Traditional music and copyright

Subject: RE: Traditional music and copyright
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Aug 06 - 03:41 AM

Clarification
John Reilly was an illiterate Traveller. He sang 'The Maid and The Palmer', a centuries old ballad which had, it was believed, had disappeared entirely from the tradition. He also sang 'Lord Gregory',
two versions of 'The Gypsy Laddie', 'Lord Bateman', 'Our Goodman', 'Edward' and a number of other rare songs. All these came through his family or from other Travellers. He sang the songs to a collector because he believed they should be passed on. The thought of 'arrangement' never entered his head. Would that we still lived in John Reilly's world where traditional songs were sung to be shared (I can still remember such a world)!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Traditional music and copyright
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 06:38 PM

I think it was the song and the arrangement which brigns us back to the copyright situation.

Subject: RE: Traditional music and copyright
From: danensis
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 03:45 PM

What was the incident with Paul Simon and Martin Carthy? Didn't the former "borrow" one of Martin's arrangement and forget to send the cheque?

John

Subject: RE: Traditional music and copyright
From: GUEST,Roksana
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 03:08 PM

Thank you everybody for your posts.

I accept that my wording to question 4 was flawed, and I apologise if I offended anybody.

There are a number of journals and books that discuss the protection of (for sake of argument) traditional music and knowledge. I was advised that mudcat was a suitable site to post on to reach individuals who would hold valuable views and opinions.

Regarding question 4, I was referring to "traditional" music as that which has cultural heritage, and was wanting to compare the extended protection that it should receive to keep it in the public domain against the protection that "commerical" music receives in order to protect its financial income.

I will look into all of your ideas and suggestions in detail.

Thanks again,

Roksana

Subject: RE: Traditional music and copyright
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 01:31 PM

I am not sure whether at the relevant date Irish law had any of the categories of perpetual coypright. If not the likelihood must ahve been that the work itself was out of copyright, although Reilly's arrangement might have had a copyright if reduced to a material form, but most probably his performance attracted performers' rights on the basis of which he could have bargained for something.

Subject: RE: Traditional music and copyright
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 01:12 PM

Perhaps it's John Reilly who should have got the advice.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Traditional music and copyright
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 10:43 AM

A devilishly clever manoeuvre--the blockers collected royalties while "protecting" he material.

Subject: RE: Traditional music and copyright
From: Snuffy
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 08:57 AM

Greg B

It was my impression that Lomax (and other collectors) coyrighted trad material as a blocking manoeuvre - precisely to prevent "shady business managers", big record companies and the like from hi-jacking the copyright and claiming it was THEIRS.

Subject: RE: Traditional music and copyright
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 08:52 AM

I ahve an ex-partner who can advise on Irish copyright (for a fee of course)

Subject: RE: Traditional music and copyright
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 06:43 AM

Eric Bogle wishes he had.

Subject: RE: Traditional music and copyright
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 05:37 AM

Dear Guest, please get some advice on Irish copyright law.

Subject: RE: Traditional music and copyright
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 05:01 AM

Traveller John Reilly sang the long disappeared ballad 'The Maid And The Palmer'
Phil Coulter (who never met John Reilly)copyrighted it.
John Reilly died of malnutrition in a derelict house in Boyle, Roscommon.
Phil Coulter has a weekly television show on Irish television.
There's a lesson in there somewhere; not sure what it is.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Traditional music and copyright
From: Greg B
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 09:12 PM

All else aside, many collectors and artists have had some major
stones to claim copyright on all and sundry. Collectors like the
Lomaxes have in one breath claimed that they simply took down
the words and melody of traditional songs and published them
verbatim (to get their living), then turned right around and
stuck a 'c' within a circle next to same.

To me, that's just legalized theft of public property.

Same with some of the Clancy Bros. stuff...applying 3 chords
and a melody line with improvised harmonies to something that
had been 'owned' by Ireland for generations is the stuff of
shady business managers, and does the artists themselves no
credit whatsoever.

I think we're through that period to a great extent...the one
where someone can add their 5 percent and claim it as their own
and drag someone into court for singing it.

Arrangement is one thing, but most of this stuff was pure
transcription!

Subject: RE: Traditional music and copyright
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 06:58 PM

There is no necessity for a formal group. Under US and UK law copyright as such arises (in an arrangement as well as a musical work) upon reduction to a material form (this is the UK language). It does not matter who makes the recording, the owner(s) of copyright is/are the arrangers (in the case of an extemporised arrangement, the performers)

When I last checked California had a common law copyright that did not depend on reduction to a material form and was not subject to federal pre-emption (won a bet with a US lawyer on that one at a satellite law symposium at UCLA back in the 70s - took him straight to hte page of Nimmer so asserting).

Recordings may have a copyright of their own. European purists would call it a neighbouring right. But it protects against reproduction of the recording, not of the song (etc) recorded. It lasts for 50 years. This is a UK hot potato at the moment as a lot of significant pop recordings are falling out of copyright as we speak, and Cliff Richard wants the right extended - and Tony Blair has been staying at his mansion - is this an issue of political embarrassment?

Performances do NOT have copyright. There is a different right which also lasts for 50 years. The right was first finally established in the UK under the old Performers Protection Acts 1958 to 1972 in Rickless -v- United Artists (the Pink Panther case) and was given statutory foundation in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. It keeps getting fine-tuned because our masters in Brussells are never happy.

Subject: RE: Traditional music and copyright
From: Linda Kelly
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 05:53 PM

The creative commons license seems like a good idea to me. I have no interest in royalties PRS or any other complex arrangements. I do not mind people changing the songs to suit them and frankly if full time musicians want to record them or include them in their sets and get paid for it-good luck to them. I would however like the acknowledgement that I wrote them.

Subject: RE: Traditional music and copyright
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 05:47 PM

A point that's often missed is the ambiguity of copyrighting arrangements. If the performer specifies that it's on;y the arrangement that's being copyrighted, well and good. BUT..that doesn't help when Oscar Brand holds a copyright on Yankee Doodle and Pete Seeger holds one on Cindy and Woody Guthrie's estate claims "words and music" for everything he wrote. When last I looked, there were 14 distinct copyrights on Barbara Allan.

Subject: RE: Traditional music and copyright
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 05:09 PM

Traditions of groups-
If "Georgia Sea Island Singers" is an organized group singing Sea Island songs, they would have the right to copyright their arrangements of their traditional music.
If the singers get together informally and sing traditional songs of the Sea Islands, there would be no issue of copyright.

The "Northern Neck Chantey Singers," retired menhaden fishermen, are able to copyright their arrangements. An informal group, however, would not have that privilege.

A similar situation exists in the case of old cowboy songs.
Mark Gardner has issued a volume* containing some of Jack Thorp's "Songs of the Cowboys," including some from Thorp's little book of 1908 (copyright N. Howard Thorp) and his later book (1920's). The new book includes a CD made with Rex Rideout. New material and arrangements are copyright.
The statement in the book reads- "Copyright © 2005 Palace of the Governors. New text © Mark L. Gardner. Illustrations © Ronald Kil. CD recording © Palace of the Governors, Museum of New Mexico. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means whatsoever without the expressed writen consent of the publisher. Museum of New Mexico Press is a division of the New Mexico Department of Cultural Affairs."

To me, that is perfectly fair in that it protects the rights of the participants to income from their production. In this regard, I see nothing wrong with current copyright regulations.
Anyone is free to sing the 'traditional' songs, and those by known composers, if copyright has expired, providing that the work and arrangements of the participants in the book and CD production are not infringed.

*Edit. Mark L. Gardner, 2005, "Jack Thorp's Songs of the Cowboys," 89 pages and CD, Museum of New Mexico Press, Santa Fe.

Subject: RE: Traditional music and copyright
From: r.padgett
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 04:37 PM

B***er Enya, off my Christmas card list!

ROD Shearman was a smashing bloke and if anyone deserved to be recognised for his songwriting he did

No justice in this world

Subject: RE: Traditional music and copyright
From: GUEST,Rev
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 04:00 PM

4. Some people believe that traditional music or folk music should not be protected under "private law" as the objectives of a folk artist is somehow different to "commercial artists", and that it should therefore be protected under laws that can protect its roots and heritage.

I think this last question is not worded very well, but it gets at one of the major problems that some people have with copyright laws. The current laws protect individuals, and work that can be proven to be the product of an individual composer, but there are no laws to protect the specific musical traditions of groups or communities. For example, should the Georgia Sea Island singers, or the Menhaden Fishermen, or the Old Regular Baptists be able to copyright their unique repertoire and arrangements, or does the fact that they perform "traditional" or "folk" music make them uncopyrightable? If the latter, what's to stop some Paul Simon wannabe from coming in and mimicking their sound, taking one of their songs and changing around some lyrics, and copyrighting the song as his or her own intellectual property. Current laws would favor the individual over the group. I know that this is something that's happened over and over again in the history of the "folk revival," but maybe there's a better way of doing things, that would allow unique cultural or subcultural sounds to be copyright protected.
Rev

Subject: RE: Traditional music and copyright
From: Scoville
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 12:36 PM

4. Some people believe that traditional music or folk music should not be protected under "private law" as the objectives of a folk artist is somehow different to "commercial artists", and that it should therefore be protected under laws that can protect its roots and heritage. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

I wrote:
Disagree completely, and I'm insulted that it would even occur to somebody to exploit the tradition in such a way. Apart from being blatantly unfair to those of us who choose to write/compose/perform in the folk style, it's much too ambiguous. By that logic, any song with any political or sociological commentary would be fair game, regardless of stylistic genre. I could see that clearing the way for all sorts of intellectual and artistic theft--garage rock, rap, blues, roots country, etc. all have arguably folk (as in, the started low on the musical food chain) roots. Whether you agree with me or not in the artistic sense, you have to admit that there will be music-industry lawyers ready to pounce on that one.

Sorry, that was probably unduly pessimistic, but we all know that "separate does not mean equal" and it sounds like a loophole-in-the-making.

Either that, or I cold see big-name artists using pieces of traditional music and then acquiring a stranglehold on all the related songs, variants, arrangements, and anything with a similar title, in an effort to squeeze out competition.

Subject: RE: Traditional music and copyright
From: Scoville
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 12:31 PM

1. As a folk artist do you perceive the internet as a positive medium to distribute your music, or as a tool for other individuals to exploit your creations?

I don't compose/write much, but if I had any serious commercial hopes for something I'd written, I wouldn't post it (in its entirely, at least) online.

2. Has your music ever been stolen by "commercial" artists, film makers etc? If yes, then what were your experiences?

N/A (it's never been made available to anyone at that level)

3. Have you ever heard of the Creative Commons licence? If yes, have you ever considered using the licence? Do you feel it gives adequate protection?

Never heard of it. (Is this a UK thing?)

4. Some people believe that traditional music or folk music should not be protected under "private law" as the objectives of a folk artist is somehow different to "commercial artists", and that it should therefore be protected under laws that can protect its roots and heritage. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Disagree completely, and I'm insulted that it would even occur to somebody to exploit the tradition in such a way. Apart from being blatantly unfair to those of us who choose to write/compose/perform in the folk style, it's much too ambiguous. By that logic, any song with any political or sociological commentary would be fair game, regardless of stylistic genre. I could see that clearing the way for all sorts of intellectual and artistic theft--garage rock, rap, blues, roots country, etc. all have arguably folk (as in, the started low on the musical food chain) roots. Whether you agree with me or not in the artistic sense, you have to admit that there will be music-industry lawyers ready to pounce on that one.

Subject: RE: Traditional music and copyright
From: MMario
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 12:08 PM

I'm confused as to the point of the questions. Are you talking about traditional music which is in the public domain more or less by definition;

or specific arrangements of trad music, which can be copyrighted,

or PERFORMANCES/RECORDINGS of trad music, likewise which can by copyrighted?

Subject: RE: Traditional music and copyright
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 12:03 PM

Man of few words, me...
I wish

Subject: RE: Traditional music and copyright
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 11:59 AM

Very succinct, George

Subject: RE: Traditional music and copyright
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 11:31 AM

Subject: RE: Traditional music and copyright
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 09:12 AM

1. As a folk artist do you perceive the internet as a positive medium to distribute your music, or as a tool for other individuals to exploit your creations?

Answer - I almost never compose music. If I did and had commercial hopes for it, I wouldn't post it on the Internet.

I view the public domain music on the Internet as a wonderful resource for arranging music to play with my friends.

2. Has your music ever been stolen by "commercial" artists, film makers etc? If yes, then what were your experiences?

Answer - no.

3. Have you ever heard of the Creative Commons licence? If yes, have you ever considered using the licence? Do you feel it gives adequate protection?

Answer - No, never heard of it. What side of the Atlantic is this on?

4. Some people believe that traditional music or folk music should not be protected under "private law" as the objectives of a folk artist is somehow different to "commercial artists", and that it should therefore be protected under laws that can protect its roots and heritage. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Disagree. A composer who creates a new piece of music deserves the same protections under the law as any other citizen even if the music sounds traditional.

Subject: RE: Traditional music and copyright
From: Scrump
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 07:59 AM

My responses would be pretty much the same as George's:

1. Yes, the Internet is an ideal medium for distributing any music, not just folk, and I agree with George that although it can be exploited in the 'wrong' way, on balance it's beneficial to artists (especially those not already well-known) as it heightens awareness of their work. In any case if I put mp3s on a website I would normally make them of lower recording quality than they would get if they paid for the music, or put up excerpts rather than full tracks.

2. If someone downloads an mp3 from an artist's site, that isn't stealing. It would be if they sold it to someone else. I would be unlikely to know if they did, but if as I said above, it's lower quality anyway, I am willing to take the risk. I figure that if anyone really likes the music they'll buy it to get the higher quality version (maybe I'm being naive there though).

3. I didn't know about Creative Commons but I do now thanks to treewind. If you put work on the web for download, I doubt any copyright will provide full protection (I've had non-musical work copied from the web and was annoyed at first, but then thought "plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery" - and that I couldn't be a**ed to take them to court - life's too short).

4. I completely agree with George on this point. There should be no distinction between different types of music as far as copyright is concerned. Why on earth should there be?

Subject: RE: Traditional music and copyright
From: treewind
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 07:54 AM

On a quick review of the CC website, I should emphasise that that there's a whole range of different licensing conditions you can choose from. There isn't just one "Creative Commons" License.

You can attach any licensing and copying conditions you like to your own work: those suggested by CC are presumably designed to be reasonably free of loopholes or unneccessary restrictions.

Going back to the original post:
"4. Some people believe that traditional music or folk music should not be protected under "private law" as the objectives of a folk artist is somehow different to "commercial artists"
This is so blurred it is meaningless.

• Folk music is not necessarily traditional music and thus may or may not be someone's work in current copyright.
• The content of a traditional song, a printed representation of it, a musical arrangement of it and a recorded performance of it are separate entities each with quite different copyright ownership. Only the content (if genuinely traditional) is not subject to copyright
• "Folk artists" range from children chanting in the playground or unpaid "open mike" and singaround participants to full time professionals who write their own songs and are members of the PRS and the Musicians' Union. How can anyone make sweeping generalisations about their "objectives"?

Anahata

Subject: RE: Traditional music and copyright
From: treewind
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 07:30 AM

Creative Commons licenses:
Designed for people who create and publish something that they're happy to have copied freely, but if anyone wants to use the work for profit, the copyright holder has to give their permission (which may of course include requesting a cut of the profits).

Often used by performers who publish MP3s of their music on the net.
"You can copy this as much as you like, but if anyone makes money out of it I want a slice of the action!"

See http://creativecommons.org

Anahata

Subject: RE: Traditional music and copyright
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 05:02 AM

Roksana, my answers to your 4 questions below:

1. I see the internet as an ideal medium for distributing folk music, both traditional and original. It does also open new doors to exploitation, but in my opinion the benefits outweight the negatives

2. No, my music has not been "stolen" - I am conscious that if I put up a song for download over the internet, it will find its way into MP3 players and even be burned onto CD, and I am OK with that (otherwise I wouldn't have put it up in the first place). I do know of one case involving the (now deceased) songwriter Ron Shearman, Enya and the song "Sailing". My understanding of how that case went in court is that Ron lost it despite having dozens of witnesses ready to swear to his having written his song first. The cynical view is that he should have spent more on lawyers...

3. No, I have not heard of the Creative Commons licence - I would appreciate any information on this.

4. I disagree vehemently - folk artists are every bit like "commercial artists" in that many of them also try to make a living out of their profession. In the cases of writers of original songs especially (being one myself), I would fight to my last breath anyone who tries to usurp my copyright. There is another reason why this separation of original works into "folk" and "commercial" is nonsensical: With many people subscribing to very wide definitions of what is "folk", you find many works spanning both folk and other genres. Finally, I find even the separation into "folk" and "commercial" works deeply offensive, as it implies that "folk" works, attracting lower revenue than others, are somehow more easily dismissible and able to be excluded from commercial rules and rights; it is the thin end of the wedge and would only lead to legalised exploitation for the benefit of the "big boys" of the music business - it's like saying "they don't make much money, so they won't miss it"! Over my dead body.

Subject: RE: Traditional music and copyright
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 03:38 AM

An arrangement is a different work from the piece arranged, and both the work and the arrangement may have copyright - each of which may have the usual duration. An arrangement of a non-copyright piece does NOT give the holder of copyright in the arrangement any rights in the original piece. Indeed barring an express agreement to such effect an arrangement of a copyright piece does not give the arranger any rights in the original piece and a user of a copyright arrangement of a copyright piece will need the permission of the coyright owner of both the original piece and the arrrangement.

Copyright arises automatically and it is not necessary to take any particular steps to "copyright" a work.

The USA is the odd man out in copyright, internationally speaking, and curiosities of its approach often do not apply or hold water elsewhere, although this is gradually becoming less the case since it acceded to the Berne Convention in 1988. The UK has been a signatory to Berne much longer, as have most European countries, and, interestingly Japan (1906).

In theory it is possible to dedicate a work into the public domain. I have never ever come across a case tested in court in any jurisdiction where the allegation that such a dedication has validly been effected has been upheld. I did once want to run the argument against the Navajivan Foundation (the foundation that then held copyrights in the works of Ghandi) for it is well known that Ghandi once said "I have never copyrighted anything", but my then client would not let me do so.

One US oddity that may be relevant above is that in the UK the permission of both joint owners of a copyright is needed to do an act restricted by copyright but in the USA, inspired perhaps by land law relating to tenants in common, the permission of either is sufficient to protect the user (although there maybe arguments between the joint owners of copyright themselves whether the granting of permission by one infringes any right of the other).

Subject: RE: Traditional music and copyright
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 11:48 PM

Roksana, would you explain the benefits of the "Creative Commons" approach? It seems to me that a composer, if he grants partial access to the public, would infringe on the rights of his publisher and other participants such as co-authors of a piece of music.
A composer who does not wish to copyright doesn't have to, but of course he also forgos profit from publication, and performances by others.

Subject: RE: Traditional music and copyright
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 08:02 PM

...by definition traditional music is not in copyright." This does not apply to the arrangements of specific artists.

E. g., Cecil J. Sharp and Oliver Ditson Company took copyright in 1916 on "One Hundred English Folk Songs," arrangements published in a volume in sheet music form.

An example of copyright claim to music arrangement, but not to lyrics-
Elie Siegmeister, arr., 1964, "The Joan Baez Songbook," Ryerson Music Publishers-
"All of the piano arrangements of public domain songs are Copyright 1964 by Elie Siegmeister and may not be reprinted in any form without permission."
"Joan Baez makes no copyright claim to the authorship or arrangement of any songs in this book."

Much has been posted in Mudcat (threads above linked by Joe Offer), some correct and some not.

Although there is no "international copyright," a number of countries are signatories to the Berne Convention, including the United States, and, I believe, the UK.
See FL 100 (International Copyright) in the U. S. Government list of circulars and factsheets:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/
U. S. Circulars

The above link is a good place to start in finding U. S. basic Copyright regulations.

Subject: RE: Traditional music and copyright
From: GUEST,Rev
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 07:10 PM

Roksana,
You wouldn't happen to be doing this project for a class with Anthony McCann would you? If you are, tell him that Rev from Santa Barbara says hello. If not, you should look into his work. He has done a lot on the subject of copyright and traditional music, primarily relating to Irish music. He was teaching at University of Sheffield, but I don't think he's there any longer.
His website is

www.anthonymccann.com

and his ongoing project on this topic is called "beyond the commons"

Revell Carr

Subject: RE: Folklore: Traditional music and copyright
From: r.padgett
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 06:30 PM

Roksana, have a look at the 'Fiddlers Green' thread for a start, please and John Conolly

Ray

Subject: RE: BS: Traditional music and copyright
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 06:22 PM

Oh, will an elf please put this above the line?

Subject: RE: BS: Traditional music and copyright
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 06:22 PM

Roksana, I think you need to be clearer what you mean by "traditional" music (or maybe "copyright") because since copyright (Europe) lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years, by definition traditional music is not in copyright.

Subject: BS: Traditional music and copyright
From: GUEST,Roksana
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 06:17 PM

I am legal researcher from a UK university, and I am carrying out a study of intellectual property with specific emphasis on traditional knowledge and traditional music. I am very interested in hearing the opinions from folk artists on the following points:

1. As a folk artist do you perceive the internet as a positive medium to distribute your music, or as a tool for other individuals to exploit your creations?

2. Has your music ever been stolen by "commercial" artists, film makers etc? If yes, then what were your experiences?

3. Have you ever heard of the Creative Commons licence? If yes, have you ever considered using the licence? Do you feel it gives adequate protection?

4. Some people believe that traditional music or folk music should not be protected under "private law" as the objectives of a folk artist is somehow different to "commercial artists", and that it should therefore be protected under laws that can protect its roots and heritage. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Many thanks in advance for your help.

Kind Regards,

Roksana

---

Roksana - I combined your threads - they all appear in the same forum, and multiple threads cause confusion. See the crosslinked threads listed at the top of this page.
-Joe Offer, Forum Moderator-