a recorded performance of a
> musical work, and both the work and the recording are protected by
> copyright, what is the copyright status of my transcription?
I think you would have a separate copyright of your own in the
transcription. This is by analogy with the case law [1] which says that
a newspaper had copyright in a verbatim shorthand report which their
reporter took of a politician's speech.
[1] Walter v. Lane [1900] AC 539
> Would I be
> permitted to distribute it (at no charge)?
You would need permission from the owner of the copyright in the
original musical work, as you would be reproducing it. They might
refuse, or make a charge.
However, I don't think you would need permission from the owners of the
copyright in the sound recording.
--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>Hi,
>
>If I transcribe (by ear) a score from a recorded performance of a
>musical work, and both the work and the recording are protected by
>copyright, what is the copyright status of my transcription? Would I be
>permitted to distribute it (at no charge)?
The transcription is your own copyright. But that doesn't mean you can
distribute it, as it's a derivateive work based on another copyright
work. Assuming that the composer is either still alive or died less
than 70 years ago, then making and distributing the transcription
would be an infringement of the copyright held by the composer of the
work. It would not be an infringement of any copyright or performance
right in the recording. If the composer has been dead for more than 70
years then the score is in the public domain and no copyright can be
infringed by publishing a transcription.
>Assume for the sake of argument that the original score has never been
>published (if this matters; I suspect it doesn't).
It does matter if the work was composed before 1996, and if it was
then it can be quite complex.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 19:55:07 +0000, Ian Chard wrote...
>
>> If I transcribe (by ear) a score from a recorded performance of a
>> musical work, and both the work and the recording are protected by
>> copyright, what is the copyright status of my transcription?
>
>I think you would have a separate copyright of your own in the
>transcription. This is by analogy with the case law [1] which says that
>a newspaper had copyright in a verbatim shorthand report which their
>reporter took of a politician's speech.
Yes, that's pretty much established in the world of music,
particularly in the popular/folk/jazz/etc idioms where a lot of
published scores are transcripts of a performance rather than being
written down by the composer (who usually composed it at the
instrument rather than on paper). Creating an accurate transcript from
a performance is a highly skilled task, and a transcriber is certainly
entitled to copyright protection of his/her work. However, the
transcriber can't publish the transcription without the permission of
the composer, as to do so without permission would be a breach of
copyright in the composition.
Tim Jackson
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 19:55:07 +0000, Ian Chard put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
>
> >published (if this matters; I suspect it doesn't).
>
> It does matter if the work was composed before 1996, and if it was
> then it can be quite complex.
Why do you say that, Mark?
Are you thinking about the extension of the duration of copyright from
life of author plus 50 years to life of author plus 70 years? If the
composer (author) died between 1926 and 1946, then his expired copyright
could have been revived in 1996. But the OP's scenario tells us that
the copyright is currently in force, so it doesn't really matter if that
happened.
Or are you thinking in terms of publication right? That only arises if
the work is first published after the original copyright has expired,
which doesn't fit the OP's scenario.
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 21:25:06 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote...
>> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 19:55:07 +0000, Ian Chard put finger to keyboard
>> and typed:
>>
>> >Assume for the sake of argument that the original score has never been
>> >published (if this matters; I suspect it doesn't).
>>
>> It does matter if the work was composed before 1996, and if it was
>> then it can be quite complex.
>
>Why do you say that, Mark?
Because that's pretty much what it says here:
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-duration/c-duration-faq/c-duration-faq-unpublished.htm
Tim Jackson
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 22:30:40 +0000, Tim Jackson put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
>
> >On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 21:25:06 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote...
> >> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 19:55:07 +0000, Ian Chard put finger to keyboard
> >> and typed:
> >>
> >> >Assume for the sake of argument that the original score has never been
> >> >published (if this matters; I suspect it doesn't).
> >>
> >> It does matter if the work was composed before 1996, and if it was
> >> then it can be quite complex.
> >
> >Why do you say that, Mark?
>
> Because that's pretty much what it says here:
>
> http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-duration/c-duration-faq/c-duration-faq-unpublished.htm
This relates to the points I made, about the duration of the copyright,
and the possible publication right if the work was still unpublished
when the original copyright expired.
However, unless the composer died quite a long time ago, the musical
work will still be protected today. Assuming it is, then the answer to
the OP's question doesn't depend on whether it has been published, as he
guessed.
The complexity you are seeing relates to working out exactly how long
the protection lasts for. But I don't think it really affects the
answer to the OP's question.
one_riff_brian
> Hi,
>
> If I transcribe (by ear) a score from a recorded performance of a
> musical work, and both the work and the recording are protected by
> copyright, what is the copyright status of my transcription? Would I be
> permitted to distribute it (at no charge)?
A very sore point......AIUI, you'd have a copyright on what would be a
derivative work from the phonographic recording, but the original
composers would be entitled to a negotiated cut if you distributed it.
This flared up in 2005...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4508158.stm
...and a lot of the tab/chord/lyric sites- a lifeblood resource for
the next generation of musicians-got locked up by growling lawyers.
Since then, this site has emerged:
Which gives the music industry what they're legally entitled to- a new
revenue stream for no new market development, creative, or quality
control input- all the content is generated benevolently.
This Russian site, OTOH:
http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/
Gives the mu$ic indu$try what it deserves- the middle finger.
Don't get me started..........
Stuart A. Bronstein
> Ian Chard <i...@chard.org> wrote:
>>
>> If I transcribe (by ear) a score from a recorded performance of
>> a musical work, and both the work and the recording are
>> protected by copyright, what is the copyright status of my
>> transcription? Would I be permitted to distribute it (at no
>> charge)?
>
> A very sore point......AIUI, you'd have a copyright on what
> would be a derivative work from the phonographic recording, but
> the original composers would be entitled to a negotiated cut if
> you distributed it. This flared up in 2005...
Doesn't there have to be some creativity involved to have any
copyright at all? What creativity is involved with simply copying
down something someone has already done (albeit taking a certain
talent or knowledge to do so)?
Seems to me that would be like copying a book using a different type
font (not of your creation), and claiming copyright in the "new"
book.
Tim Jackson
> Doesn't there have to be some creativity involved to have any
> copyright at all? What creativity is involved with simply copying
> down something someone has already done (albeit taking a certain
> talent or knowledge to do so)?
I believe you're in the USA, Stuart. US and UK copyright laws treat
so-called "sweat of the brow" cases differently.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow
The Walter v. Lane case I referred to earlier is an example.
> Seems to me that would be like copying a book using a different type
> font (not of your creation), and claiming copyright in the "new"
> book.
Which, at least in the UK, would give rise to a 25 year copyright in the
new typographic arrangement.
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-applies/c-pubeditions.htm
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-duration/c-published.htm
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>one_riff_brian <brianh...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Ian Chard <i...@chard.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> If I transcribe (by ear) a score from a recorded performance of
>>> a musical work, and both the work and the recording are
>>> protected by copyright, what is the copyright status of my
>>> transcription? Would I be permitted to distribute it (at no
>>> charge)?
>>
>> A very sore point......AIUI, you'd have a copyright on what
>> would be a derivative work from the phonographic recording, but
>> the original composers would be entitled to a negotiated cut if
>> you distributed it. This flared up in 2005...
>
>Doesn't there have to be some creativity involved to have any
>copyright at all? What creativity is involved with simply copying
>down something someone has already done (albeit taking a certain
>talent or knowledge to do so)?
If something requires effort or skill to create, then that meets the
necessary test for originality in the derivative work. And
transcribing a score or a tab takes a *lot* of skill.
>Seems to me that would be like copying a book using a different type
>font (not of your creation), and claiming copyright in the "new"
>book.
You would indeed have copyright in the printed version of your work.
That's why photocopying a book, even if the text is in the public
domain, is still a breach of copyright.
Ian Chard
Many thanks to everyone who replied. I probably should have said that
the composer is living and the music is only a few years old.
The point about creativity is an interesting one. When transcribing any
non-trivial performance, the transcriber must make many decisions about
prescribed vs interpreted features, score readability, and other
technical matters. In this sense it is more akin to editing in that a
new edition is the end result, and is IMHO not analogous to the example
of reprinting a book in a different typeface. Of course I am biased :-)
I think the phrase 'derivative work' sums it up nicely and I shall
proceed with due caution.
- Ian
Tim Jackson
> I think the phrase 'derivative work' sums it up nicely and I shall
> proceed with due caution
Whilst perhaps apt to describe the situation, the phrase 'derivative
work' comes from US law and does not have any legal meaning in this
country.
For most types of work, UK law merely looks at whether the new work
(such as a transcription, for example) has suffficent originality to
qualify for copyright in its own right. If it qualifies, the new
copyright is treated the same as any other, derivative or not. And the
threshold for originality is quite low, as we have discussed.
There are some types of work where even this low threshold of
originality is not required. Examples include sound recordings, and the
typographical arrangement of a published edition of another work.
Copyright is automatic for these, as long as it is not just a copy of a
previous sound recording or typographical arrangement.
RobertL
>
> If I transcribe (by ear) a score from a recorded performance of a
> musical work, and both the work and the recording are protected by
> copyright, what is the copyright status of my transcription? Would I be
> permitted to distribute it (at no charge)?
reminds me of the story of Mozart and Allegri miserere. You could
only hear this work in the vatican and the music was kept secret -
until Mozart visited and heard it, wrote it out from memory and
published it.
R
Stuart A. Bronstein
> Stuart A. Bronstein wrote...
>> Doesn't there have to be some creativity involved to have any
>> copyright at all? What creativity is involved with simply
>> copying down something someone has already done (albeit taking
>> a certain talent or knowledge to do so)?
>
> I believe you're in the USA, Stuart. US and UK copyright laws
> treat so-called "sweat of the brow" cases differently.
Thanks, I'd forgotten that.
Humbug
<spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>one_riff_brian <brianh...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Ian Chard <i...@chard.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> If I transcribe (by ear) a score from a recorded performance of
>>> a musical work, and both the work and the recording are
>>> protected by copyright, what is the copyright status of my
>>> transcription? Would I be permitted to distribute it (at no
>>> charge)?
>>
>> A very sore point......AIUI, you'd have a copyright on what
>> would be a derivative work from the phonographic recording, but
>> the original composers would be entitled to a negotiated cut if
>> you distributed it. This flared up in 2005...
>
>Doesn't there have to be some creativity involved to have any
>copyright at all? What creativity is involved with simply copying
>down something someone has already done (albeit taking a certain
>talent or knowledge to do so)?
You're American, aren't you?
>Seems to me that would be like copying a book using a different type
>font (not of your creation), and claiming copyright in the "new"
>book.
As American publishers have been doing for a couple of centuries.
Bah!
--
Humbug
Humbug
wrote:
I suspect that copyright law hadn't been invented before 1770 - hence
the secrecy.
Even in the 18th and 19th centuries, using someone else's tunes in
your own work was often considered as flattery rather than plagiarism.
Nowadays, it seems to be alomost compulsory, which is Not A Good
Thing.
--
Humbug
smr
Can there be copyright where there is no tangible recording? (Where the
piece is composed on the instrument, for example)
Mark Goodge
typed:
>Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 21:10:08 +0000, Tim Jackson put finger to keyboard
>> and typed:
>>
>>> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 19:55:07 +0000, Ian Chard wrote...
>>>
>>>> If I transcribe (by ear) a score from a recorded performance of a
>>>> musical work, and both the work and the recording are protected by
>>>> copyright, what is the copyright status of my transcription?
>>> I think you would have a separate copyright of your own in the
>>> transcription. This is by analogy with the case law [1] which says that
>>> a newspaper had copyright in a verbatim shorthand report which their
>>> reporter took of a politician's speech.
>>
>> Yes, that's pretty much established in the world of music,
>> particularly in the popular/folk/jazz/etc idioms where a lot of
>> published scores are transcripts of a performance rather than being
>> written down by the composer (who usually composed it at the
>> instrument rather than on paper). Creating an accurate transcript from
>> a performance is a highly skilled task, and a transcriber is certainly
>> entitled to copyright protection of his/her work. However, the
>> transcriber can't publish the transcription without the permission of
>> the composer, as to do so without permission would be a breach of
>> copyright in the composition.
>
>Can there be copyright where there is no tangible recording? (Where the
>piece is composed on the instrument, for example)
The method of composition is irrelevent, but the work must be "fixed"
to be subject to copyright. A piece that is only ever played live
entirely from memory, is never recorded, and is never written down in
any form, isn't subject to copyright. But the moment it is recorded -
either on paper, or electronically - then it is subject to copyright.
smr
Yeah, but copyright is possessed by the person who makes the recording
of the creative thought as opposed to the creator of the thought. This
is one reason why academics are required to submit written copies of
their presentations to conferences in advance, because the act of making
the first tangible recording grants copyright and you want to avoid
leaving that to the people in the audience taking notes of your ad
libbed speech. It'd be interesting to see how this would compete with a
contractual agreement with an employer for the rights to research done
on their time.
My issue is why would it breach copyright for a person who possesses
copyright, by virtue of making the first tangible recording of a work,
to distribute the work? I'd say all the composer has to rely on there is
a vague extra-legal "moral right" to the composition.
Mark Goodge
typed:
>Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 14:50:08 +0000, smr put finger to keyboard and
>> typed:
>>>>
>>> Can there be copyright where there is no tangible recording? (Where the
>>> piece is composed on the instrument, for example)
>>
>> The method of composition is irrelevent, but the work must be "fixed"
>> to be subject to copyright. A piece that is only ever played live
>> entirely from memory, is never recorded, and is never written down in
>> any form, isn't subject to copyright. But the moment it is recorded -
>> either on paper, or electronically - then it is subject to copyright.
>
>Yeah, but copyright is possessed by the person who makes the recording
>of the creative thought as opposed to the creator of the thought.
There are two separate copyrights there. There's the copyright in the
composition, which is owned by the composer irrespective of who first
makes the recording, and there's the copyright in the recording, which
is owned by the recorder irrespective of what is being recorded.
However, if the composer is not the person who performs the
composition on the first recording, the composer will have no way to
dispute a claim made by the performer that the copyright is theirs,
not his.
> This
>is one reason why academics are required to submit written copies of
>their presentations to conferences in advance, because the act of making
>the first tangible recording grants copyright and you want to avoid
>leaving that to the people in the audience taking notes of your ad
>libbed speech. It'd be interesting to see how this would compete with a
>contractual agreement with an employer for the rights to research done
>on their time.
Anyone making notes of a speech would never own copyright in the
speech itself, they would merely own copyright in their notes of the
speech. However, if the speech has already been committed to paper,
then those notes would effectively be identical to the existing copy
and hence no new copyright would be formed.
>My issue is why would it breach copyright for a person who possesses
>copyright, by virtue of making the first tangible recording of a work,
>to distribute the work? I'd say all the composer has to rely on there is
>a vague extra-legal "moral right" to the composition.
Unless the recorder is also the composer (or the performer), the
recorder doesn't own the copyright in the composition.
Tim Jackson
> Anyone making notes of a speech would never own copyright in the
> speech itself, they would merely own copyright in their notes of the
> speech. However, if the speech has already been committed to paper,
> then those notes would effectively be identical to the existing copy
> and hence no new copyright would be formed.
Under Walter v. Lane, I think there would be a copyright in the
notes/transcript, irrespective of whether the speech had already been
committed to paper by the author, and irrespective of whether it was
identical.
As you say, there will also be a separate copyright in the speech
itself, as soon as the speech has been recorded in some form.
- If the author wrote it down before reading it out, that's the relevant
record.
- If the first record of the speech was a transcript made by someone
listening to it, then that crystallises the copyright in the speech (as
well as the separate copyright in the transcript).
- If the first record is a tape recording by a member of the audience,
that crystallises the copyright in the speech (as well as the copyright
in the sound recording).
In any of those cases, the copyright in the speech itself will belong to
the author. The copyright in a transcript will belong to whoever made
it. The copyright in a sound recording will belong to whoever made the
arrangements for the recording. (Unless the person concerned in any of
these cases has agreed otherwise, or it was done in the course of his
employment.)
See Copyright etc Act, sub-sections 3(2) and 3(3).
http://www.jenkins.eu/copyright-(statutes)(1)/part-1-copyright-.asp#s3
smr
Yeah, this is my point. The issue with someone dictating what a jazz
musician is improvising is that the composer is not doing any of the
tangible recording actions that would create a copyright in the work,
whereas the other party who is writing it down without composing it is
clearly creating a tangible recording. (Copyright does not subsist in a
literary, dramatic or musical work unless and until it is recorded)
It seems to me that unless the composer has some sort of recording of
the work which would crystallise a copyright he has to rely on the "but
it's my song/speech/jam, I invented it" line and invention's not
actually what copyright's about. If he could say "I wrote it" that'd
actually be better for him because that would at least create a
copyright that he owns.
smr
Yeah, this is my point. The issue with someone dictating what a jazz
musician is improvising is that the composer is not doing any of the
tangible recording actions that would create a copyright in the work,
whereas the other party who is writing it down without composing it is
clearly creating a tangible recording. (Copyright does not subsist in a
literary, dramatic or musical work unless and until it is recorded)
It seems to me that unless the composer has some sort of recording of
the work which would crystallise a copyright he has to rely on the "but
it's my song/speech/jam, I invented it" line and invention's not
actually what copyright's about. If he could say "I wrote it" that'd
actually be better for him because that would at least create a
copyright that he owns.
Extra:
>>> However, the
>>> transcriber can't publish the transcription without the permission
>>> of the composer, as to do so without permission would be a breach of
>>> copyright in the composition.
I was bringing this up in relation to this earlier point - so therefore,
if he doesn't have that, why would he get a say in how the other
person's recording gets distributed?
Mark Goodge
typed:
>Tim Jackson wrote:
>> In any of those cases, the copyright in the speech itself will belong to
>> the author. The copyright in a transcript will belong to whoever made
>> it. The copyright in a sound recording will belong to whoever made the
>> arrangements for the recording. (Unless the person concerned in any of
>> these cases has agreed otherwise, or it was done in the course of his
>> employment.)
>>
>> See Copyright etc Act, sub-sections 3(2) and 3(3).
>> http://www.jenkins.eu/copyright-(statutes)(1)/part-1-copyright-.asp#s3
>>
>
>Yeah, this is my point. The issue with someone dictating what a jazz
>musician is improvising is that the composer is not doing any of the
>tangible recording actions that would create a copyright in the work,
>whereas the other party who is writing it down without composing it is
>clearly creating a tangible recording. (Copyright does not subsist in a
>literary, dramatic or musical work unless and until it is recorded)
Yes, but the owner of the copyright in the composition will always
belong to the composer. The person who creates the physical record
doesn't own the copyright in the composition.
>It seems to me that unless the composer has some sort of recording of
>the work which would crystallise a copyright he has to rely on the "but
>it's my song/speech/jam, I invented it" line and invention's not
>actually what copyright's about. If he could say "I wrote it" that'd
>actually be better for him because that would at least create a
>copyright that he owns.
If he was the person performing it when it was recorded, then there
would be absolutely problem at all with him asserting copyright over
it. If, however, it was performed by someone else (say, someone who
had heard the composer perform it and then re-created it from memory,
without ever writing it down), and that subsequent performance was
recorded, then the original composer could find it hard to assert
copyright over the work - the recorded performer would possibly have a
stronger legal claim.
Mark Goodge
typed:
>
>>>> However, the
>>>> transcriber can't publish the transcription without the permission
>>>> of the composer, as to do so without permission would be a breach of
>>>> copyright in the composition.
>
>I was bringing this up in relation to this earlier point - so therefore,
>if he doesn't have that, why would he get a say in how the other
>person's recording gets distributed?
Where a single work has multiple copyrights inherent in it (such as is
often the case with a recorded performance) then all the rights
holders have to agree to it being distributed in order for it to be
distributed legally. Or, to put it another way, where a work comprises
multiple copyrights, each individual rights holder has an absolute
veto over the distribution of it by any other person.
Tim Jackson
> Yeah, this is my point. The issue with someone dictating what a jazz
> musician is improvising is that the composer is not doing any of the
> tangible recording actions that would create a copyright in the work,
> whereas the other party who is writing it down without composing it is
> clearly creating a tangible recording. (Copyright does not subsist in a
> literary, dramatic or musical work unless and until it is recorded)
>
> It seems to me that unless the composer has some sort of recording of
> the work which would crystallise a copyright he has to rely on the "but
> it's my song/speech/jam, I invented it" line and invention's not
> actually what copyright's about. If he could say "I wrote it" that'd
> actually be better for him because that would at least create a
> copyright that he owns.
The improvising composer does own the copyright in the musical work
itself, despite the fact that it's someone else who made the record of
it. That's very clear from section 3(3), which says that it is
immaterial whether the work is recorded by or with the permission of the
author.
Please see my previous link.
In part, the problem you are seeing is the one that Mark raised earlier.
How does the composer prove it if he has no record of his own? The
answer might be testimony from other musicians or audience members who
were present at the performance, but obviously there's going to be some
uncertainty about that.
The same issue can arise in other areas of copyright - e.g. if you write
software it's good practice to keep copies of all your versions leading
up to the fully tested and released version. If you need to sue someone
for infringement, the previous versions are part of the story you can
show the court to support the fact that you are the author of the
software. (There can also be other reasons why keeping previous
versions is good practice, of course, and if your work names the author
there is anyway a presumption that that's correct.)
Stuart A. Bronstein
>>Doesn't there have to be some creativity involved to have any
>>copyright at all? What creativity is involved with simply
>>copying down something someone has already done (albeit taking a
>>certain talent or knowledge to do so)?
>
> You're American, aren't you?
Yeah, you caught me. Sorry, I'd forgotten about that difference
between our laws.
>>Seems to me that would be like copying a book using a different
>>type font (not of your creation), and claiming copyright in the
>>"new" book.
>
> As American publishers have been doing for a couple of
> centuries.
And when they claim copyright in anything like that, they don't claim
rights in the text, but in the creativity evidenced by how it is
presented. Seems to be a stretch to me most of the time, but any
port in a storm,
Humbug
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:30:36 +0000, smr put finger to keyboard and
>typed:
>
>>Tim Jackson wrote:
>
>>> In any of those cases, the copyright in the speech itself will belong to
>>> the author. The copyright in a transcript will belong to whoever made
>>> it. The copyright in a sound recording will belong to whoever made the
>>> arrangements for the recording. (Unless the person concerned in any of
>>> these cases has agreed otherwise, or it was done in the course of his
>>> employment.)
>>>
>>> See Copyright etc Act, sub-sections 3(2) and 3(3).
>>> http://www.jenkins.eu/copyright-(statutes)(1)/part-1-copyright-.asp#s3
>>>
>>
>>Yeah, this is my point. The issue with someone dictating what a jazz
>>musician is improvising is that the composer is not doing any of the
>>tangible recording actions that would create a copyright in the work,
>>whereas the other party who is writing it down without composing it is
>>clearly creating a tangible recording. (Copyright does not subsist in a
>>literary, dramatic or musical work unless and until it is recorded)
>
>Yes, but the owner of the copyright in the composition will always
>belong to the composer. The person who creates the physical record
>doesn't own the copyright in the composition.
In the case of a jazz musician improvising upon a previously written
piece of music, who will own the copyright?
If it is recorded, the person making the recording will have the only
copy of the "original" material.
It's not the original music, whose copyright is probably owned by the
composer.
The performer is creating something original, but not (at least not
intentionally, and probably not intending for it to be copied)
creating a substantial new piece of work.
A person making a recording of the performance will be the creator of
that recording, so the copyright should be his - shouldn't it?
>>It seems to me that unless the composer has some sort of recording of
>>the work which would crystallise a copyright he has to rely on the "but
>>it's my song/speech/jam, I invented it" line and invention's not
>>actually what copyright's about. If he could say "I wrote it" that'd
>>actually be better for him because that would at least create a
>>copyright that he owns.
>If he was the person performing it when it was recorded, then there
>would be absolutely problem at all with him asserting copyright over
>it. If, however, it was performed by someone else (say, someone who
>had heard the composer perform it and then re-created it from memory,
>without ever writing it down), and that subsequent performance was
>recorded, then the original composer could find it hard to assert
>copyright over the work - the recorded performer would possibly have a
>stronger legal claim.
She's so fine, my sweet lord.
--
Humbug
Humbug
wrote:
> invention's not
>actually what copyright's about.
There's not many people know that :-(
--
Humbug
Humbug
Yes, I've seen (in a straw-grabbing case) a judgement (on appeal) that
a particular piece of work *could not be copyright* because it had no
literary merit - in the opinion of the judges.
There was a lot of money involved :-/
It's deep rooted in the practice of American publishers in the
nineteenth century (at least) taking the absence of a copyright notice
as carte blanche to publish copies without acknowledgement.
--
Humbug
Mark Goodge
typed:
>
>It's deep rooted in the practice of American publishers in the
>nineteenth century (at least) taking the absence of a copyright notice
>as carte blanche to publish copies without acknowledgement.
In the 19th century, US law was such that anything not explicitly
stated to be copyright was not copyright. That changed when the US
signed the Bern convention, which makes copyright automatic. But there
are still a large number of Americans who think that something without
a copyright notice on it is therefore public domain.
Mark Goodge
typed:
>On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 15:30:13 +0000, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>Yes, but the owner of the copyright in the composition will always
>>belong to the composer. The person who creates the physical record
>>doesn't own the copyright in the composition.
>
>In the case of a jazz musician improvising upon a previously written
>piece of music, who will own the copyright?
The composer of the original will own the copyright in that (unless
that work is now in the public domain), and the musician will own the
copyright in his work derived from it.
>If it is recorded, the person making the recording will have the only
>copy of the "original" material.
>
>It's not the original music, whose copyright is probably owned by the
>composer.
>
>The performer is creating something original, but not (at least not
>intentionally, and probably not intending for it to be copied)
>creating a substantial new piece of work.
>
>A person making a recording of the performance will be the creator of
>that recording, so the copyright should be his - shouldn't it?
The copyright in the recording will be his, yes. The copyright in the
composition will belong to the musician.