Parts?

[Tubainsauga]

I'm building an excerpt book of the top 30 asked at auditions. I have all but 3 as complete parts. The 3 I need are Symphonic Metamorphosis, Sensemayá, and an American in Paris. If it makes you feel better, both the Sensemayá and An American in Paris are public domain in Canada (which is where I am). If you could help, it would be greatly appreciated.

[iiipopes]

If what you're proposing is not legal, then you shouldn't be posting it.

[clagar777]

http://www.honolulusymphony.com/auditions/tuba.php


This is the Honolulu Symphony list. It has a couple of those.

[Tubainsauga]

If what you're proposing is not legal, then you shouldn't be posting it.

Well, under fair use in terms of copyright laws portions of a complete work (ie an individual part) may be copied for education purposes. Being a student and wanting to practice the standard orchestral repertoire, I would consider that educational purposes. In addition, 2 of the 3 excerpts are in the public domain in Canada so that poses no problem assuming I get it from within Canada. So, I guess its not. I'll remove that clause.

[LoyalTubist]

You can make a compilation of parts for yourself, privately, and no one will say anything, so long as they stay with you. Legitimately, you are not even to use these for private students.

And what is "fair use"? It's not trying to get out of buying something. It's also not seeking some loophole to get something for nothing.

[Biggs]

You can make a compilation of parts for yourself, privately, and no one will say anything, so long as they stay with you. Legitimately, you are not even to use these for private students.

And what is "fair use"? It's not trying to get out of buying something. It's also not seeking some loophole to get something for nothing.

Fair use is indeed a loophole to allow people to get something for nothing. The government established the concept of fair use for purposes of education, news reporting, and critical review.

One of the rights covered under the term 'copyright' is the right to profit from the creation or reproduction of intellectual property. Since his private use of the part has no monetary footprint (even if he were paid to perform the work with an orchestra, they would provide a copy of the music), he does not infringe on the right to profit.

I'm no expert, but I did receive an A this semester in Legal and Ethical Issues of Communication and this is pretty standard material.

[iiipopes]

Please note -- by reading the times on the posts -- that in case my first post seems overreactive, he went back and edited his original post after my first post, and deleted the admissions of overstepping the "fair use" doctrine.

The guiding principal behind "fair use" is the balancing of the two competing interests of 1) the economic value to the originator or owner and 2) the value of dissemination, access and availability of intellectual property to the betterment of society as a whole.

"Fair use" cannot be considered in the singular, nor the abstract. It must be in context of the entire facts, and considered along with other protections and limitations of intellectual property concepts, such as patent and their expiration, trade marks and the requirement of their continued use to maintain protection, etc.

Yes, fair use can include quotations and such for news, educational and other purposes, but it's easy to overstep the line. Playing an excerpt of a recording in a music appreciation class to illustrate a point of music pedagogy is probably fair use, because of the singular nature of the use, rather than the number of people in class hearing it. Personally purchasing a published score or part, then cutting and pasting or making one photocopy of it for your own binder in private is probably within the confines of getting to do whatever you want privately with what you pay for, and doesn't get into the area of fair use. Taking an excerpt from a published piece and copying it for students probably goes beyond fair use if the material is still under copyright and available commercially because the free copies are a deprivation and are lost profits to the owner of the work.

[Biggs]

Personally purchasing a published score or part, then cutting and pasting or making one photocopy of it for your own binder in private is probably within the confines of getting to do whatever you want privately with what you pay for, and doesn't get into the area of fair use. Taking an excerpt from a published piece and copying it for students probably goes beyond fair use if the material is still under copyright and available commercially because the free copies are a deprivation and are lost profits to the owner of the work.

What if I purchased the part, memorized it, and then sold it to another person? That would leave more of a monetary footprint than giving a free copy of my purchased part because I do not have the right to profit material of which I am not a copyright holder and my sale is in direct competition with the copyright holder.

I realize that is an unlikely situation, but worth considering. While I, not being a copyright holder, do not have the right to reproduction, there is still no difference between making one copy for my own binder or me making a hundred copies for my own binder, as long as I do not attempt to profit from them, correct? I could not distribute the copies to those who wished to profit from them (profit being undefined for the time being) as that would be contributory and vicarious infringement (A & M v. Napster).

I would think giving a copy to Tubainsauga is analogous to playing a recording for a music appreciation class in that I see it as a singular use. He would only be using the part to study from; any future playing of the part auditions, performances, or other money-making opportunities would require him to get the part elsewhere (i.e. provided by the orchestra). Hearing a recording would be for the purpose of studying it; any future music appreciating that the individual wished to do would require obtaining the recording for themselves.

This is an interesting discussion, one of TubeNet's better moments.

[DonnieMac]

"Fair Use" of a copyrighted work has all been worked out by our Congress and sometimes the courts. Here's the bed rock:
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

[djwesp]

"Fair Use" of a copyrighted work has all been worked out by our Congress and sometimes the courts. Here's the bed rock:
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Donnie, you seem to go to bat every time this comes up.



I guess my question is how this, from our congress, relates to the issue of this fine canadian.


How would you enforce such rules and regulation across national boundry and from country to country?


Wes "who isn't really interested either way, but would like to hear how copyright is enforced across national boundries" pendergrass

[LoyalTubist]

In Vietnam, it isn't enforced at all.

However, I teach at a school that is owned by a company from Singapore (yes, we are allowed to chew gum in the teachers' lounge). In my contract I signed an amendment that says I won't use anything under copyright without first securing permission from the copyright owner. There is nothing about Fair Use. This is how the Copyright Law is enforced in Singapore and I could be fired for using illegally copied materials in the classroom.

[iiipopes]

Personally purchasing a published score or part, then cutting and pasting or making one photocopy of it for your own binder in private is probably within the confines of getting to do whatever you want privately with what you pay for, and doesn't get into the area of fair use. Taking an excerpt from a published piece and copying it for students probably goes beyond fair use if the material is still under copyright and available commercially because the free copies are a deprivation and are lost profits to the owner of the work.

What if I purchased the part, memorized it, and then sold it to another person? That would leave more of a monetary footprint than giving a free copy of my purchased part because I do not have the right to profit material of which I am not a copyright holder and my sale is in direct competition with the copyright holder.

Don't confuse the issue of "fair use," which involves use or reproduction of something copyrighted without paying for it, and fundamental property and contract principles: purchasing something (anything, really) then disposing of it as you will, whether with or without money changing hands, later. Think about all the items of whatever their nature that are now considered "collectible" and get sold for more than they cost new, or get given away to friends, families, donations to charity, etc.

[Biggs]

Personally purchasing a published score or part, then cutting and pasting or making one photocopy of it for your own binder in private is probably within the confines of getting to do whatever you want privately with what you pay for, and doesn't get into the area of fair use. Taking an excerpt from a published piece and copying it for students probably goes beyond fair use if the material is still under copyright and available commercially because the free copies are a deprivation and are lost profits to the owner of the work.

What if I purchased the part, memorized it, and then sold it to another person? That would leave more of a monetary footprint than giving a free copy of my purchased part because I do not have the right to profit material of which I am not a copyright holder and my sale is in direct competition with the copyright holder.

Don't confuse the issue of "fair use," which involves use or reproduction of something copyrighted without paying for it, and fundamental property and contract principles: purchasing something (anything, really) then disposing of it as you will, whether with or without money changing hands, later. Think about all the items of whatever their nature that are now considered "collectible" and get sold for more than they cost new, or get given away to friends, families, donations to charity, etc.

Agreed. But if multiple copies for classroom use in a nonprofit educational setting is protected, I'd say he's in the clear.

The real question, however, is this: is there a reward for turning him him?