Audition Room - Copyright

[nilsjohan]

As you know we have only been able to allow public domain music - pieces by composers who died before 1923 - in our Audition Room.

The great news now is that we have managed to get a licence for providing recordings of pieces that is still under copyright by the composer. This means that you can now upload (and listen to) recordings of pieces by "contemporary" composer such as for example Ligeti or Prokofiev!

The way it works is that we pay royalty fees to the composers for the downloads but I hope many of would like to support this by becoming Gold members.

[Kassaa]

Was it really illegal to post you own recordings of pieces written after 1923? And who gets the royalty's?

[nilsjohan]

Yes, in order to make such recordings publicly available you need to have permission/license.
It is the same thing as when performing such pieces. If it is an official performance the concert arranger pays the royalties.

The royalties goes to the composer.

[c18cont]

Yes,

A good development, it seems to me..

John Cont

[Skeptopotamus]

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh O.O

[ahmedito]

so I shouldnt have posted that Martinu... sorry 

[ted]

Where does this leave things like the stride transcriptions of Waller, Johnson and Morton (by Posnak, Scivales and Dapogny) I wonder ? Are they "contemporary classical" or "popular". Some of these transcriptions have only appeared in recent years. On the other hand, I do not entirely adhere to them anyway and insert many passages of my own.

I think I shall refrain from posting my recordings of these until the situation with respect to them is better defined. I don't want to get the forum into trouble.

[BoliverAllmon]

just out of curiosity how did we get this?

[Aziel]

Yea, how did you get this license?

[gorbee natcase]

So realy you could get sued for playing the piano,wow, and there is me thinking it was such an innocent interest

[tac-tics]

Even if it were technically illegal, no one would mind if a little niche site like this let people upload their recordings. The RIAA is too busy fighting bittorrent and suing children anyway.

[lostinidlewonder]

It should be legal to play anyones music so long you don't make profit out of it. I can hardly imagine that if I played.... Walt Disney music it from an apartment in the city very loudly so people all over could hear that the cops would come round and say, HEY COPYRIGHT MUSIC!! Same applies for the internet. We are not making money out of positing our recordings, the aim is to get opinion and share our efforts, the aim has nothing to do with money making.

[gaer]

Even if it were technically illegal, no one would mind if a little niche site like this let people upload their recordings. The RIAA is too busy fighting bittorrent and suing children anyway.

You are wrong. I was threatened with being sued for putting a couple Rachmaninov recordings on a personal website. And I know other people who ran websites much like this who ran into much more serious problems.

Gary

[berrt]

You are wrong. I was threatened with being sued for putting a couple Rachmaninov recordings on a personal website. And I know other people who ran websites much like this who ran into much more serious problems.

Gary

Who's copyright were they defending? Rachmaninov's? In germany, 70 ys after death of the author, the rights are free. Rachmaninov died 1943, so with mozart or chopin there should be no problem (here).

bye
Berrt

[gaer]

Who's copyright were they defending? Rachmaninov's? In germany, 70 ys after death of the author, the rights are free. Rachmaninov died 1943, so with mozart or chopin there should be no problem (here).

bye
Berrt

Rachmaninov, Gershwin and another mostly unknown composer. Rachmaninov has been the biggest problem. There may have been more. It's a long story, but believe me, you CAN be threatened with financial damage when you are not making a cent. Sad world, isn't it?

Gary

[nilsjohan]

Well, the point with this topic was that you don't have to worry about such things here.

Yes, in order to make such recordings publicly available you need to have permission/license.

...and as we have this license you can freely upload your own recordings of pieces that are copyright protected.

Yea, how did you get this license?

From the Swedish organisation for composer's rights and royalites - STIM.

[bflatminor24]

I hate to crash this tea party, but this "1923" rule just doesn't exist. Perhaps some of you are thinking of PRINTING SHEET MUSIC, for which a rule DOES exist, disallowing music to be published by American companies if the music was composed after a certain date abroad. This explains why music by Shostakovich and Kabalevsky must be purchased from foreign publishers. I did my homework on Wikipedia and found out that only during a PROFESSIONAL performance of a piece written by a living composer do royalties exist. If the composer is dead, his works can be performed at will.

Furthermore, "Royalty free music" exists, and when you buy music from a store, part of the price covers a one time fee to license the music. So if you perform some Rachmaninoff, Prokofiev, or Dohnanyi, don't worry about "royalties." Chances are the fees have been taken care of.

The law is in place to protect living composers earnings, so they earn their fare share on their compositions being performed professionally. The reason a "professional" concert is unique is because people are PAYING to hear the music, whereas if you perform for friends, nobody is paying anything.

[leahcim]

I did my homework on Wikipedia

According to Wikipedia I invented cheese.

[ahinton]

According to Wikipedia I invented cheese.

I've never seen the reference that supports that. However, the copyright situation is indeed a far more complex one than appears to be suggested in the previous post.

Best,

Alistair

[leahcim]

I've never seen the reference that supports that.

Did you look?

[ahinton]

Did you look?

At what, precisely? Not, of course, that this is in any case demonstrably germane to the topic in hand, back to which it would be sensible to go here...

Best,

Alistair

[leahcim]

At what, precisely?

You still have the dishonest "act dumb rather than respond" tendancies I see

I said "According to Wikipedia I invented cheese"
You replied "I've never seen the reference that supports that."
To which I asked "Did you look?"

If you genuinely can't work out "at what" then bad luck. In the alternative, I hope your communications in your business life you advertise here are more honest or are your posts indicative perhaps? :-

"Dear SA I bought xxxx from you recently and it hasn't arrived, is there a problem?"
"Precisely what do you mean by a problem? Regards H"
"Well, did you send it? Has it got lost in the post?"
"Precisely what was I meant to send and to where? I don't know what you mean by post, but presuming you mean the post office then I can't say, I don't work there"
"Sheesh FFS. The stuff I ordered and paid for and mentioned in the last few emails. Is there anyone there with 1/2 a brain that can deal with this?"
"I don't know what "stuff" is nor what you paid for it, nor to whom. What exactly do you mean by email? However in respect of 1/2 a brain I can safely say that's not the case. Regards H"

[ahinton]

You still have the dishonest "act dumb rather than respond" tendancies I see

If you say so. Thank you for the compliment, anyway; were I to take it seriously, I might persuade myself to wonder if I should do my best to continue to develop these "tendancies"(sp.) if only to make you happier...

I said "According to Wikipedia I invented cheese"
You replied "I've never seen the reference that supports that."
To which I asked "Did you look?"

If you genuinely can't work out "at what" then bad luck.

Er - no. I did not feel, nor was I, "unlucky" in respect of this matter at that point, any more than I am now.

In the alternative, I hope your communications in your business life you advertise here are more honest or are your posts indicative perhaps? :-

"Dear SA I bought xxxx from you recently and it hasn't arrived, is there a problem?"
"Precisely what do you mean by a problem? Regards H"
"Well, did you send it? Has it got lost in the post?"
"Precisely what was I meant to send and to where? I don't know what you mean by post, but presuming you mean the post office then I can't say, I don't work there"
"Sheesh FFS. The stuff I ordered and paid for and mentioned in the last few emails. Is there anyone there with 1/2 a brain that can deal with this?"
"I don't know what "stuff" is nor what you paid for it, nor to whom. What exactly do you mean by email? However in respect of 1/2 a brain I can safely say that's not the case. Regards H"

One may suppose that you know what the above is supposed to mean and, if you do, then good luck to you. What it has to do with me, or my business activities, or with anything else that I do, is nevertheless beyond me. All I will add at this point is that, since I note that this is not the first time you have appeared to call into question my business dealings (of which I am unaware that you have ever had any direct experience and about which you have in any case never been specific), I am obliged to call into question the extent of your direct knowledge of them; it will therefore be appreciated (and not only by me) if you do one of the following - either (a) desist from so doing in future or (b) let me know, with specific details, if you really believe that you have a genuine personal grievance in direct relation to - or have suffered loss as a direct consequence of - any aspect of our business dealings.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

You still have the dishonest "act dumb rather than respond" tendancies

Or is it that you have the "tendancy"(sp.) to stray far from the thread subject and, having done so, to continue to avoid further reference to it at all costs?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

You still have the dishonest "act dumb rather than respond" tendancies I see

Presumably you don't "see" that now - unless, of course, you have not read the responses to your bizarre and largely incomprehensible post. You yourself have failed to add any explanatory or other material, however, so it may be assumed that your remarks are accordingly to be disregarded - in which case it rather seems as though there had been little if any point in making them in the first place...

Anyway - back to the subject (if anyone has anything more to say on it, that is...)

Best,

Alistair

[iumonito]

to flesh out a bit what Alistair was pointing out:

Only your lawyer (which I am not) can advise you about whether your use of copyrighted material is fair use or you are infringing.  A few rules of thumb, though:

1) different countries have different rules.  A piece may easily be in the public domain in one country and be still protected in another.

2) In USA, music published in USA before 1923 is in the public domain.

3) In USA, music published after 1923, for the most part, will be in the public domain several years after the death of the composer (I think is something like 95 years, not sure).

4) I have a vague recollection that in most European countries music is protected until after 75 years past the composer's death.

5) Generally, performing music in your home, for yourself or a small group of friends not for profit is fair use, regardless of whether your neighbors can hear you.

6) but if you go to a bar to play a gig and play the original or an arrangement of something portected (say, lovely "Happy Birthday") you owe royalties to the owner of the copyright (that is, the composer or someone who bought the rights from the composer) and you should have gotten a license in advance.

7) posting a private amateur recording on the internet, I think, goes beyond fair use, so I think it is great the forum got a blanket license agreement.  I assume it only covers composers that have joined the licensing entity, but that is a nicety.  If you play my music, please send me the check directly.   

playing protected music in your lessons, auditions or even student recitals generally is fair use.  Once you no longer are a student, though, it gets a little grayer.

9) the reference to the price of the book you buy, I think, is to the first sale doctrine:  If you buy the book, you do not infringe copyright by reading the book, selling it, or giving it as a gift.

10) and the question about multiple authors and arrangements, I think, simply turns to what each author has a right to.  Translators and arrangers do not have right to the royalties for the underlying work, but only for the aspect they authored.

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE, but just a little description of my limited understanding of the subject.

Cheers,

[ahinton]

to flesh out a bit what Allistair was pointing out:

Only your lawyer (which I am not) can advise you about whether your use of copyrighted material is fair use or you are infringing.  A few rules of thumb, though:

1) different countries have different rules.  A piece may easily be in the public domain in one country and be still protected in another.

2) In USA, music published in USA before 1923 is in the public domain.

3) In USA, music published after 1923, for the most part, will be in the public domain several years after the death of the composer (I think is something like 95 years, not sure).

4) I have a vague recollection that in most European countries music is protected until after 75 years past the composer's death.

5) Generally, performing music in your home, for yourself or a small group of friends not for profit is fair use, regardless of whether your neighbors can hear you.

6) but if you go to a bar to play a gig and play the original or an arrangement of something portected (say, lovely "Happy Birthday") you owe royalties to the owner of the copyright (that is, the composer or someone who bought the rights from the composer) and you should have gotten a license in advance.

7) posting a private amateur recording on the internet, I think, goes beyond fair use, so I think it is great the forum got a blanket license agreement.  I assume it only covers composers that have joined the licensing entity, but that is a nicety.  If you play my music, please send me the check directly.   

playing protected music in your lessons, auditions or even student recitals generally is fair use.  Once you no longer are a student, though, it gets a little grayer.

9) the reference to the price of the book you buy, I think, is to the first sale doctrine:  If you buy the book, you do not infringe copyright by reading the book, selling it, or giving it as a gift.

10) and the question about multiple authors and arrangements, I think, simply turns to what each author has a right to.  Translators and arrangers do not have right to the royalties for the underlying work, but only for the aspect they authored.

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE, but just a little description of my limited understanding of the subject.

Cheers,

Legal advice it may not be, but the above nevertheless constitutes a very useful synopsis of this fearsomely complex situation. All I would add here is the following.

The standard period in Europe now expires on the last day of the 70th calendar year following the composer's death.

The arguably unfortunate fact that certain works are in the public domain in some countries but under copyright in others is indeed a minefield.

In most places it is usually the responsiblity of the licensees of public performance venues, rather than the performers themselves, to make returns of works performed and pay royalties where due.

Best,

Alistair

[glencrianlarich]

Yea, how did you get this license?

Here is an example of a licensing form for music performance rights for artists performing in locations with less than 10000 members as audience

https://www.bmi.com/licensing/forms/facilitiesless.pdf

a wide range of categories exist and can be found on the BMI or ASCAP website

[nightingale11]

-

[pianorama]

Jeez, every single one of us could be sued for before you got the licence! What about John Cage's 4:33? We are for the most part not making sounds on the forum, so could he not sue us for every 4 minutes 33 seconds of silence we created? lol that issue could be rather horny

[jre58591]

john cage cant sue us. hes dead.

[pianorama]

Really? Woops my bad, I didn't know that.... anyway, I was just joking. Well sort of. Who knows???

[ramseytheii]

john cage cant sue us. hes dead.

But his estate can, and will sue!

Walter Ramsey

[classical pianist]

The problems comes only with the MUSIC SCORES not the PERFORMANCE. My University (outside US) Orchestra was about to perform Gershwin "Porky and Bess" and "An American in Paris" and we were threatened for using illegal copy of the SCORES. Therefore we are forced to purchase a full-score from American publisher. The US Embassy was the one who took action at that time.

[ramseytheii]

The problems comes only with the MUSIC SCORES not the PERFORMANCE. My University (outside US) Orchestra was about to perform Gershwin "Porky and Bess" and "An American in Paris" and we were threatened for using illegal copy of the SCORES. Therefore we are forced to purchase a full-score from American publisher. The US Embassy was the one who took action at that time.

I don't know the full legal situation, but I am fairly sure that any group that sponsors performances: like an orchestra foundation, a concert hall, a concert promoter, pays a general fee to the society of composers, or some kind of licensing fee.  Living composers are entitled royalties for performances of their works that make profits.  Also composers who may not be among us (peace be upon them), but whose copyright still holds.  I wonder if ahinton can shine more light on this, though it is probably not exactly the same in the UK.

Walter Ramsey

[gerry]

But his estate can, and will sue!

Walter Ramsey

Wouldn't that make a helluva fun lawsuit - sued over "playing" 4'33" of silence!

[Bob]

I think that has happened.

[gerry]

Sorry I missed it. Life=theater of the absurd.

[Bob]

More than once I believe.

I can see it happening if someone puts out their recording of it and then someone else uses or broadcasts that exact material, their recording.