# Also Sprach Zarathustra public domain?



## Aaron Sapp (Apr 1, 2008)

Is Also Sprach Zarathustra (that 2001 piece) Richard Strauss piece public domain?


----------



## JohnG (Apr 1, 2008)

Ten years ago it wasn't when I wanted to use it in a cartoon.


----------



## midphase (Apr 2, 2008)

I don't believe it is either. You should do a search, there are quite a few web sites that track public domain classical music.


----------



## mathis (Apr 2, 2008)

no, it's not.


----------



## Nickie Fønshauge (Apr 2, 2008)

Definitely not. Strauss died in 1949, so his music won't be PD until 2019, 70 years after his death.


----------



## Daryl (Apr 2, 2008)

david robinson @ Wed Apr 02 said:


> hi,
> should be, unless, like Holst, there is an active, and aggressive estate for the dear boy.
> beethoven, mozart, bach, are all PD, or legally should be.
> BUT, the pieces are so well known, only a moron would try to pass any of these off as their own.
> ...


David, the rules in Australia are different for most of the civilised world. :shock: 

D


----------



## David A (Apr 2, 2008)

The way they use that theme for RIc Flair in professional wrestling....youd think it IS in the public domain!

WOO!


----------



## Aaron Sapp (Apr 2, 2008)

Thanks guys!


----------



## hv (Apr 2, 2008)

Wasn't this piece composed 1896? If so, the only way I could imagine it could still be protected in the US is if it wasn't registered for copyright anywhere in the world before 1923. Is that possible?

Here's a pretty comprehensive rule-of-thumb summary of US copyright law which takes into account both non-registration and foreign registration:

http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/

Howard


----------



## Brian Ralston (Apr 2, 2008)

hv @ Wed Apr 02 said:


> Wasn't this piece composed 1896? If so, the only way I could imagine it could still be protected in the US is if it wasn't registered for copyright anywhere in the world before 1923. Is that possible?
> 
> Here's a pretty comprehensive rule-of-thumb summary of US copyright law which takes into account both non-registration and foreign registration:
> 
> ...



It does not matter in the U.S. when it was written. If was was registered at all (which it was), it matters as to when the author/composer dies and then back in those days you add 70 years to it. Now I believe you add 120 years or somthing like that. 

And...again as already mentioned in this thread...if there is an estate that is functioning and organized on behalf of the composer after death...I believe they can continue the registration with a bunch of forms and such.


----------



## José Herring (Apr 2, 2008)

bdr @ Wed Apr 02 said:


> David A @ Thu Apr 03 said:
> 
> 
> > The way they use that theme for RIc Flair in professional wrestling....youd think it IS in the public domain!
> ...



Tell them pro wrestling is old hat. If your kids want the real deal....UFC all the way. MMA.....

I let my kid watch a bout. >8o 

I'll never make that mistake again (o)


----------



## David A (Apr 3, 2008)

Tell them pro wrestling is old hat. If your kids want the real deal....UFC all the way. MMA.....

I let my kid watch a bout. >8o 

I'll never make that mistake again (o)[/quote]

LOL Jose you let your kids watch UFC?!?! 


You're the coolest Dad EVER!


----------



## Hannes_F (Apr 3, 2008)

Don´t forget that Richard Strauss was the inventor of copyright protection for music in a way. So you bet that his works are protected.


----------



## hv (Apr 3, 2008)

Brian Ralston @ Wed Apr 02 said:


> hv @ Wed Apr 02 said:
> 
> 
> > Wasn't this piece composed 1896? If so, the only way I could imagine it could still be protected in the US is if it wasn't registered for copyright anywhere in the world before 1923. Is that possible?
> ...


Hi, Brian. The link I posted is pretty authoritative, comprehensive, and reliable. It does turn on whether there was pre-1923 publication or registration, however. That's a fact that has to be nailed down.

Howard


----------



## José Herring (Apr 3, 2008)

josejherring @ Thu Apr 03 said:


> Tell them pro wrestling is old hat. If your kids want the real deal....UFC all the way. MMA.....
> 
> I let my kid watch a bout. >8o
> 
> I'll never make that mistake again (o)



LOL Jose you let your kids watch UFC?!?! 


You're the coolest Dad EVER![/quote]

Yeah. I thought I was being pretty cool. Then I had to suffer through an hour of little six year old hammer fist to my head, front kicks that oh so conveniently only make it up to my groin, and choke holds from behind. 

Luckily I know a little bit about martial arts so I used the opportunity to teach him a little self defense, esp. the most important lesson of all and that is, "It's self defense. Only to be used to defend yourself." Not to be used to jump Papa from behind with a flying kick :mrgreen: 

Back on topic,

I heard in school that the copy protection was 70 years after death with an option to extend another 70 years by the holders of the estate. I haven't really been paying attention so my info could be outdated.

And Hannes is correct. Strauss was well aware of his estate and wanted it protected by copyright. So did a lot to ensure so.

My general rule of thumb is that anything after 1860 is protected by copyright and that it's far easier to write something new that to rummage around to find out who's copyright is in order in who's isn't.

best,

Jose


----------



## Nickie Fønshauge (Apr 4, 2008)

hv @ 3rd April 2008 said:


> Brian Ralston @ Wed Apr 02 said:
> 
> 
> > It does not matter in the U.S. when it was written. If was was registered at all (which it was), it matters as to when the author/composer dies and then back in those days you add 70 years to it. Now I believe you add 120 years or somthing like that.
> ...


The US has signed the Berne Convention, as has Germany, and 


Wikipedia said:


> The Berne Convention requires its signatories to recognise the copyright of works of authors from other signatory countries (known as members of the Berne Union) in the same way it recognises the copyright of its own nationals, which means that, for instance, French copyright law applies to anything published or performed in France, regardless of where it was originally created.


Germany, as an EU member state, has adopted the 70 year rule, I mentioned in my previous post. Thus the US is obliged to enforce that rule, being a Berne Convention signatory.


----------



## hv (Apr 4, 2008)

I think the Wikipedia quote is a reasonable paraphrase of Article 5 of the convention itself:

"ARTICLE 5 
(1) Authors shall enjoy, in respect of works for which they are protected under this Convention, in countries of the Union other than the country of origin, the rights which their respective laws do now or may hereafter grant to their nationals"

But neither says anything about the copyright law of one country operating in or replacing the law of another. Only that a copyright issued, lets say in Germany, be treated the same in the US as though it had been issued in the US to an American. Basically, without discrimination. The term, expiration, and rights under a copyright in the US are still governed by US law, however. Not German law. Likewise, the term of a copyright obtained in the US gets the same treatment in Germany under German law as though it was registered and obtained there. The respective law of each country still applies within its borders. Its just that the same law applies in a given place to any copyright, no matter where it was obtained... assuming it was obtained in a signatory country, of course.

Howard


----------



## Mike Greene (Apr 5, 2008)

Howard is correct. In the U.S., anything written before 1923 would be PD, even if written in another country under other rules. Conversely, something written in the U.S. but used in Germany would use German copyright rules instead of U.S. rules. That's what the Berne Convention says.

But . . . the piece would be PD _only_ in the U.S. So if you use that song in a film, and the release is U.S. only, you're fine. But if it gets released in Europe and elsewhere, you'd have to get a license for the tune.

One other point: Holst's estate may be aggressive, but that's not why they go after infringements. They go after infringements (Zimmer being most notable) because the law is on their side. All estates will do the same. The Holst estate has no special clout.

And still one more point: U.S. copyright law is now closer to the EU rules (I think it's 70 years after death?) But that only went into effect in 1998, when the law at the time was 75 years from publication (1998 - 75 = 1923.) All songs before 1923 were already PD and were grandfathered as permanently PD, even though the new law would have taken them out of the PD.


----------



## synergy543 (Apr 5, 2008)

OK, so which one of you guys went ahead and did this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTkX-2faAr4


----------



## Evan Gamble (Apr 6, 2008)

synergy543 @ Sun Apr 06 said:


> OK, so which one of you guys went ahead and did this?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTkX-2faAr4



The bigger question is how did you find that video?


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Apr 6, 2008)

The even bigger question is why anyone would even go there...illuminated coochie soundtracks notwithstanding.:-P


----------

