Does copyright drive change in folk?

Subject: Does copyright drive change in folk?
From: Santa
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 05:10 AM

Pondering on the threads about Bert Lloyd and the changes he introduced to traditional songs led me to the following thought.

Does the modern copyright demand mean that performers are driven to change the songs that they wish to use? How much has this sped the rate of change of traditional songs? The performer may feel the need to do the song his/her way for individual satisfaction and/or recognition - or just because of difficulty in hitting certain notes! - but the need to maximise income by avoiding copyright may often come into the picture.

Any comments?

Subject: RE: Does copyright drive change in folk?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 06:23 AM

My initial reaction is "no" - at least in my personal experience. Vin Garbutt has his own delivery of the Flowers & The Guns, even a couple of the chords in the middle-eight are different, but he did not register it as his own arrangement to save on royalty payments.

Ditto with Roy Bailey and all the songs he sings by other artists. And Andy Irvine has effectively produced a whole new arrangement of Empty Handed, but not registered it as such.

The rate of change may be greater now, but for other reasons, rather than copyright: For example, a song spreads faster with today's technologies (so more people can have a go at doing their own versions); and the technology itself allows easier and more radical change (from sampling to you-name-it). And the younger generations rightly want to add their interpretation to the old songs (and are not restricted by the old codger in the corner of the bar who will moan that this was "Arfur's song and should be left alone").

Subject: RE: Does copyright drive change in folk?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 06:29 AM

I should also state that in the world of folk, earnings of songwriters are peanuts. One gets a lot more from own performance rights. To give you an idea, I have about a dozen songs being covered one way or another. If I did not sing myself (and get the PRS fee from my own performances, but only from the performances of others, or the air time of covers, even throwing in the MCPS fees for the mechancial rights), then I would need 20-30 times the number of covers to survive, and that would still make me lower-paid then a starting teacher.

Nah. In folk, the royalties don't drive anything.

Subject: RE: Does copyright drive change in folk?
From: Bryn Pugh
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 06:57 AM

Section 61 subsection (2) paragraph a) Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 speaks in terms of recordings of folksongs (sic) not infringing copyright provided certain conditions are fulfilled.

I think that difficulty might arise if a claim were made that a constructed variant was a completely new artistic work, within the meaning of the Act.

Are we reaching a stage when a performer who has consciously altered words of a song (not necessarily to its detriment) is bound to declare "This is my own redaction" ?

See the |Bertsongs thread, which is, I think, the 'father' of this one.

That said, I agree with everything George says, above.

Subject: RE: Does copyright drive change in folk?
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 07:03 AM

Last I knew, Copyright drives an aging Nissan but is looking to trade for a Honda Hybrid or Toyota Prius in the near future.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Does copyright drive change in folk?
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 07:26 AM

I think George has nailed it nicely.

We've had suggestions in the past that the issue of copyright might restrict the sharing of songs (whether trad or orig is immaterial).

My understanding (I could well be wrong) is that copyright exists de facto upon creation of a work. The issue is then merely whether it is pursued or not. So even trad songs were all (retrospectively - the legislation did not exist till, was it 1922?) in copyright once. The copyright has lapsed now of course, so can only reside in arrangements (see below).

I know some think that the existence of a registered copyright runs against the sharing ethos of folk music, but my understanding is that it doesn't. Royalties are collected in any event on all copyright (and I think non-copyright - though this is another issue) material anyway. The registration process IS de facto publishing, effectively making the work free to use, provided the use is declared - though good manners still suggest asking permission if you can find the writer.

Whereas if a song is NOT registered/published you DO need permission, in case the copyright owner IS planning to restrict access - unless you are certain that the song has been released for free for ever (which would have no legal standing anyway and could be challenged by an estate retrospectively after the writer's death- is that right?).

Therefore the law and copyright process in fact support and even encourage the dissemination (sharing) of songs, while also protecting copyright for those who want it so.

And of course correct attribution has other advantages as discussed elsewhere.

As for the speed of change question I'd say no. Before it was possible to register arrangements, there were those who liked to make changes, and those who preferred to remain faithful to the song or tune as learned. And that's still the case now.

Registering an arrangement only means that you theoretically get the royalty that's being collected anyway - whether you registered it or not - from your own performances and any others, by others, stated to be of your arrangement.

Your arrangement basically means you playing it - pretty much regardless of how much you've changed the work by mistake or on purpose - so again no driver for acceleration of change.

Do you legally need permission to register an arrangement of a copyright work? I'm not sure, but it would be foolish not to check it out first anyway!

Have I got this completely wrong? It's a complex subject and I'm not expert.

Tom

(see you at Whitby I hope G)

Subject: RE: Does copyright drive change in folk?
From: Santa
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 08:50 AM

If I'm reading the above correctly, the responses are that performers do not generally make/register their own arrangements with the intention of claiming royalties, because the return from the royalties does not make it worthwhile. That's certainly relevant, but slightly different from what I meant to ask. Rather than saying "maximising income" I should perhaps have said "minimising expenditure" - thinking that the costs of producing a CD would be less if the performer did not have to pay royalties to a predecessor.

A club singer will happily sing song X, based on the arrangement or version as it came from whomever he/she first heard it. This might well be different from the version originally collected at the turn of the century, or that as encountered in the singing of singer Y in the 1930s, different again to group X in the 1970s. Yes, he/she will introduce changes to match personal style or ability, but changes based on this kind of approach will have spread slowly in the past - and would nowadays were this the only route for change. Perhaps wrongly, I would expect a paid performer to feel a greater need to produce something distinctive rather than a repeat, and wondered if the influence of copyright was driving this to a greater extent than otherwise would have occurred.

I think George is right that other influences affect this: particularly the modern ease of obtaining large quantities of music in such wide varieties. But I don't want to widen the question.

Subject: RE: Does copyright drive change in folk?
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 09:02 AM

All that George said still applies. In short: it makes no difference monetarily.

In any case what if it did?

Others would still only sing/play the good quality versions newly produced/changed - and the tradition would continue as it always has done.

Subject: RE: Does copyright drive change in folk?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 03:24 AM

It is possible to argue that the concept of copyright was, as far as the UK is concerned, born in 1601. There was copyright in musical works before the 1911 Copyright Act, and indeed the Berne Convention predates that by some time, but IMHO it was the 1911 Act that first started to map the copyright landscape that we see today in the UK.

Bryn, the exception to which you refer relates to "designated archives" - and is deficient in that it refers to "songs" only and not to the tunes without words. I pointed this out to the DTI in 1987 when the draft clauses for the 1988 Act were out for consultation but they flushed all of my (correct, of course) criticisms except for one of the less important ones.

Subject: RE: Does copyright drive change in folk?
From: Bryn Pugh
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 05:54 AM

Yes, indeed, Richard - I am somewhat rusty on CD & PA 1988. Thank you for pointing this out.

I wonder why the actions and reaction of the then DTI do not surprise me ? Wasn't that moron Heseltine in the driving seat, then ?

Regards, B

Subject: RE: Does copyright drive change in folk?
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 08:42 AM

ah but it can.
a newly composed song[in the 21 century]is generally sung in the way the composer wrote it.
thus, the changes that used to occur,when songs were orally transmitted[ala chinese whispers]very rarely do.
the songs have become akin to pop songs,in that a standardised version[the one the composer wrote]means change no longer occurs in the way it did when songs were orally transmitted.
so the change that copyright produces,is that composed 21 modern folksongs become changed hardly at all.

Subject: RE: Does copyright drive change in folk?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 11:00 AM

I don't think that that's right in several respects.

First, of course, it misuses the expression "folk song".

Second the arena of folk performance differs, and in my experience modern songs in the idiom are pretty well as much varied as older songs, perhaps more so. "Ride On" was done as a very slow dirge by Christy Moore - the standard version, save that he was not the composer - but is now at least around North Kent more frequently done the John Barden way, as a mad gallop. I do "Sally free and easy" more as a rock song. The way I do "Morning dew" owes more to Nazareth than to Tim Rose. "The Fields of Athenrae" has, at the hands of Tone Deaf Leopard, become "the Thieves of Peckham Rye". I know of one band that does "Step it out Mary" over the standard Shadows C, Am, F, G sequence.

Maybe "open mic" is more slavish.

Third, it is not copyright that controls the changes that I mention. Tempo, or key, for sure, are not matters of copyright. The changes that do occur are not policed by the enforcement of copyright, even though blanket licences in theory do not allow adaptation (technical term in copyright) of works.

Interestingly, the 1954 definition asserts (correctly IMHO) that the slavish adoption of composed music does not make it folk, whereas the osmotic absorption and alteration that I assert does in fact occur is the folk process and can give the absorbed songs the right to be called "folk songs".

Subject: RE: Does copyright drive change in folk?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 12:21 PM

Dick, you say "the changes that used to occur,when songs were orally transmitted[ala chinese whispers]very rarely do", referring to newly composed songs. Hmmm, not 100% sure about this, see my references to Vin G and Andy I in my first post above. See also what Bob Fox has done with some of Jez Lowe's songs.

In other words yes, there are fewer (or no) changes due to the vagaries of oral transmission; but the creativity of the performer is still at work and producing several good arrangements of new songs.

Subject: RE: Does copyright drive change in folk?
From: GUEST,Jonny Sunshine
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 12:45 PM

The main incentive arising from copyright on arrangements of traditional material is for artists to perform and record traditional music.

I think you'd have to make fairly substantial additions or changes which went beyond "arrangement" - and for someone else to incorporate those additions or changes in their version- in order to be getting royalties from someone else's performance or recording of a traditional song - and as George said, I doubt anyone makes that much from royalties on traditional music other than from their own performance or recordings.

Of course if someone writes something that is inadvertently (or deliberately) credited as traditional, and someone else earn royalties, then that's a whole different situation.