copyright status - privately edited scores?

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I was wondering if someone had any ideas on this. Obviously I don't expect a definitive answer but it would be interesting to see what people had to say.

What do you think the copyright status is of scores where someone has transcribed an unpublished piece by ear? (eg some Cziffra, Volodos, Horowitz, possibly the Pletnev Nutcracker, though that may have been published officially, I don't know)

Does the sheet music copyright reside with the aural transcriber, the performer, or the company who issued the recording? I would assume the first, but am not sure.

I ask because at a forthcoming performance (within the UK) I will have to give the event promoter the details of the pieces, publisher etc so that the information can be forwarded to the Performing Rights Society.

Thanks for any help.

[richard black]

[Sorry, brain blip, must learn to think before writing - comment deleted!]

[thalbergmad]

In my experience, unpublished scores have the same protection as published scores. Or at least, this is what i was told when i wanted copies of some Bowen manuscripts.

If no score exists, then i would have thought the copyright would belong to the transcriber, if he cared to register it. Some of the existing volodos transcriptions appear to be covered.

I am not 100% certain, but i would have thought our resident King of Copyright could enlighten us with a few million carefully chosen words.

Thal

[daro]

I was wondering if someone had any ideas on this. Obviously I don't expect a definitive answer but it would be interesting to see what people had to say.

What do you think the copyright status is of scores where someone has transcribed an unpublished piece by ear? (eg some Cziffra, Volodos, Horowitz, possibly the Pletnev Nutcracker, though that may have been published officially, I don't know)

I am not the King of Copyright, nor a lawyer, nor even a resident of the UK, but I would tread very, very carefully here. I would think that transcriptions by ear of unpublished scores would have absolutely no valid copyright status unless it was expressly conferred on the transcriber by the copyright holder. After all, the score is simply a representation of the underlying music, and you'd need to have been given certain rights to that before creating and distributing any new representation of it in the first place. IOW, a copyright in your name would just be plagiarism. If works are in the public domain, that's different, but otherwise, I would think that all rights to an unpublished work are reserved with whoever currently holds the copyright, and that includes publication, distribution, and even the right to perform it publicly.

Does the sheet music copyright reside with the aural transcriber, the performer, or the company who issued the recording? I would assume the first, but am not sure.

I ask because at a forthcoming performance (within the UK) I will have to give the event promoter the details of the pieces, publisher etc so that the information can be forwarded to the Performing Rights Society.

Thanks for any help.

Again, sheet music is an explicit representation of the 'real' music. Seems to me that neither the transcriber nor the performer could possibly register a copyright unless it was a new edition, for which you'd still need the permission of the author or his/her estate. As for a company that has produced a recording, unless the work is in the public domain, then it would seem to me that the company would have had to have secured a license from the copyright holder to record it in the first place, which means these are no longer 'unpublished' works.

Now I could certainly be wrong about all this, but at the very least, I think you need to find the current copyright holder, and I would also strongly suggest talking to an entertainment lawyer and getting a written opinion before proceeding any further with this.

yd

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I would think that transcriptions by ear of unpublished scores would have absolutely no valid copyright status unless it was expressly conferred on the transcriber by the copyright holder. After all, the score is simply a representation of the underlying music, and you'd need to have been given certain rights to that before creating and distributing any new representation of it in the first place. IOW, a copyright in your name would just be plagiarism. If works are in the public domain, that's different, but otherwise, I would think that all rights to an unpublished work are reserved with whoever currently holds the copyright, and that includes publication, distribution, and even the right to perform it publicly.

Thanks for your detailed reply.

For the avoidance of confusion (it is possible I'm misunderstanding you), I was in no way thinking of attempting to assign copyright to myself. I have been told my my concert promoter that I need to provide the details of the publisher of the sheet music that I will be performing from so that such details can be passed onto the Performing Rights Society; any resultant royalties payable will then be deducted from ticket receipts. Where I know who is the creator of an unpublished score, I am perfectly happy to credit them for their work - but as far as I know, the PRS pays royalties to the copyright holder (if any), hence my original question.

[ahinton]

If a piece is not published but is demonstrably by a composer whose work is in copyright, one has only to prove (or have sufficient evidence available to support the fact) that it is by a composer whose work is still under copyright. If it is not written down, the composer's copyright is obviously much harder to establish; how is it possible to prove that it is the work of a particular composer? If the composer has performed it, that might help to some degree, but copyright in anything that is not actually written down (even if only in manuscript) is always much harder to determine beyond doubt than it is for written works.

When someone makes an arrangement/transcription of a work, copyright has to be shared between the arranger/transcriber and the original composer; in the case of editors, this can on occasion enter the area of the litigious minefield as in the instance of the excellent UK record company Hyperion falling foul of the asserted rights of the scholar and editor Dr. Lionel Sawkins, the outcome of which demostrated that the law can be just but, upon overturn on appeal, can still turn into the proverbial ass.

The Sorabji Archive is most fortunate in those editors who have laboured intensively, voluntarily, without expectation of payment and for heaven knows how many hundreds of hours to produce the splendid editions that they have and, equally fortunately, none of this has become an issue for litigation (not that I would have expected such, but then at the same time I never expected that such remarkable musicians would do this work as they have done and are continuing to do in the first place); copyright in all the music that they have edited remains within The Sorabji Archive and copyright in each of the editions themselves rests with each editor.

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Thanks, Alistair - I think that clarifies the situation somewhat.

[Bob]

A transcription is a form of a copy.  But the original has to be in fixed form.  I think there's a loophole where you can transcribe an improvised solo and have control over that because the original source wasn't in a fixed form. 

But if the original composer wrote it down, it's in fixed form and it wouldn't matter whether or not they registered it. 

Europe has moral rights though so that's different than the U.S. 

Copyrights can be pieced out and bought and sold like property so you have to find out who owns it.  It might not be the composer any more if they sold or gave them away. 

I would imagine the transcriber would have some "intellectual content" put into deciding how to write down the music.  That does take some brainpower.  And there's an art to setting it up nicely and having things formatted right on the page.

If the original was recorded with audio or written down somehow, that's fixed form.  There is something different with improvisation because it's not set into a fixed form.  I would imagine someone could still sue if you wrote down their improvisation and started making lots of money off it.

[richard black]

Of course, you could simply phone the PRS and ask what's best to put on the form. I've always found them quite helpful on the phone.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

A disturbingly practical suggestion!

[thalbergmad]

Alternatively, you could read Hinty's post.

By the time you have finished it, whatever it was will be out of copyright anyway.

Thal

[ahinton]

Alternatively, you could read Hinty's post.

No, not alternatively - additionally. Since the orignal enquirer who started this thread seems happy enough with the advice given and since PRS was already mentioned by that enquirer in the first post in this thread, it would appear that the enquirer has no problem with the responses.

By the time you have finished it, whatever it was will be out of copyright anyway.

My post contained 308 words and Bob's 201. The length of time from reading the beginning of either to copyright expiry of the work/s concerned will vary in accordance both with the copyright expiry date and the speed at which the reader reads. If transcriber copyright is under consideration here (which that first post suggests), it is clear that, since two of the transcribers mentioned are still alive, copyright in their transcriptions is likely to last for at least another 70 years even if they both dropped down dead today (which hopefully they won't); if it would really take you 70+ years to read 201 words, you must be one of the world's slowest readers.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Thanks Mr Logic

[ahinton]

Thanks Mr Logic

Whilst you do not make it entirely clear whom it is that you are thanking here or whom you are addressing is "Mr Logic", if it is to be assumed that both are supposedly intended to refer to me, may I express my apprecation both for your thanks and your evident acceptance that that my conclusion as to your slowness in reading skills is at least logical in terms of the length of time it would take you to read a few hundred words as compared to the remaining copyright term applicable to living composers/transcribers.

If you were ever banned from this forum (which God and all others forbid), would that constitute a Thaliban?

Best,

Alistair

[Bob]

My post contained 308 words and Bob's 201.

Drumroll please. 

It's not the size of your post.  It's what you do with it that counts. 

[ahinton]

Drumroll please. 

It's not the size of your post.  It's what you do with it that counts. 

I would certainly hope so!

Best,

Alistair