Copyright warning - bloggers!

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's Apprentice
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 11:13 AM

There are a fair number of blogs(getting back firmly on track here) that I've come across that link to various download sites, and I have fast formed the opinion that these bloggers simply don't give a tinker's damn, it's sad to say, but true, and I really don't want to hear that it's "freedom of choice", because it's not, it's theft, plain and simpleand if, as I've been reading, that is the possibility of internet priviliges being withdrawn, so be it. Popular to some schools of thought, the internet is a privilige, not a right.

Charlotte (thinking a thick ear might benefit some bloggers)

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 04:41 AM

Sorry 'bout that Nigel
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Giant Folk Eyeball (inactive)
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 04:11 AM

The Pogues were my generation too, rather than Steeleye Span - loved Shane McGowan's way with words and a tune, but never quite learned to love his voice...

Jim - I'll never watch that film in quite the same light again!

Cheers

Nigel

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 03:56 AM

I agree with Nigel and Anahata. For me, 20 years ago, it was The Pogues.

I never got folk rock, though - Steeleye, Fairport et al...I was the wrong generation, I think.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 03:30 AM

"things like the Wicker Man soundtrack"
Still reckon that Christopher Lee looks like Maddy Prior on Speed!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Giant Folk Eyeball (inactive)
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 04:35 PM

Responding to Anahata's post above:

At the risk of making Diane E physically sick, things like the Wicker Man soundtrack and then an exploration of pychedelic folk (ISB, Forest, Dr Strangely Strange, Mellow Candle, Dando Shaft etc) led me to the Fairports, early Steeleye Span, Mr Fox (still one of my favourite bands ever), Albion Band etc. It wasn't such a huge leap from the folk rock to Martin Carthy, Nic Jones, Anne Briggs, Shirley Collins etc. Once I got there I was absolutely hooked - it was like coming home. Since then, I've been hugely enjoying discovering Anahata & Mary Humphreys, Jackie Oates, John Dipper, Lisa Knapp, Jim Causley and lots of others. I've also been listening to Voice of the People, Lomax recordings etc. This isn't to say I don't listen to the other stuff any more - I do, and I still really enjoy it, but more than anything else I'm listening to more and more traditional music - both in the traditional and revival forms, each of which have their own validity. And this journey has all taken place in the last three or so years.

So my point is, even the Wicker Man soundtrack, let alone Steeleye Span, can lead some people to traditional music.

And I have to thank Mark Coyle from the Unbroken Circle for introducing me to so much of the music I've heard over the last few years. Now I'm using Diane's myspace friends list as my music guide!

Cheers

Nigel

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Bryn Pugh
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 11:27 AM

PS . . . the Jurisdiction of England & Wales only.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Bryn Pugh
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 11:26 AM

I haven't had time to read all the postings here.

Until I retired from Academe in 1997 I was one of the Intellectual Property lawyers in the School of Law, Liverpool John Moores University, with Professor Penelope Pearce.

Clearly I would not wish to encroach on the work being done at JMU ; but, if I am able to answer IP Law queries from fellow 'Catters, I will.

Thatsaid : the fact that I have no intention of charging a fee for any such advice means that I can accept no responsibility for errors and/or omissions.

Any such advice will be given on information furnished, and can concern the Jurisdiction of England & Wales

Bryn Pugh BA (Law) LL.M.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 05:40 AM

Anahata I agree ,Iknow at least six people,who have been introduced to folk/traditional music,through one of the following groups,.
Horslips,Fairport Convention,Steeleye Span,TheSpinners.
They are all people who have progressed to less commercial music and are all performers of less commercial brands of Folk.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: treewind
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 04:03 AM

"what they draw an audience for is their particular take on traditional song."
Then a small percentage of that audience get interested in where the band got their material from, and discover it's the traditional music itself, rather than that treatment of it, that they really like.

It will always be a very small percentage of the population that does this, but some of those people might never have discovered the music they now love otherwise.

Maybe Nigel will be back soon with his own take on this - I know that's been (some of) his experience.

Anahata

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 03:44 AM

The theory that groups such as Pentangle and Steeleye draw an audience for traditional song doesn't hold water; what they draw an audience for is their particular take on traditional song.
When Shirley Ellis took 'The Clapping Song' into the hit parade many centuries ago, some argued (including several folk magazines) that this was the big break through - it didn't happen. The same applies to Sinead O'Connor's 'Nua Sean Nós album, which has done nothin whatever for Irish traditional song.
Watering down malt whiskey only develops a taste for watered down malt whiskey.
My 'restricted' definition is restricted by the fact that there is a definition to be restricted by (see 'How Much Folk is There' thread) This is a definition, not a law that everybody must listen to the real thing.
Jim
Ccarroll

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 12:28 PM

PS - Strictly speaking of course I meant in folk clubs / singaround context which is where I do most of my folk song listening these days, discounting my own efforts. I tried singing 'Lay the Bent / Riddles' of late but I got a bit dispirited by the last few verses which are of an obviously different order to the quite freewheeling eroticism of the rest of the song. I tried leaving them out but given the narrative intensity at the beginning it seemed a bit incomplete without them, so I sort of gave up. Maybe Pentangle had the same problem???

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 12:20 PM

Spooky indeed; I'll have hear this, but, to get back on thread, I won't dare to ask for an mp3...

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Nigel Spencer (cookieless)
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 12:06 PM

Quote: "and I've never heard anyone singing Lay the Bent as 'Riddles Wisely Expounded' so something's wrong somewhere."

Jon Loomes 'Fearful Symmetry' (Fellside 2005) Track 11.

By some weird symmetry I've just been listening to it. Who says traditional music isn't spooky?

Cheers

Nigel

Apologies for furtherence of thread drift

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 11:48 AM

Santa - I think it's misleading as to the 'true' nature of both ballads, especially as these days I hear more people singing 'The Cruel Sister' as 'Lay the Bent' than I do as (say) 'Binnorie'. And I've never heard anyone singing Lay the Bent as 'Riddles Wisely Expounded' so something's wrong somewhere.

Perhaps if people were prepared to dig a little deeper then the legacy of the folk revival will be more than people singing stuff they've got off records and actually doing the research themselves? Surely half the fun of a song is the sourcing the provenance of the thing? And once you've sickened yourself with the soda-pop superficialities of Pentangle and Steeleye Span et al, surely you begin to yearn for a drop of the hard stuff?

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: treewind
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 11:44 AM

To continue with the drifted branch of the thread, I don't hold the view that the tradition is a fixed body of material that should be preserved rigidly unchanged, nor that it's dead. It does keep changing, and new songs get added to the tradition (with alarming speed sometimes) and all the way back through traceable history many of the songs we call traditional have commercial origins, whether it was publication as broadsides or writing for the stage or whatever. The superficial context of some songs is out of date (we don't have ploughboys and knights in armour any more) but the real context of human emotions and behaviour hasn't changed a lot.

Also: with traditional ballads it's impossible to get back to the original "source". It quite correct to say that you shouldn't use a particular tune just because some famous revival artist used that tune, but not because they used the wrong tune and there is a right one: the reason why is that you are free to use any tune that fits, because the traditional ballad singers of long ago didn't have set tunes (or set words for that matter). And broadsides were printed as words, with a suggestion of "to the tune of..." for convenience.

In other words the practice of mixing and matching bits of words and tunes to suit yourself is not some modern corruption of the tradition: it's what's always happened. The only difference now is that with widely available printed, recorded and electronic records available we can see it happening much more readily.

Do we need another thread about this? I've a feeling it's been done already.

Anahata

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: treewind
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 11:27 AM

Re: Skivee's last sentence - nicely put.

I have been known to get someone to make a copy of a recording for me.

(a) I had previously bought the record (on vinyl) but lost it during one of several house-moves in between.
(b) it was no longer available from the original label or distributors.
(c) As it happens, the same recording was re-issued on CD recently and I paid up for another copy!

Of course the people who put these things on their websites don't contact the original artist or label. (what do you think they'd say?) They want all the so-called glory for themselves. They don't give a toss whether the original is still available or even whether the artist is alive or dead.

Anahata

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Skivee
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 11:09 AM

Wow, talk about your thread drift!
Back to topic: I went to the (above noted) Celticcicle website and looked around. I was surprised to see my friend Jennifer's band The New St, George's album offered as MP-3 downloads. She's pretty pissed about it.
The poster never asked permission to post her work, She paid thousands to produce that CD. No contact info is given, so it's largely a free give-away of her work. It would have taken very little effort for the poster to contact her and ask permission. The posted album is still available in it's high quality original form. The CD also includes the printed material that puts the tracks in context.
Part of the reason that performers are upset about this sort of thing is that the MP-3 winds up being a crappy version on their efforts. The reason that we spend so much money working in professional studios is that we are looking for the best presentation that we can get of our performances. Not only are these posts theft of the artists efforts, they also are a crappy version of the work.
It's one thing to walk through a greenhouse and ask the gardener if you can pluck a flower. It's quite another to sneak in under cover of darkness, dig up the rosebushes, and cloak yourself in the self-serving excuse that flowers should be free.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Santa
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 10:07 AM

So what if they did mess it up - it still exists in unmessed form. Unless you think it might actually put people off? Generally, I think that presenting traditional songs in contemporary forms more likely to attract new (young) people than presenting them with the pure Walter Pardon. There's something to be said about being thrown in at the deep end, but personally I'd expect more survivors from a gentler approach.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 09:38 AM

Unless of course, they deliberately mess it up - as Pentangle did with The Cruel Sister (see above), but otherwise, Santa, I think that's an excellent point. Hell, I still sing 'Gallant Poacher / Poacher's Fate' much as the day I learnt it off The Battle of the Field, though I'm having a bugger of job un-learning it in the light of the Walter Pardon recording which I only recently acquired!

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Santa
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 09:20 AM

I was looking for a quote from Jim Carroll before, but couldn't find it, now I have. So my apologies for being late in response.

"Cap'n,
The groups you mentioned - and others - came and went without leaving anything of lasting value to traditional song."

The first point is that it is a bit difficult (read impossible) for any recent group or singer(s) to affect traditional song, which by definition predates them.

If you consider that rather a restricted definition, then my second point is, I think, better. What these people left was an audience. New singers, musicians and listeners have come to the tradition via the songs of Steelye Span, Fairport Convention, etc. You may consider the output from these groups to be "tradition-lite" at best, but without them the current folk scene would be even smaller than it is, and I don't see that as being beneficial to passing on the tradition, however defined.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 09:17 AM

Of course it does, all I'm saying is that we revival singers (of whatever generation) operate at a very significant remove from the original context in which the songs came about.

I sing them & perform them, but I don't fool myself into thinking that I am a Traditional Singer, rather a Singer of Traditional Songs, which is something very different.

As for tunes - my advice is always to proceed with caution and get as close to the source as is humanly possible. How often do we hear (say) the melody (& chorus) of Lay The Bent to the Bonny Broom (Child #1) sung to the entirely innapropriate ballad of The Cruel Sister (Child #10), just because Pentangle (for whatever reason) choose to do so?

I recently started singing The Cruel Mother to Mrs Pearl Brewer's superlative melody, as can be heard as part of the Max Hunter archive; I use a different set of words however, but I always point out my sources in performances.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: mattkeen
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 09:02 AM

I am not sure that I understand your fine distinctions.
But, what the hell.....

To me traditional songs and tunes needs to be still performed and lived

ALSO traditional songs and tunes need to be performed and added to through the performers own experience and skill whilst staying true to the original spirit as discerned by the performer.


I see the need for both, but I don't know if this has anything to do with what you are saying.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 08:55 AM

Matt & Anahata - my point is that whilst traditional song is dead (along with the singers that sang it & the social context in which they lived and laboured) even the museum is in danger; a quirky place, like the Pitt-Rivers, out of step with the age, dimly lit and full of abstracted curiousities we might dimly glimpse as we negotiate the buckets on the floor to catch the rainwater dripping in through the roof... The Revival is such a museum, but as far removed from the natural habitats of traditional songs as a glass case full of shrunken heads is from the savage shores of whatever cannibal isle they originated.

I'm not confusing Folk Song & Traditional Song here by the way; two very different things - Folk Song is very much alive and kicking, and it's those Folk Singers who sing Traditional Songs that I think of as the curators; especially those curmudgeonly purists I both applaud & adore.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Giant Folk Eyeball (inactive)
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 12:06 PM

Aaah... Now I understand. Cheers, Ruth, clarification appreciated.

Nigel

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 11:56 AM

Sorry, Nigel - no disrespect to WWW/Harvest Home is intended at all. I was only pointing out that this poster isn't who they say they are.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Giant Folk Eyeball (inactive)
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 11:43 AM

Woven Wheat whispers forum was closed about a year ago. Lizzie was a very occasional contributor.

The current forum is at the linked Harvest Home site. I'm not aware of any posts by Lizzie. I could be wrong. They don't usually particularly interest me.

More to the point, Ruth, and no disrespect intended, but I can't quite see what point you're making or why you're making it... Compared to Mudcat, HH is almost achingly mild-mannered and polite to the point of occasional dullness - even when we disagree with each other. I suspect it's because with a few exceptions - such as Sedayne and Mike Bosworth - none of us have been around the official folk scene very much, so maybe don't have such big, sharp, well-honed axes to grind. Some of the members aren't involved in the mainstream folk world at all, in fact. EFDSS always announces new issues of the EDS magazine there, though, which is nice.

I'm biased, but I think even if people end up not liking it, it's worth a quick furtle round Harvest Home. If nothing else, it demonstrates what some of the non-scene types (to borrow a phrase from the gay community!) who would consider themselves in some way aligned to the concept of folk music are up to.

Space.

To get briefly back on-topic in order to justify this post, whilst I might try to encourage friends to try a little taste of folk music with the odd carefully crafted compilation CDr and exhortations to spend, spend, spend, I don't like robbing bloggers either. In case it wasn't clear from my earlier post.

Cheers

Nigel

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 11:17 AM

"Thanks for the link to Woven Wheat Whispers Sedayne. Looks an interesting place."

If i'm not mistaken, you're a regular contributor there, aren't you, Lizzie?

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Dave Tyler
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 10:33 AM

Thanks for the link to Woven Wheat Whispers Sedayne. Looks an interesting place.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: mattkeen
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 09:21 AM

Fair enough

I'm just not sophisticated enoubh to pick up on such nuances

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: treewind
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:59 AM

Matt, the only way I could read Sedayne's long "museums" post was as heavy irony. I could see that it might be taken at face value by some, but I really couldn't countenance the possibility that it was actually meant seriously.

In the end I chose to ignore it.

Anahata

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,TB
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:54 AM

Intellectual Property

File still 404, but I've asked for help from the MU

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: mattkeen
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:07 AM

SEDAYNE


Cos museums are where you keep dead things

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:11 AM

Cap'n,
Stop trying to score points - it doesn't become you - or on second thoughts......... I was responding to a previous question.
All threads creep, especially ones about acquisitive and possessive people trying to market songs that have been freely shared in the past, particularly traditional ones, (as a singer, you have been the beneficiary of having the songs passed on to you without payment, just like the rest of us).
Jim Carroll
PS you are right about one thing; I am entitled to my opinion, in spite of having been told on numerous occasions that I am not, because I no longer sing - but I think we've seen the back of that one, don't you?

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 05:40 PM

Aye, aye Captain; I'll be sure to open it up as separate thread when I get a mo - and perhaps another on Bert's somewhat wayward ideas on the origins of jazz as expressed in the intro to The Penguin Book...

Sedayne the Misguided.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 03:35 PM

JIM you are entitled to your opinion,but can I remind you,the topic that is being discussed,Copyright warning bloggers,is about songwriters having their material taken without permission,and put into the public domain without their permission.We are NOT talking a about traditional songs being adapted ,Please stop introducing irrelevancies.
your concentration appears to be slipping.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 01:58 PM

Adapting traditional songs is as old as the revival itself.
MacColl rebuilt ballads from fragments, Lloyd was well known for the practice (Jack Orion/ Prince Heathen and dozens of others). No problem with this except, particularly in Bert's case, when he made academic claims for his re-writes. Bert edited freely many of the songs he included in The Penguin Book.
Frank Purslow re-constructed many songs from the Hammond and Gardiner collection.
Personally, while I have always enjoyed listening to completed rewrites, (MacColl's Sheath and Knife is wonderful), and have done it myself on numerous occasions, I would find the idea of copyrighting such pieces totally abhorrent and an absolute vindication of everything I have been saying on this thread
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 08:36 AM

We've been touching on this on the Raglan Road debate, Sean. It's a four-pinter in its own right. How about a unique thread?

As for copyright, I see from my MU mag that the School of Law in Liverpool JMU is conducting research into the impact of intellectual copyright on music - including issues around the copyright of arrangements of publicly-owned songs (which may be eroded by Creative Commons Licence). So this debate is topical right now.

I'd post the url - but it's 404.

Tom

Creative Commons Licence

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 07:10 AM

Accepting that this thread has gone seriously astray from Tapster's original gripe, here's a further digression inspired by much of the above discussion...

What's the thinking on those songs which are accepted as being traditional (and very often sung as such) but which are in fact the work of known individuals?

Perhaps the most obvious example is 'The Twa Corbies', which is invariably sung to the Breton tune of An Arlach Ar, although few singers seem to be aware of this, nor that it was Ray Fisher who first put the two together. Likewise 'Willie's Lady', as sung by Martin Carthy, which Ray first set to the Breton melody Son Ar Chistre.

On the recent compilation John Barleycorn Reborn you can hear Rachel & I singing my setting of Child#102, Willie & Earl Richard's Daughter, aka The Birth of Robin Hood, which I 'set' to the melody 'Balladelle Bergeronnette Douce Baisselete' by Northern French trouvere Adam de la Halle (1237-86) (from his Le Jeu de Robin et Marion which, whilst not concerning Robin Hood per se, nevertheless prefigures much that we have come to associate with the legend...). As with Ray's settings of Twa Corbies & Willie's Lady, here are two distinct though entirely traditional / historical elements being combined in a way that obviously works, but how much fuss do I make regarding authorship? Likewise to what extent can Rachel assert ownership of her superlative counterpoint which arose in direct & spontaneous response to the otherwise traditional / historic material?

Personally I think it's important to keep tabs on such things & to give credit where credit's due. Whenever I hear the Twa Corbies being sung in Ray's setting, I invariable ask the singer if they're aware of the provenance; needless to say few of them are.

As I've said elsewhere, lately I've been singing Kipling's Puck's Song to the tune of Idbury Hill / London Pride. This arose as a pure fluke in a serendipitous moment of mediumisic inspiration when trying to get to grips with the melody Peter Bellamy composed for this song, so can I really claim any sort of credit? For sure I would dearly love others to do likewise, although given the darkly jingoistic subtext of the poem itself I fear few ever will!

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 04:56 PM

It is illegal and discourteous to take other peoples work and display it without their permission.
People are still cooperating and passing on their songs[Folk London is just one example]for the love of it,but they expect to be asked for their permission, first.
I am sure Ewan and NewCity Songster always asked permission first.,This thread is about bloggers who dont.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 02:36 PM

Cap'n
Read my posting carefully Cap'n - concentration seems to be slipping again.
That you find the time when people co-operated and passed on their songs and sang for the love of it 'tedious and reactionary' tells me all I need to know really.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 02:22 PM

JIM ,I did not say that the New City songster was tedious and reactionary,and you know it,I am talking about your present attitude,the past is gone,looking back at the past through rose tinted spectacles is a mistake.
Folk London,has regularly printed songwriters compostions,including Bob Watson[a noted songwriter],get with it Jim,find out whats going on now.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 01:07 PM

Writers sent in their songs.
The magazine was non-profit making and was sold to raise enough for publication costs.
The artwork was provided free by singer-songwriter Dave Scott of Belfast.
Good old days indeed Cap'n, tedious and reactionary - no; just a co-operative enterprise to get songs circulated (certainly not mercenary).
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 10:44 AM

"I am left with the impression from discussions such as this one that such a publication would no longer be possible - please tell me I'm wrong."

Jim - I'd wager a ton that most writers who sing self-penned 'folk' songs in clubs and festivals would bite your arm off up to the elbow if you started such a magazine today (or would it be a web site)?

A few of us may try to make a living from our songs, but we ALL need them to be out there - as widely distributed as possible. Hence why my lyrics are available on my website for example. We LOVE it when people take up our songs - including the trad arrs.

You say the writers 'donated' their songs. Did they get any money from the sale of the magazine? I assume not, but it wouldn't make any difference in the long run. If they were PRS members they'd have got their royalties in the usual way, later, when the songs were recorded and performed by people who'd perhaps seen it in the book. I may be wrong but that's how I assume it would work - and I'll ask next time I see one of them!

I fairlty sure they would not have needed to waive royalties, or to have had any agreement about royalties. Permission to print would be necessary, but the PRS fees would never have gone near the magazine, unless they were diverted there by some private arrangement - just directly to the writer in the usual way.

Am I mistaken about this?

Tom

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 10:16 AM

Jim,the material can be shared once the songwriter gives permission,and in the case of say a publication[Like new city songster] comes to some agreement, about waiving royalties.
I see Folk London regularly publish new compositions,they clearly do so with the songwriters permission,and have come to some kind of an agreement,so it does clearly still happen ,that people come to arrangements[perhaps waiving their royalties,or any income due].
but this is done with the songwriters permission.,probably in the case of Folk London,the songwriter has approached them.
So can we stop this harking back to the good old days of Ewan Maccoll,it is extremely tedious and backward looking[reactionary]

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 06:08 AM

Anahata,
"You agree that it is wrong to distribute copies of another person's recording, so presumably you don't object to Anne asking the blogger to remove the recording from his site?"
Of course not - if that is what she wants to do; that was not my point, which was about sharing the material.
Tom,
" But I'm still confused by your suggestion that singers and songwriters 'cling tightly' to their songs."
We have on our shelves 20-odd editions of The New City Songster, a publication edited by Peggy Seeger which ran from 1969 to 1985. Each volume contained at least a dozen songs donated by such songwriters as Eric Bogle, Matt Armour, John Pole, Frankie Armstrong, Pete Seeger, Miles Wooton, Ewan MacColl, Peggy Seeger, Jack Warshaw, Sandra Kerr, Don Lange..... and many more.
I am left with the impression from discussions such as this one that such a publication would no longer be possible - please tell me I'm wrong.
Can we please lay the Scarborough Fair ghost once and for all.
The version in question was collected by Ewan MacColl and Joan Littlewood from retired lead miner Mark Anderson in 1948. It was used on a BBC radio programme 'The Song Collector' in that year. Anderson's is fairly similar to the one in Kidson's Traditional Tunes, so presumably it was fairly common in Yorkshire, in other words, his or somebody's 'arrangement' of the ancient ballad 'The Elfin Knight' (Child 2), dating back (certainly in print) to at least 1673.
Martin sang Anderson's tune and text, presumably from The Singing Island, Dylan got it from him and passed it on to Paul Simon, who used it for the film 'The Graduate'.
In fairness to all concerned, to my knowledge there was never an actual dispute on the use of the song, nor could there be; I heard it only as an anecdote.
Simon's arrangement in The Graduate, as far as I remember, while using Anderson's tune and (some of) his text, bore no resemblance whatever to Carthy's; in fact, if my memory serves me right, it was orchestrated for the film, so in talking about rights of ownership we can only be referring to text and tune.
My point in raising the matter is that whenever the copyright issue is raised in relation to traditional song, the last to be considered is invariably the traditional source.
Earlier in this thread I proposed a levy on the commercial use of traditional songs to be used in the developing of a National Archive. Compared to what has happened in Ireland and Scotland, England trails sadly behind in such a facility. Past uses of traditional songs and music in films like The Graduate, Far From The Madding Crowd, Moby Dick, The Bounty, and many, many more examples, could have made a major contribution to a British Archive.
As it stands at present, the only hope for such an idea taking off is if the collectors and researchers devote their own time, energy and finances into such a project.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 10:07 AM

Anahata,Iagree,.I have stated before I think Martin was right,to protect his arrangement.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: treewind
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 09:28 AM

Jim Carrol:
"an opinion on those who are not prepared to pass on their material"

You agree that it is wrong to distribute copies of another person's recording, so presumably you don't object to Anne asking the blogger to remove the recording from his site?

Except for that kind of action, i.e. stopping somebody from doing wrong, I don't think there's anybody participating directly or referred to in this thread that isn't prepared to pass on their material as long as it is going to be handled with due repect.

The issue is about the recipient of that material giving credit for their source, which in some cases translates into financial benefit as well.

Dick :
I'm sure Martin Carthy didn't mind Paul Simon using his material and wasn't trying to stop him from singing or selling records, just asking to be properly credited and paid where credit and payment were due. "Unwillingess to share" doesn't fairly describe that dispute.

Anahata

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 08:49 AM

Mattkeen: In terms of traditional song, yes, absolutely a fxxcking museum; a fxxcking museum to a decidedly extinct species. What's the problem??

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 08:29 AM

MY apologies Matt Keen.
Jim,you say that the early revival was more willing to share.
Martin Carthys dispute with Paul Simon over his arrangement[and it was a sophisticated guitar arrangement],occurred either early or mid sixties surely that classifies as early revival,it was over 40 years ago.
IF you are right,there may be an explanation for that perhaps there are more composers[writing in traditional style,and contemporary style] these days,and more people needing to pay their mortgages.
The early revival would have featured teenagers who perhaps were beatniks[see WizzJones youtube 1961,and Newquay]. Sadly Peoples aspirations change,when they get to be sixty,they are no longer happy living in a tent,and want to be able to pay the next electricity bill ,that means if thay are a composer songwriter ,they need every penny from royalties,because they dont earn much ,often less than the minimium wage from the folk scene,
Most professionals could earn much more in another field,but their love of the music has kept them available for the folk scene.
One of the interviewees,in the WizzJones /Newquay/ Beatnik youtube
is my cousin Susan Miles.Dick Miles