Youtube and Copyright

[pianowolfi]

A while ago I had put a video on youtube of myself playing 2 Préludes by Frank Martin (1890-1974). Now I got the following message from youtube:

Dear Member:
This is to notify you that we have removed or disabled access to the following material as a result of a third-party notification by Universal-Edition Aktiengesellschaft claiming that this material is infringing:

Frank Martin PrC)ludes 7+8:

Please Note: Repeat incidents of copyright infringement will result in the deletion of your account and all videos uploaded to that account. In order to avoid future strikes against your account, please delete any videos to which you do not own the rights, and refrain from uploading additional videos that infringe on the copyrights of others. For more information about YouTube's copyright policy, please read the Copyright Tips guide.

If you elect to send us a counter notice, to be effective it must be a written communication provided to our designated agent that includes substantially the following (please consult your legal counsel or see 17 U.S.C. Section 512(g)(3) to confirm these requirements):

A physical or electronic signature of the subscriber.
Identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled.
A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.
The subscriber's name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if the subscriberis address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which the service provider may be found, and that the subscriber will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person.
Such written notice should be sent to our designated agent as follows:

DMCA Complaints
YouTube, Inc.
1000 Cherry Ave.
Second Floor
San Bruno, CA 94066
Email: copyright@youtube.com

Please note that under Section 512(f) of the Copyright Act, any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification may be subject to liability.

Sincerely,
YouTube, Inc.

Does that mean that Universal edition can sue me now? Or is the case done with the fact that youtube just removed the video? And what does mean sending a counter notice? Any help will be appreciated.

[elspeth]

It's curious if it's come from the publisher of the sheet music - I'm no expert but surely their copyright only extends to the book of music itself (protection against photocopying etc), not to any performance of it. If you'd posted someone else playing that you didn't have permission to I could see copyright issues over the performance, but unless there's some edict that nobody's allowed to perform Martin's music in public without applying to his estate (or publisher) for permission, it's very strange.

It's hard to know who to apply to for reasons for it... I might be inclined to try youtube customer services (if there is such a thing) and just say 'I've got this and I'm really confused, I need someone to explain to me what I did wrong.'

[ronde_des_sylphes]

My understanding of the situation is that youtube will have a clause in their user agreement with you which states that youtube are not liable for any copyright violation, imagined or otherwise, and that if a copyright violation may have occurred they have the right to require the video to be removed. If the video is removed, I think it goes no further - if not I believe that the copyright holder has the right to seek a subpoena to establish the real-life identiy of the account holder (in this case, you) and then they can choose to take things further. I was reading about this recently, but unfortunately I seem to have thrown out the newspaper which was covering this issue. I'm pretty certain that you should be ok once the video is removed.

I can't understand what the point is of the publisher pursuing the issue, as you are not making financial gain from it. However, as I understand the law in this country (UK) when you perform in public (and I think this is irrespective of whether the concert is free or not), a payment representing royalties is supposed to be collected and paid to the publisher - you are supposed to notify the Performing Rights Society of which publisher and which editions you are using, to facilitate the collection of fees. In practice, I am not sure that this actually occurs at, eg, a school orchestra level (of course there may be exemptions that I am not aware of, as I'm far from an expert, I'm just going on what I've read and been told).

I assume that Universal are the only people to have published these works, incidentally, otherwise how do they know that you are "infringing" their copyright? Unless of course the score was visible

I suspect you have just been a little unlucky; however in the longer term I suspect that as youtube has been bought by Google, publishing companies etc may start to consider it worth their while to go on trawling expeditions to see what they can extract (Google being much more potentially worthwhile to attempt to sue, obviously).

[elspeth]

However, as I understand the law in this country (UK) when you perform in public (and I think this is irrespective of whether the concert is free or not), a payment representing royalties is supposed to be collected and paid to the publisher - you are supposed to notify the Performing Rights Society of which publisher and which editions you are using, to facilitate the collection of fees. In practice, I am not sure that this actually occurs at, eg, a school orchestra level (of course there may be exemptions that I am not aware of, as I'm far from an expert, I'm just going on what I've read and been told).

Hmm, actually I think you're right there. And even at a non-school orchestra level... I bet there are an awful lot of performances that slip the net. Publishers aren't all-knowing depending how a particular concert is publicised... unfortunately with the rise of musicians broadcasting online it's that much easier to find them if they've credited the composer. All you need is Google.

But I think the publisher is being incredibly pedantic - I don't think the performing rights licensing has quite caught up with the internet yet... Is universal the only company that publishes this composer? That might be how they've got onto it. There would, for instance, be no point cracking down on performances of Chopin on youtube as there are so many and a lot played from memory so it's impossible for the publishers to know whose edition a performer has learned from if it's not actually in shot.

[prometheus]

These people are desperate. They know they have already lost. It is impossible to impose copyright laws on the internet. So they just bully around everyone they can.

[pianowolfi]

Well I think Universal IS the only publisher of this composer. In my copy there is only a note "copyright 1949 by Universal Edition Wien"

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I hate to say it, but I think youtube and the publisher are probably technically correct. However from any reasonable standpoint, their position is absurd (especially when you consider the amount of material on youtube that is blatantly in breach of copyright.)

[prometheus]

Of course they are correct. They made the laws.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

In addition, if the publisher were displaying any semblance of reason, they would surely realize that if they are theoretically losing a miniscule fee because you performed the piece without them receiving royalties, this is likely to be more than compensated for by the possibility that some people may view the video and think "Oh, I enjoyed that - I'll go and buy the sheet music".

However, I'm perfectly aware that such people don't think that way..

[elspeth]

If the companies involved are going to start cracking down on copyright infringement on youtube, and elsewhere online, it'll be rather unfortunate... it'll be an uphill battle for the companies and a lot of content's going to get wiped. I can imagine a lot more will go when google realise the scope of their problems if companies really do start suing for breach of copyright.

Although, if I had my way, all the concert footage that people've recorded on mobile phones would get wiped straight away. Official footage is one thing but pirated footage is quite another. Working in venues I appreciate the performers' issues with that. Of course that's a bit different from the particular issue here, over sheet music, as with concert footage you are taking advantage of someone else's talent and work, rather than posting your own performance and suddenly having to pay royalties to the publisher of your music.

Maybe the only sensible solution is for youtube to get in league with the PRS and make people list the necessary information when you post a recording - then for them to waive the fee (or at least make it nominal) in return for the free publicity you're giving them. There'd be loads of potential revenue in it for the publishers - if they included a 'buy this sheet music here' or 'buy this recording here' button on each page that has a performance, I wonder how many sales it'd generate?

[opus10no2]

Music attempting suicide...

[ahinton]

Just bear in mind that if enough publishers do sue and lose (not that I'm suggesting either that enough publishers will sue or that they will lose if they do), they'll risk ending up going to the wall - and then there'll eventually be few or even no publishers to publish music, so that'll make life a whole lot easier as there will no longer be any copyrights to infringe. I realise that most of us can self-publish these days, but even that cannot be done without incurring some costs; the same applies to each of us that may do this for, if our material is simply stolen, we'll risk going to the wall as well. What so many people forget when they get on the bandwagon of universal rights to everyone's work (as in "if a composer does something, we all own it and have a right to obtain it free of charge under all circumstances") is that many of the producers of it will be unable to survive this economically, so they'll have to stop producing. If such people want to preside over a substantial decline in the creation of new music, then they may as well continue to pursue their course; if not, they'd better start thinking about the fact that no music ever gets produced without cost and, whenever there is such a cost, someone has to pay - so leave the publishers and composers alone, for the job that they do has somehow to be paid for, otherwise there'll be no one left to do it.

Best,

Alistair

[prometheus]

So with the fact that copyright laws will soon be unenforcible, you claim that within a few years no one will still produce 'intellectual property'?

Or are you suggesting that a law that is enforced is just as effective as one that is unenforced?

Haven't artists been ripped off by publishers for years? Following your logic there should already be no infringible material left, right?

The breakdown of copyright laws will not really influence artists. There are many artists that are glad that costumers are now breaking down publishers for them, basically freeing them from their tyrrany.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I have to say that if I were to receive a similar notification from youtube, I would be exceptionally displeased - not only for the enforced removal of personal video footage.

My position is that I have only posted material where I am the performer; and in all cases I have either purchased a copy of the sheet music of what I have performed or sought permission from the publisher to use a copy (even if I may have originally downloaded it free of charge). In some cases I have had some difficulty in acquiring the music. I cannot speak for him, but I assume that pianowolfi did purchase a score of the music he was playing, so the publisher has already received financial benefit from the episode. Frankly I think under such circumstances the publisher should regard youtube or other internet posting as free advertising.

[pianowolfi]

Yes I have purchased a copy.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

In what context was the recording made? Is it a professional recital or recorded at home, for example?

[pianowolfi]

No it was my performance diploma exam. It was a public recital.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I'm no expert on copyright law, but I don't see their problem. You're not profiting from the video - and as a diploma performance I would assume that the university or organising body were responsible for handling any performance fees/royalties (if applicable).

[ahinton]

So with the fact that copyright laws will soon be unenforcible, you claim that within a few years no one will still produce 'intellectual property'?

No - it's not as simple as that. To begin with, I did not say that copyright laws will soon be unenforceable. What I do say about this is that copyright law is not necessarily much more unenforceable than any other law which sufficient people are willing and able to flout (as indeed they do); I would add, however (and this was my principal point here) that, if copyright law is universally flouted, those who used to produce material from which they were once able to derive benefit under such law will no longer be able to derive any such benefit, ergo they will no longer be able to finance such production - that is not an opinion but a plan fact, since composers, authors, scinetists, publishers, etc. cannot suddenly live on air just because copyright law has been universally undermined.

Or are you suggesting that a law that is enforced is just as effective as one that is unenforced?

No, I am not suggesting that (but see remarks below).

Haven't artists been ripped off by publishers for years? Following your logic there should already be no infringible material left, right?

Some artists have indeed been ripped off by some publishers over the years, but what we are now discussing is the much wider and more serious risk that artists and publishers are being ripped off by thieves, which is hardly the same thing. "Following my logic" (if indeed you are doing so - and asuming that I am in any case expressing myself with sufficient clarity to display at least some level of logic!), if copyright laws are universally flouted, then yes, there will no longer be "infringeable" material left, but only in the sense that, in such circumstances, copyright in all material legally subject to it will have been infringed.

The breakdown of copyright laws will not really influence artists. There are many artists that are glad that costumers are now breaking down publishers for them, basically freeing them from their tyrrany.

By "costumers" I assume you to mean "customers" (for I don't think that you're referring here to the fashion industry!). This is, if I may say so, a very short-sighted view that appears to be based upon the premise that all publishers do nothing except rip off all those artists whose work they publish. In reality, many composers have benefitted and continue to benefit from the activities of publishers and, were this not the case, few if any composers would any longer be persuaded to sign up with a publisher. Recent technological developments have, however, enabled composers to have a greater choice over whether to accept publishing contracts (if and when they are offered) or whether to self-publish. The fact remains, however, that when some people steal and distribute copyright material without appropriate permission and without payment for it, they are not usually concerned as to whether that material has been published by one of the major publishers or whether it has been issued by the composer him/herself; the damage done is nevertheless the same in either case.

There remains a great deal of misunderstanding about this subject, much of which (it seems to me) could easily be blown away if only people were to consider parallels in cases where the stolen material is something other than intellectual property. I append a recent exchange on this subject on another piano forum which addresses some of the issues involved; whilst it originated from discussion of transcription of jazz improvisations by that wonderful pianist Oscar Peterson, it clearly has many other implications and covers far more issues than just that. I apologise for boring anyone who does not want to go through all of this and accordingly urge any such person to stop reading this post forthwith!

The remainder of this post will be posted separately, as otherwise it would exceed the maximum number of characters permitted for individual posts on this forum.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

...(continued from above)...



"Alistair

It’s getting rather difficult to manipulate all these indented quotes so perhaps it’s best if you just respond to my main query in the last paragraph.

Quote:

Alistair Hinton wrote on Tue, 23 January 2007 16:38:[/i]

Quote:

(xxx) wrote on Tue, 23 January 2007 13:45: I was merely pointing out what seemed to me to be an anomaly. After all, Peterson might have given permission, for all I know, for his scores to be put in the public domain, or they might have been transcribed by someone, in which case does copyright apply?
 


AH: If Oscar Peterson, or anyone else, officially donates any or all of their work into the public domain, that is their prerogative and it will remain in the public domain thereafter unless subsequently officially withdrawn by the originator; bear in mind, however, that works in the public domain in some territories ain't necessarily so, at the same time, in others.
 


I agree. But can the originator withdraw his or her works from the public domain?

Quote:

(xxx) wrote on Tue, 23 January 2007 13:45:
This copyright business, in general, is becoming more and more of a farce.
 


Quote:

AH: I would say that, as far as it is possible to refine it in the laws of every land on earth that has intellectual property laws of any kind, it is probably becoming somewhat less of a farce, although there is self-evidently a long way to go and many improvements yet to be made; the main reason I say so is that, in recent years, more coutries have signed up to agreements that result in greater commonality between nations as to how such laws are formulated and operated.
 


Farce may not be the best word. I was trying to say that given the existence of copyright laws, the situation is somewhat absurd (or anarchic, if you like) if these laws can be flouted with impunity. Laws that can be ignored in this way become bad laws and will surely eventually fall by the wayside. The fact that an increasing number of countries have adopted copyright agreements does not in itself, in my view, make such agreements desirable.

Quote:

(xxx) wrote on Tue, 23 January 2007 13:45:
On at least two sites you can currently get the whole (I presume) of OC.
 


Quote:

AH: This has nothing to do with copyright "becoming a farce" and everything to do with it being flouted. No permission has been given to those sites to distribute or otherwise make available any of Sorabji's scores, so it would not matter how farcical or sensible copyright law might be if certain people decide to ignore it altogether.
 


But if they can be downloaded with impunity, who would not do so? The law then becomes irrelevant. It could hardly be regarded as sensible if most people (not just certain people) ignored it. My criterion of whether a law is “good” or “bad” is whether it is enforced, i.e. if it can be enforced, it is a good law; if it cannot be enforced, or if is not enforced, it is a bad law. (This has nothing to do, of course, with with the ethical meaning of “good” and “bad”. Some laws that are enforced are undesirable, and vice versa.)

Quote:

AH: Correct me if I am wrong, but I rather doubt that you would be so likely to state that laws governing theft of other private property are a "farce", yet theft remains theft and disregard of the law is still disregard of the law, however good or bad that law may be.
 


It depends on the circumstances. A lot of people yesterday spent the day beachcombing so to speak (i.e. picking up the remains of goods (including valuable goods) from a shipwreck on the south coast of England. Technically it was theft, but since the owners can and will claim on the insurance and the police did nothing to stop the “beachcombers” at first, it made the law look ridiculous.
Of course, I support laws governing theft, but even if I agreed to equate the downloading of music in copyright with “theft of private property”, “disregard of the law” is not a meaningful expression if the law is not enforced!



...(continued below)...


Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

...(continued from above)...


Forgive my ramblings above, but my main question is what applies in the case of a transcription of what is heard into notes on the printed page. I suspect that the law of copyright does say something about this and that it cannot be got round in this way. The Oscar Peterson files that were posted might have been created in this way. Does the person who created them own any copyright as a result of transcribing them, I wonder?


(xxx)



Tue, 23 January 2007 20:00 
alistair hinton
Registered: January 2006
Location: BATH, UK Senior Member 
 
(xxx) wrote on Tue, 23 January 2007 18:22


can the originator withdraw his or her works from the public domain?



In principle, yes, although it would be rather unusual; the only circumstance in which one could conceive of something like this occurring is when a composer has given a work into the public domain but then decides to withdraw it from circulation altogether or withdraw it for revision.

(xxx) wrote on Tue, 23 January 2007 13:45

Farce may not be the best word. I was trying to say that given the existence of copyright laws, the situation is somewhat absurd (or anarchic, if you like) if these laws can be flouted with impunity. Laws that can be ignored in this way become bad laws and will surely eventually fall by the wayside. The fact that an increasing number of countries have adopted copyright agreements does not in itself, in my view, make such agreements desirable.

 

I think that I already understood your intended meaning when using the word "farce". The potential danger in what you appear to contend here is that, as long as a way can be found to flout any law, that law is - or at least thereby becomes - by definiton "bad". Copyright law - or rather intellectual property law - is not a new concept and it applies not only to music and literature but also to inventions of many kinds. Any intellectual property can be stolen as long as the thief has sufficient determination, expertise and means to do so, but this is very little different to the case with any other kinds of property. People's identities are stolen frequently nowadays, as is money from bank and credit card accounts. It has even been possible to steal people's homes by misppropriating and/or forging title deed documentation; I happen to know (though not well) someone who returned from a four-month foreign business trip to find that he had been relieved of ownership of his apartment and that it had been sold - and this had nothing to do with a lender's legitimate repossession as a consequence of bad debt but was based solely upon fraudulent use of documentation without his consent or knowledge - OK, the illegal sale transaction was eventually unravelled, he got his apartment back and the person responsible or this rather serious breach of the law is now serving a prison sentence, but that does not alter the fact that the crime could and did occur. None of these facts renders the basic laws of ownership "absurd" or "anarchic"; all they do is reveal how some laws need not only tightening up but more effective policing.


(xxx) wrote on Tue, 23 January 2007 18:22

But if they can be downloaded with impunity, who would not do so?



The best answer I can give to that is "all those who order it directly from us and all those who will continue to do so"; it has been perfectly possible to do this kind of thing for years, yet people still pay us for these scores.

In Sorabji's case, I might add, it has been possible for people to supply illicit scans only because we had originally supplied the material; had we never issued any of these items, there would have been nothing for anyone to scan in the first place.


(xxx) wrote on Tue, 23 January 2007 18:22


The law then becomes irrelevant. It could hardly be regarded as sensible if most people (not just certain people) ignored it.

 

Apart from the danger associated with this kind of stance as I mentioned above, who should decide - and on what grounds - whether "most people" or only "certain people" ignore the laws that govern this particular material? For one thing, no one is in any legitimate position of authority to do this and then to use the evidence gathered as justification either for a recommended change in the law or for breaches of the existing law; for another, it would be impossible to determine how many people over any given period had obtained any material legally and how many had obtained it illegally. That would therefore be a non-starter.


(xxx) wrote on Tue, 23 January 2007 18:22

My criterion of whether a law is “good” or “bad” is whether it is enforced, i.e. if it can be enforced, it is a good law; if it cannot be enforced, or if is not enforced, it is a bad law. (This has nothing to do, of course, with with the ethical meaning of “good” and “bad”. Some laws that are enforced are undesirable, and vice versa.)

 

In every country there are, of course, "good" and "bad" laws as well as instances when laws, good or bad, are more effectively enforced than others, but if everyone else shared a belief that your criterion is the only valid one by which to judge the worthiness or otherwise of any law, we would all very soon be living in a pretty anarchic society.


(xxx) wrote on Tue, 23 January 2007 18:22


A lot of people yesterday spent the day beachcombing so to speak (i.e. picking up the remains of goods (including valuable goods) from a shipwreck on the south coast of England. Technically it was theft, but since the owners can and will claim on the insurance and the police did nothing to stop the “beachcombers” at first, it made the law look ridiculous.

 

Indeed they did; this, however, was a case when mass action in one single instance did nothing of the sort - it made the law look unenforceable (at least while it could be flouted) as distinct from "ridiculous". This kind of thing doesn't happen every day, but if, for example, enough people, en masse, decided to descend upon a supermarket and take just what they wanted, the security officers and police would be able to do very little about it. Where would be the difference between this and the beachcombing case? The fact is that there is no such difference. Does that make the law "ridiculous"? Of course it doesn't. Only yesterday, my local train station became the victim of a mass protest about overcharging and overcrowding; the result was that people printed false and valueless tickets and were allowed to travel free using them. They don't do this every day, of course, but the same applies here as to the beachcombing case.

You mention owners being able to claim on their insurance for the loss of their stolen goods which is, of course, usually covered by their policies. Two issues occur to me here. The first is that, if someone tried to claim on such a loss having him/herself knowingly retrieved the "lost" goods in the beachcombing exercise, they would technically be in breach of another law - that of fraudulent insurance claim yet, in those massed theft circumstances, it is most unlikely that anyone could prove that any owner had actually done this. Does this fact make the laws governing insurance fraud "ridiculous"? The second is that, were such unpoliced mass theft to become a far more frequent occurrence, how do you suppose insurers will respond? First, they will raise premiums substantially and then some of them will cease to cover theft at all, just as some insurers have either raised premiums or chickened out of offering cover for professional indemnity in the past. Insurance is all about risk; if the risk is just too great, companies will cease to provide the necessary insurance cover. If insurers ceased to offer theft cover, the statutory requirement for valid insurance to be in force on all on-road motor vehicles at all times would become unenforceable as a direct consequence; in this instance, motor insurance law would indeed then look "ridiculous", but only by having been made to do so as a direct consequence of wholesale flouting of laws governing theft.


(xxx) wrote on Tue, 23 January 2007 18:22

Of course, I support laws governing theft,


Really?! It doesn't sound like it at all!



(xxx) wrote on Tue, 23 January 2007 18:22

but even if I agreed to equate the downloading of music in copyright with “theft of private property”,

 

And why would you not do so? Whatever reasons you may have and however valid or otherwise they may be, you have not stated what they are; it would ease understanding of this phrase of yours were you to do so.


(xxx) wrote on Tue, 23 January 2007 18:22

“disregard of the law” is not a meaningful expression if the law is not enforced!

 

I think that I've covered this already, except to say two things. Firstly, there are plenty of occasions when the law is indeed enforced and there would, after all, be little or no work either for intellectual property lawyers or police who work in such areas if no such enforcements were ever made; no one in his/her right mind would knowingly engage a lawyer at vast expense in the certain advance knowledge that no possible redress could or would result. Secondly, would you advocate - or be prepared to accept - more copyright police in order to make the law more enforceable and therefore less "ridiculous"-looking?


(xxx) wrote on Tue, 23 January 2007 18:22

Forgive my ramblings above, but my main question is what applies in the case of a transcription of what is heard into notes on the printed page. I suspect that the law of copyright does say something about this and that it cannot be got round in this way.


 

Indeed it does - although what it "says" is really no different to the way it addresses any other form of illegal copying; the principle is precisely the same and only the techniques involved in the theft are different. That said, the material difference in application here is that one is dealing with a creation that may not originally have been notated (i.e. an improvised performance) but which has been transcribed into notation. If the improviser is happy for this to be done by someone else without having to give permission for it, then that puts the original work in the public domain, so it is no longer covered by copyright law and there is therefore no problem. However, even in such circumstances, if the original improvisation happens to be based wholly or in part on someone else's copyright material (which is not uncommon in the jazz world), then the rights of the original composer of that material may have been flouted by the transcriber.


(xxx) wrote on Tue, 23 January 2007 18:22

The Oscar Peterson files that were posted might have been created in this way. Does the person who created them own any copyright as a result of transcribing them, I wonder?

 

To begin with, I do not know if the Peterson material concerned is wholly in the public domain or not. If the transcriber has merely notated what Peterson played, he is not entitled to establish copyright in his/her work, because intellectual property rights extend only to originators of material. If, on the other hand, he/she has added material of his/her own, he/she would be entitled to establish copyright in any such addition. In such cases, national royalty collecting/distributing organisations such as PRS in UK would usually have the work assessed to determine what portion of rights apply to whom. Take, for example, Sorabji's two Pastiches on Chopin's "Minute" Waltz; even though the original is in the public domain (and therefore not subject to copyright law), the transcriber (Sorabji) was entitled only to copyright on his elaborations/distortions of the original, so the work had to be assessed to the extent of determining what proportion was Chopin's and what proportion Sorabji's."
 
 


No, if anyone has been bothered to read this far (OK, may I now address both of you?!), the basic point in understanding of this issue is that, since stealing a car, a house, money, personal identity, etc. is still relieveing the owner of his/her rightful property without his/her permission and without payment for that property, it is in reality no different to the theft of intellectual property; the only "difference" is that you can't actually see the intellectual property per se (by which I mean the creation as distinct from a recording / script / score of it), whereas in all the other cases (except that of personal identity and moeny that is not actually in the form of hard cash) the stolen property can be seen.

I hope that this attempt at explanation helps.

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

In what way is this relevant the case which was the subject of this thread? Pianowolfi has already said that he paid for the score. I do not understand the purpose in the publisher pursuing an individual as has been detailed here - it simply looks vindictive and, frankly, rather pointless. I can only assume that your comments are referring to Prometheus's stance. Out of curiosity I would however be interested in your opinion as to whether there is any basis under copyright law for what has happened to Pianowolfi.

[pianowolfi]

In what way is this relevant the case which was the subject of this thread? Pianowolfi has already said that he paid for the score. I do not understand the purpose in the publisher pursuing an individual as has been detailed here - it simply looks vindictive and, frankly, rather pointless. I can only assume that your comments are referring to Prometheus's stance. Out of curiosity I would however be interested in your opinion as to whether there is any basis under copyright law for what has happened to Pianowolfi.

Oh yes I am interested in Alistair's opinion too. There might be a law that says you have to applicate any performance of a piece, even if your performance is not commercially orientated (which was the case here, I did just do a collection to cover expenses) And as a prospective composer myself.

[ahinton]

In what way is this relevant the case which was the subject of this thread?

...

I can only assume that your comments are referring to Prometheus's stance.

The purpose of what I wrote and quoted here was to endeavour to establish some better understanding of the copyright principle (hence the relevance) and my comments do indeed refer to the stance of "Prometheus" and anyone else who happens to think similarly about this issue in general.

Pianowolfi has already said that he paid for the score. I do not understand the purpose in the publisher pursuing an individual as has been detailed here - it simply looks vindictive and, frankly, rather pointless.

...

Out of curiosity I would however be interested in your opinion as to whether there is any basis under copyright law for what has happened to Pianowolfi.

Clearly, the publisher is not claiming that a copy of the score has been illegally obtained - nor has it been illegally obtained, according to "pianowolfi". From what I can understand of this case, he is being pursued for an illegally distributed recording of a performance which may or may not have been given legally (although, as I show below, the matter of the legality of the performance itself should not be "pianowolfi"'s concern or responsibility) and it does not seem as though he is being pursued over the live performance itself.

I cannot pronounce on an individual case, even had I the legal qualifications to do so (which I don't), but I will neverhtless give it my best shot.

When public performances of works in copyright take place, it is usually the responsibility of the licensee/s of the performance venue to make appropriate returns of all performances to the relevant organisation in the country concerned (PRS in UK, ASCAP in US, SACEM in Canada, etc.) and to settle invoices subsequently sent to them in respect of royalties due on them. It is therefore not usually the responsibility of the performer to take care of this.

I assume that the performance in question took place in an academic institution. I would be surprised if the publisher had gotten to hear of the performance itself and, had a copy of its recording not been uploaded to Youtube, it would still, in all probability, know nothing of it. When recordings of copyright material are made, the record company making them has the same kinds of responsibility as has the licensee/s of performance venues. When there is no record company involved and a recording of a copyright work is made (as in this case), there is no problem or obligation in respect of that recording unless it is publicly distributed (as is the case with the Youtube uploading).

This is where the publisher has gotten involved. In order to comply with copyright law, permission publicly to distribute recordings of copyright material under the control of a copyright holoder or his/her agent/s (in this case a publisher) must first be sought and granted (and due any fees/royalties paid) before such distribution may take place; if that does not happen, a breach of law will have occurred and this is why the publisher has written accordingly.

The rule of thumb is therefore to ask first before proceeding, if the work/s in question is/are in copyright.

As already indicated, what I have written here cannot be taken as a statement of law in this particular case, but I hope that it will nevertheless provide at least some useful clue as to what this is about and how it works.

Best,

Alistair

[pianowolfi]

The rule of thumb is therefore to ask first before proceeding, if the work/s in question is/are in copyright.

As already indicated, what I have written here cannot be taken as a statement of law in this particular case, but I hope that it will nevertheless provide at least some useful clue as to what this is about and how it works.

Yes thanks Alistair, this is very helpful!

[prometheus]

I feel kind of arrogant for 'invoking' such a long reply from Ahinton since I kind of feel obliged to read it, eventhough most of it was written before.

I just oppose the idea that someone can 'own' an idea.

And what is worse is that you are forced to sell your idea to a publisher who does try to make money with your idea and does try to avoid paying you too much.

Maybe I will read everything posted later when I actually have the time to do so.

[counterpoint]

Am I a little naive to think, that composers and music publishers should  have an interest, that their music is performed, the more the better?

It löoks to me, that the copyright laws make it impossible to perform most of the music of 20th century. Who can be happy about this? Every performance of music, that's published by Universal Edition for example would supposedly  increase the sale of the printed sheet music. But publishers don't seem to want the music to be performed and the sheet music to be sold, but they want to fight with their lawyers against the people, who want to play the music. That's so absurd and senseless...

[prometheus]

It's about public performances.

[counterpoint]

It's about public performances.

They don't want their works performed in public 

[ahinton]

I just oppose the idea that someone can 'own' an idea.

That, however, is a matter of moral philosophy rather than a legal issue.

And what is worse is that you are forced to sell your idea to a publisher who does try to make money with your idea and does try to avoid paying you too much.

Not true; there is no law anywhere (or at least none of which I am aware) that "forces" anyone to sell anything to a publisher and, when a contract is entered into between a compser and a publisher, the rights and responsibilities of both parties are enshrined within it and, if the publisher fails in its contractual duties toward the composer (for example by failing to remit due payment to the composer as you suggest may sometimes happen), the composer can sue if need be.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Am I a little naive to think, that composers and music publishers should  have an interest, that their music is performed, the more the better?

Er - no...

It löoks to me, that the copyright laws make it impossible to perform most of the music of 20th century. Who can be happy about this?

No one, I imagine, except those who don't like new music full stop - but what evidence do you have for this statement? Publishers and composers receive public performance, broadcast and recording royalties only when the works concerned are publicly performed, broadcast and recorded.

Every performance of music, that's published by Universal Edition for example would supposedly  increase the sale of the printed sheet music. But publishers don't seem to want the music to be performed and the sheet music to be sold, but they want to fight with their lawyers against the people, who want to play the music. That's so absurd and senseless...

It would indeed be "absurd and senseless" were it true, but where is your evidence for this claim? Publishers only secure the (always expensive) services of lawyers to take action against people if and when they believe they have evidence that copyright has been violated, not whenever legitimate performances and broadcasts have been given and recordings made.

I'm afraid that you're completely off beam here!...

Best,

Alistair

[counterpoint]

I'm afraid that you're completely off beam here!...

Best,

Alistair

       

Composers are not interested in performances of their works, if they don't get money for the permonance?

Even if the organizers of the concerts and the musicians play totally without any financial profit?

If I don't earn money from it, I don't want my works to be played at all?

So, if the musicians think the same way round, the future of music looks very hopeless.

[ahinton]

       

Composers are not interested in performances of their works, if they don't get money for the permonance?

Even if the organizers of the concerts and the musicians play totally without any financial profit?

If I don't earn money from it, I don't want my works to be played at all?

So, if the musicians think the same way round, the future of music looks very hopeless.

I wrote nothing of the kind. However, were composers expected almost always to have their works publicly played, broadcast and recorded and their scores sold without any expectations of payment, how do you supopse that they or their publishers (if any) would survive?

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Just as well copyright lawyers weren't around 200-odd years ago.

The young Mozart would have been sued for writing out from memory the composition he had just heard, sundry composers would have sued Liszt for transcribing their opera themes, Schiller would have sued Beethoven for the "Ode to Joy"...

[counterpoint]

I wrote nothing of the kind. However, were composers expected almost always to have their works publicly played, broadcast and recorded and their scores sold without any expectations of payment, how do you supopse that they or their publishers (if any) would survive?

Best,

Alistair

I talked about pianowolfi, who uploaded his own playing of two preludes by Frank Martin (as I understood it). Pianowolfi did not earn a cent out of this performance. So why does Universal Edition stands up and forces him do delete video? Who has a benefit of the deleted video?

It's so illogical.

Btw., who would doubt, that youtube is a "public performance", but all the people, who play themselves on youtube, don't get a penny out of it. So what's wrong with it?

[pianowolfi]

Just as well copyright lawyers weren't around 200-odd years ago.

The young Mozart would have been sued for writing out from memory the composition he had just heard, sundry composers would have sued Liszt for transcribing their opera themes, Schiller would have sued Beethoven for the "Ode to Joy"...

Yes and Bach would have been sued for copying and transcribing Vivaldi over and over

Btw yesterday i did an improv on Rihanna's "Unfaithful". I don't think I could post this anywhere even if I would want to (And i don't want because i am not convinced of it yet) Even in the audition room here it might be a problem perhaps? I don't know.

[prometheus]

You mean Vivaldi and Teleman?

[ronde_des_sylphes]

The monk (Celano) who wrote the Dies Irae was very remiss in not patenting it - his estate could have made a fortune out of Rachmaninov

[pianowolfi]

The monk (Celano) who wrote the Dies Irae was very remiss in not patenting it - his estate could have made a fortune out of Rachmaninov

Well ahemm yes!!

an addicted Dies Irae fan

[imbetter]

hey wolfi could u pm me some of your youtube videos 

[pianowolfi]

Well this was actually so far the only one with myself playing the piano.

[imbetter]

...i liked the 15 second one with you being stupid and just walking.


make more piano videos!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[pianowolfi]

Yes. But back to topic. Still I am not sure what they mean with a counter notice.

[ahinton]

Just as well copyright lawyers weren't around 200-odd years ago.

The young Mozart would have been sued for writing out from memory the composition he had just heard, sundry composers would have sued Liszt for transcribing their opera themes, Schiller would have sued Beethoven for the "Ode to Joy"...

The young Mozart would not have been sued (or at least not successfully) merely for copying out from memory something that he had just heard; there was and is no law against doing that. Had copyright law been around at the time Liszt made his many transcriptions - and had there been representatives of those deceased composers whose music he transcribed - his publishers would formally have applied for the necessary permissions and, given who Liszt was and how marvellous the best of his transcriptions are, I doubt very much that anyone would have raised any objections. Likewise, Beethoven - and/or his publishers - would have approached Schiller - and/or his publishers - for the appropriate permission to use that ode. "Suing" only happens when someone has transgressed by violating a current law (except in a few cases where people sue others fatuously); if there are certain laws, most people abide by them and I'm quite sure that Beethoven and Liszt would have done so. What about Richard Strauss? - he was one of the founding fathers of GEMA, the German licensing and royalty collecting and distributing organisation (i.e. the German equivalent of PRS, ASCAP, SACEM, etc.); should we condemn Richard Strauss for complicity?

Since you mention Mozart, it might indeed have been a good thing had copyright lawyers been around in his day - for he might then have made some more well deserved money out of his work.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I talked about pianowolfi, who uploaded his own playing of two preludes by Frank Martin (as I understood it). Pianowolfi did not earn a cent out of this performance. So why does Universal Edition stands up and forces him do delete video? Who has a benefit of the deleted video?

It's so illogical.

Btw., who would doubt, that youtube is a "public performance", but all the people, who play themselves on youtube, don't get a penny out of it. So what's wrong with it?

I am prepared to accept (and indeed have been so all along) that this case does indeed sound unfortunate, but the question of whether those who may upload such recordings derive financial benefit from doing so is not actually the point at issue here; the point is that, just by placing such material in the public arena, that material then becomes available to all and sundry to copy and sell it.

I am quite sure that "pianowolfi" did what he did in all innocence and, if a case were brought (which I'm pretty certain it won't), it would not so much be "laughed out of court" as likely dismissed on the basis that the intent was not to steal anything; this fact, however, does not alter the principle involved. If everyone were to make published or unpublished copyright material universally available without permission and free of charge or obligation, the originator will stand to get nothing for his/her work. Were such a procedure to become the norm, where do you suppose that this would leave the future of new music composition?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Yes and Bach would have been sued for copying and transcribing Vivaldi over and over

Why? (see my remarks below).

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

The monk (Celano) who wrote the Dies Irae was very remiss in not patenting it - his estate could have made a fortune out of Rachmaninov

Only Rakhmaninov? Nonsense! What about eveyone else that has used that melody!?

There's only one slight problem, however; most copyright extends only to the end of the 70th year following the composer's death so, as well as composing the Dies Iræ that we know, Tommaso di Celano would have had also to live on for quite a few centuries after its composition in order that he or his Estate could coin it in! - and it is evident that he didn't have Elliott Carter's secret of going on and on and still composing (he's now in his 99th year and still at it, for those who didn't already know this)...

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

The young Mozart would not have been sued (or at least not successfully) merely for copying out from memory something that he had just heard; there was and is no law against doing that.

So, if someone plays publicly from memory and they are sued, it is a valid defence to say "I listened to X's recording and learnt it that way - I've never seen the score"?

Similarly, with such things as the written-out versions of Horowitz and Volodos pieces that are floating around the web, if you play from them, the only breach of copyright committed is the copyright of the person who wrote the score out?

[ahinton]

Yes. But back to topic. Still I am not sure what they mean with a counter notice.

I'm trying to be as helpful as I can here, although please accept that I am not immediately party to this incident and my understanding of it accordingly does not and cannot extend beyond the information that you have kindly provided in this thread.

My best understanding is that the "counter notice" is something which Youtube are requesting from you to the effect that you have removed, or allowed to be removed, any copyright material for which appropriate prior permission had not been granted, so that they can in turn provide this as evidence of such removal to Universal Edition. If my understanding is correct and if you have indeed so complied with Youtube's request, I imagine that this will be the end of the matter. If you have any doubts, question, uncertainties or other concerns, however, my best recommendation is that you respond to Youtube and ask them whatever questions you feel you need to ask and then act accordingly.

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

There's info on the youtube site as to what a counter notice is. I will try to find it again.