TubeNet

Let's say I had a composition by a: Medieval/ Renaissance/ Baroque/ Classical/ Romantic composer and wanted to re-score part or all of the original orchestral work for band...

Is there a list somewhere of the composers that says which of their compositions are 'fair game' for transcriptions/arranging/etc (not under copyright anymore)?

I think I read something somewhere about the 'cutoff' for the composer's death/work published in in the 1920's, but would consulting a music copyright attorney be a good idea in this case?

I am not a lawyer, but I have been exposed to this question a few times.

Any musical thing published before 1923 is in Public Domain (per current US regulations) unless some extra special (*cough*Walt Disney*cough*) renewal rule has been invoked. If somebody has done a re-arrangement of an older composition they might try to copyright that particular arrangement, but it would be hard to prove you were copying that instead of the original work.

I would only consult a specialized attorney about this if you think you are going to make a ton of money selling it all over the world. (Then you would be a target.)

http://www.pdinfo.com/copyrt.php or search on the topic of Public Domain.

Rule of Thumb for Public Domain Music

Works published in the United States with a copyright date of 1922 or earlier are in the public domain in the United States.
Copyright protection outside the USA is determined by the laws of the country where you wish to use a work. Copyright protection may be 95 years from publication date, 50 to 70 years after the death of the last surviving author, or other criteria depending on where the work was first published and how the work is to be used.

Rather than add to the confusion, if you are going to arrange a song which has ever been a commercial "hit" in the US, you must talk to someone who can give you good legal advice. It's complicated. Take the "after 1923" comment with a cup of caution.

However, the Medieval/ Renaissance/ Baroque/ Classical/ Romantic composers are all fair game. You can make an arrangement without fear of copyright issues. Except late Romantic, Strauss in particular, his heirs have had a lot of European rules tweaked to get the maximum benefit out of his work. Otherwise, you can write all the tuba arrangements you want. (Ives is out, the family has been very sparing in granting arrangement licenses.) Much of Grainer is still covered. Etc. etc.

You should copyright your arrangement of other composers' music. It won't carry a lot of legal power but you should do it. For example: If you arrange something for tuba quartet and I write a similar arrangement of the same work for tuba quartet, there isn't much protection for either of us.

Of course, this only pertains to print copyrights.

David Richoux wrote:I am not a lawyer, but I have been exposed to this question a few times.

Any musical thing published before 1923 is in Public Domain (per current US regulations) unless some extra special (*cough*Walt Disney*cough*) renewal rule has been invoked. If somebody has done a re-arrangement of an older composition they might try to copyright that particular arrangement, but it would be hard to prove you were copying that instead of the original work.

Couple of important points:

1) for works published prior to 1923, the work itself is in the public domain, but individual arrangements of that work and derivative works may still be protected under a separate copyright; so, e.g., the hymn It Is Well with My Soul, published in 1873, is in the public domain, but David Holsinger's composition, On a Hymnsong of Philip Bliss (© 1989), which is based on the hymn, is not in the public domain;

2) in the case of a reissue, reprint, or collections of arrangements that are in the public domain, the scores themselves are and remain in the public domain (no copyright protection), however any front matter and editorial material (cover sheet, table of contents, indices, and the specific ordering of the scores) may be copyrighted;

3) arrangements, as opposed to simple transcription, are copyrightable and absolutely protected (in certain circumstances, transcriptions can be copyrighted as well). With computers and search algorithms, it is extremely EASY to identify the unique features of a given arrangement, and therefore to identify instances of plagiarism of those features. The determination of whether or not to pursue legal action against any given infringement, beyond the standard "Cease and Desist" letter is often made on a case-by-case basis.

Pgym.

Alex C wrote: You should copyright your arrangement of other composers' music. It won't carry a lot of legal power but you should do it. For example: If you arrange something for tuba quartet and I write a similar arrangement of the same work for tuba quartet, there isn't much protection for either of us.

No.

The legal protection of your copyrighted arrangement is absolute.

Whether or not it is worth your time and the expense to PURSUE violations of that copyright is an entirely separate issue.

Pgym.

David Richoux wrote:Any musical thing published before 1923 is in Public Domain (per current US regulations) unless some extra special (*cough*Walt Disney*cough*) renewal rule has been invoked. If somebody has done a re-arrangement of an older composition they might try to copyright that particular arrangement, but it would be hard to prove you were copying that instead of the original work.

Once in the public domain, always in the public domain, at least in the country in question. The increases in copyright protection have done nothing to create protection for works originally copyrighted or created in the U.S. prior to 1923. 1924 is another matter.

The reason 1923 is significant is that until 1978, U.S. copyrights extended 28 years from the date of publication, and could be renewed once (and only once) for another 28 years. Thus, 56 years was the maximum a work could be protected. And works before 1978 needed the copyright notice, too.

After 1978, anything original and written down is protected from the moment its written down for 90 years (or is it 100, or 120--that's where Disney's lobbying has been focused in order to keep Mickey Mouse in their possession) from the death of the author or the date of creation if the author is anonymous or corporate, irrespective of publication or notice. That's more like how copyrights worked in other countries, and lining up with the international community was the reason for the 1978 law.

1978 - 56 = 1922, so anything with a 1922 date or earlier is in the U.S. public domain. Stuff published between 1923 and 1951 MAY be in the public domain if it wasn't renewed. Anything still under protection by January 1 of 1979 fell under the new law. But if not--once in the public domain, always in the public domain.

For ancient works, the only problem might be working from copyrighted materials. For example, let's say I arrange a Bach chorale for tuba quartet. No problem--Bach is of course in the public domain. But let's say I made my arrangement from a modern and copyright-protected arrangement of that chorale. Then, I would be infringing on whatever protected work was done but that arranger. So, look at the source material. Most of that stuff sold as "urtext" versions published by Dover or others are public domain, though the editorial additions may not be. If your work runs afoul of someone else's arrangement and they sue, having that urtext version in hand would be a good thing, but if your version is too similar to what they added to the original, you still may have to cease publication if they got there first. That's unlikely if you started from the urtext original. Don't think that tuba players won't care--some do.

Rick "who knows a few tuba arrangers who have gotten cease-and-desist letters" Denney

pgym wrote:

Alex C wrote: You should copyright your arrangement of other composers' music. It won't carry a lot of legal power but you should do it. For example: If you arrange something for tuba quartet and I write a similar arrangement of the same work for tuba quartet, there isn't much protection for either of us.

No.

The legal protection of your copyrighted arrangement is absolute.

Whether or not it is worth your time and the expense to PURSUE violations of that copyright is an entirely separate issue.

Pgym.

Nothing in the law is absolute. If it were, there would be no need for courts or lawyers. Lawyers write the laws and write them in such as was as to insure that lawyers will always have a job. If only tuba players could do the same.

If I remember correctly, Michael Jackson was sued for writing the same melody, note for note (same key!) as a 1967 hit song. Of course they settled out of court, lawyers were bleeding everybody dry. I'd love to see the copyright protection effectiveness of two publishers defending a tuba quartet dispute.

So, there is a lot of flexibility in the term absolute.

If you want to see a bunch of folks get 'fired up' about the issue of copyright... just pose this question on the Yahoo 'Community Music Forum'.

Alex C wrote:

pgym wrote:

Alex C wrote: You should copyright your arrangement of other composers' music. It won't carry a lot of legal power but you should do it. For example: If you arrange something for tuba quartet and I write a similar arrangement of the same work for tuba quartet, there isn't much protection for either of us.

No.

The legal protection of your copyrighted arrangement is absolute.

Whether or not it is worth your time and the expense to PURSUE violations of that copyright is an entirely separate issue.

Pgym.

Nothing in the law is absolute. If it were, there would be no need for courts or lawyers. Lawyers write the laws and write them in such as was as to insure that lawyers will always have a job. If only tuba players could do the same.

If I remember correctly, Michael Jackson was sued for writing the same melody, note for note (same key!) as a 1967 hit song. Of course they settled out of court, lawyers were bleeding everybody dry. I'd love to see the copyright protection effectiveness of two publishers defending a tuba quartet dispute.

So, there is a lot of flexibility in the term absolute.

Clearly, you don't understand the difference between the rights that copyright law grants and enforcement of those rights.

goodgigs wrote:WOW!!!
This may be the most important link ever posted on this subject in the history of tubenet.
and to think.....it was posted by a snowman(?) !
Sir, I would assume this site is your work as you seem to be Tibetan mentality.
Well thank you, who ever you are.

Yes indeed! - I just posted it over on DJML - the topic is often discussed there as well.
(however, that site's webmaster is named Barbara, so be advised...)

I'm confused by some of the back and forth in this thread, so I'm going to try and clarify it, if I may be so modest (modesty is, after all, my best quality, after my stunningly good looks)

1)once IN Public Domain (PD), always in PD.

2)1923 is the 'magic number'--anything with a copyright date PRIOR TO, but not including that year, is in PD. If there are subsequent copyright renewals by the original copyright owner or those to whom that right was issued, the latest date on the edition is the date that is in force.

3) You can arrange, record, make wallpaper patterns out of pre-1923 copyrighted works. But, you MUST work from editions with that same magic number requirement. If someone has copyrighted an arrangement of a Scott Joplin rag, fine, you can also, as long as you work from an edition from pre-1923. You can even do an arrangement for the same instrumentation.

There's a lot more to it. The best thing to do is spend a few bucks and get 15 minutes with a lawyer.

pgym wrote: Clearly, you don't understand the difference between the rights that copyright law grants and enforcement of those rights.

Here's a good example of a bad response. Note the Pgym's response to my post shows the bad manners to change the discussion ,from one about the law, to a personal insult directed at another poster. How Pgym has come to learn the extent of my supposed ignorence, I cannot ascertain. Neverthless, he states it with great authority.

Since the 'discussion' has degraded into a personal insult I will not respond further in this thread but readers should understand that insults only emit from a factually weak position. This is not the way to carry on a civilized discussion. Disagreement is often a case of semantics.

BTW, I have noticed that most civil discourse in the US now degrades into personal insults fairly quickly anyway. I'm sorry to have seen this become the norm.

Alex C wrote:

pgym wrote: Clearly, you don't understand the difference between the rights that copyright law grants and enforcement of those rights.

Here's a good example of a bad response. Note the Pgym's response to my post shows the bad manners to change the discussion ,from one about the law, to a personal insult directed at another poster. How Pgym has come to learn the extent of my supposed ignorence, I cannot ascertain. Neverthless, he states it with great authority.

Pfffft. Doesn't look like a personal insult to me, nor does it look like a comment on your ignorance or intelligence in general.

Am I the only one who is surprised to see this much activity on a thread that could have easily gone like this???

Post 1: Can I legally make an arrangement of orchestral music from the Medieval/ Renaissance/ Baroque/ Classical/ Romantic periods for band without worrying about breaking copyright laws?

Post 2: Yes.

Todd S. Malicoate wrote:

Alex C wrote:

pgym wrote: Clearly, you don't understand the difference between the rights that copyright law grants and enforcement of those rights.

Here's a good example of a bad response. Note the Pgym's response to my post shows the bad manners to change the discussion ,from one about the law, to a personal insult directed at another poster. How Pgym has come to learn the extent of my supposed ignorence, I cannot ascertain. Neverthless, he states it with great authority.

Pfffft. Doesn't look like a personal insult to me, nor does it look like a comment on your ignorance or intelligence in general.

Am I the only one who is surprised to see this much activity on a thread that could have easily gone like this???

Post 1: Can I legally make an arrangement of orchestral music from the Medieval/ Renaissance/ Baroque/ Classical/ Romantic periods for band without worrying about breaking copyright laws?

Post 2: Yes.

It indeed could have, if not for one tiny detail.

This is TubeNet!!!

Alex C wrote: BTW, I have noticed that most civil discourse in the US now degrades into personal insults fairly quickly anyway. I'm sorry to have seen this become the norm.

I share this view, as well. I have to also agree with Todd. Though stated in such a way as to get personal with you, I do not believe it was his intent to insult you. Perhaps he should have framed his response in a slightly different manner.

To those who imply that TubeNet makes a lot out of a small thing, I also would agree, but it usually ends up being kind of fun, so it doesn't usually bother me. For me, at least, the good usually outweighs the bad.