|
09 Feb 05 - 07:24 AM (#1403553) Subject: Arrangement copyrights From: GUEST,Davetnova Other threads have mentioned arrangements for traditional tunes/songs being copyright. I agree that the work of the arranger or performer should be acknowledged and rewarded but what a constitutes an "arrangement" of a traditional piece. How different does it have to be to other arrangements? I'm sorry if the question is clumsy. What prompted it was the thought of infringing copyright. Say for instance I listen to a track on a CD. I try to play it. Now my playing style is very simple (it has to be) and my voice is poor, so although I am inspired by the arrangement on the CD what comes from me is different. How different can it be and still be the same arrangement? |
|
09 Feb 05 - 09:32 AM (#1403578) Subject: RE: Arrangement copyrights From: GUEST,pavane No-one knows, really. If it comes to court, there are 'expert' witnesses who will testify that an arrangement is 'recognisably the same' but as far as I know, there is no scientific measure of how similar two arrangements are (or two tunes, for that matter). It may depend on a variety of things, including chord sequences, time signature, or individual notes in a similar pattern. Compare Paul Simon's Scarborough Fair with Martin Carthy's version. I believe Paul Simon's was held to infringe Carthy's copyright. |
|
09 Feb 05 - 10:19 AM (#1403591) Subject: RE: Arrangement copyrights From: GUEST My understanding was that Paul Simon or his agents had copyrighted (sorry if you don't like the verb) an arrangement that came from Martin Carthy, resulting in the bizarre situation that Martin would have to pay a fee to perform the arrangement that he had originated Stu |
|
09 Feb 05 - 05:03 PM (#1403757) Subject: RE: Arrangement copyrights From: Richard Bridge The issue of substantiality of reproduction in copyright is always an issue of fact (UK law) |
|
09 Feb 05 - 09:32 PM (#1403984) Subject: RE: Arrangement copyrights From: GUEST,Obie As guest implies copyright is not a verb. You can not copyright anything and neither can Paul Simon. To use it in this context only increases the misunderstanding of what copyright is. Copyright is the automatic posession of a "work" by it's author at the time of it's creation. Any reproduction of that work requires consent of the author. The consent and/or the right to copy or publish may be legally given or sold to others or it can be stolen. Often the registration of the copyright with a government agency is mistakenly used as a verb , but the registration only establishes a date of claim to the work's posession. It is common for music publishers and performing artists to slap a copyright mark on someone elses creation. This is a form of theft but often the burden of proof lies with the true author, who dosen't have the financial resources to fight a court case. Music publishers and recording companies are usually both pissing in the same pot. If you wrote it the copyright is yours . If not it is under someone elses copyright or public domain. Scarborough Fair is public domain and any claim otherwise is bogus. That however, does not prevent industry attempts to claim any fees involved. |
|
09 Feb 05 - 09:55 PM (#1404012) Subject: RE: Arrangement copyrights From: Malcolm Douglas Nevertheless, copyright can subsist in an arrangement of a public domain song. Simply don't copy somebody else's arrangement, if you're worried about it; and bear in mind that if you learn a song from a commercial recording there will be existing rights to that form of it either claimed or actual. In practice it matters not at all unless you intend to record the song. Beware of people who make sweeping statements such as "Scarborough Fair is public domain and any claim otherwise is bogus"; that would depend on which of a great many different forms of the song sometimes called Scarborough Fair is being talked about. Many are in copyright, like it or not; but that is a very complex issue and need not concern the amateur performer. |
|
10 Feb 05 - 03:25 AM (#1404198) Subject: RE: Arrangement copyrights From: Davetnova Thanks for the explanations. |
|
10 Feb 05 - 05:20 AM (#1404247) Subject: RE: Arrangement copyrights From: GUEST,Obie Malcolm, I dispute not what you say, and you are correct , of course in saying that copyright claims exist on public domain material. My point (or rant if you prefer) is that copyright is the property of the author and if it is not granted to another, it remains with the author until his/her death and to his/her heirs for a proscribed period following. It then comes into the public domain. A claim of copyright is often made by people or organizations , and this usually has less to do with claiming ownership than collecting royalties. In such cases they would be more interested in recording royalties than performance royalties, but if they are entitled to one the other would follow. If people willingly pay these royalties then the money rolls in. If they refuse then ownership would have to be proven by civil testing (on the balance of probabilities ) in a court of law. I can make a claim to 40 acres on the surface of the moon , and if a couple of Martians are happy to pay me 600 loons a month in rent.I would be happy also. If they refuse to pay then I may have a problem establishing that I have titled ownership. Copyright laws , while bound by international convention, may be very different in different countries so I only speak in generalities. Obie |
|
10 Feb 05 - 08:10 AM (#1404404) Subject: RE: Arrangement copyrights From: treewind When a work is published more than one type of copyright can exist. For instance it may be permissible to copy a text by hand because the content is public domain, but not to photocopy the actual printed page because the layout, typesetting etc. are the copyright work of the publisher. Or a collection copyright may exist where a substantial amount of work has been done in assembling a list or anthology of works to which nobody owned individual copyright. The Performing Right Society allows performers to register and claim performance royalties for their own arrangements of traditional songs. This was introduced a few years ago, though I'm not sure that many trad performers take advantage of it. I think that process regards the performer as owning copyright for the arrangement. Of course many songwriters are PRS members and have benefited in this way from performing their own songs. The Carthy/Simon case was ususual because (a) a lot of money was at stake and (b) the arrangement had some very distinctive features that were quite clearly Martin's work. I don't know if Paul Simon was claiming copyright ownership, but he certainly wasn't paying Martin any royalties until the case was settled (amicably, out of court, as I understand it) Anahata |
|
10 Feb 05 - 08:22 AM (#1404422) Subject: RE: Arrangement copyrights From: greg stephens A good thing to remember is that people do not sue other people over the few pence per year that is involved if a folkie records a few songs and sells the CDs at gigs. It is always worth putting "Trad arranged J Bloggs" on your records, it may result in a few bob coming your way eventually, instead of going into someone else's pockets. But it gives you no rights in the song, other than the arrangement on your own recording of it. The carthy/Simon controversy was interesting, and doubtless covered in other threads. The important thing to remember is that it is not a bone of contention between Martin Carthy and Paul Simon. Martin used to be niggled, but on mature reflection he has stated publicly that he isnt. Things are all square. |