# How can I tell if music is still under copyright



## Daryl (Mar 8, 2007)

bluejay @ Thu Mar 08 said:


> I was hoping to practise an orchestral mock-up of _Fantastia on a Theme of Thomas Tallis_ by Vaughan-Williams.
> 
> I'd like to put this up on my website but then I have no idea whether this piece is in the public domain yet or if it is still covered by copyright.
> 
> ...


It has to do with the death of the composer. VW died in 1058 (AFAIK), so there is nowhere in the world where his music is out of copyright. However, if you are doing the mock-up for yourself and have no intention of posting a complete version on the Internet then it will probably come under the various Fair Use agreements.


D


----------



## bluejay (Mar 8, 2007)

Darn,

What if I were to post up a clip of this on the Internet. Am I allowed to post a section of music? If so, is there a restriction on how long it can be?

Thanks again for this info Daryl. I saw that VW passed away on August 26th 1958 so do I have to wait 50 years before it goes out of copyright?


----------



## bluejay (Mar 8, 2007)

Right, apparently it's owned by Faber Music Ltd and will not be out of copyright until 2029...

Oh well.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 8, 2007)

bluejay @ Thu Mar 08 said:


> Right, apparently it's owned by Faber Music Ltd and will not be out of copyright until 2029...
> 
> Oh well.


It all depends on the country. For example, in the UK (and most of Europe) copyright is currently 70 years, but elsewhere it can be anything from 50 years up to 83 years.

D


----------



## Leandro Gardini (Mar 8, 2007)

These laws are worldwide  ...after 70 years of the death of an artist, the work becomes public property!!!
VW created his own society and here it´s the official site http://www.rvwsociety.com/


----------



## Daryl (Mar 8, 2007)

leogardini @ Thu Mar 08 said:


> These laws are worldwide  ...after 70 years of the death of an artist, the work becomes public property!!!


Since when?

D


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Mar 8, 2007)

Daryl @ Thu Mar 08 said:


> leogardini @ Thu Mar 08 said:
> 
> 
> > These laws are worldwide  ...after 70 years of the death of an artist, the work becomes public property!!!
> ...



Daryl, the change came about in the 1980's, with an additionnal 20 years given to compensate for the years of war...


----------



## synergy543 (Mar 8, 2007)

I thought it was 70 years from death? Well anyways...

Suppose I want to play a Prokofiev piece. Since he died in 1953, I guess his work is still copyrighted until 2023 when I might be dead too. What does it entail and cost to get permission to use his work? 

And could I use it in any way (such as synthetic realization a la Tomita, or sample mockup) or is it necessary to get "approval"?


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Mar 8, 2007)

It is 70 years from death (at least in Europe) ~o)


----------



## Daryl (Mar 8, 2007)

Patrick de Caumette @ Thu Mar 08 said:


> Daryl @ Thu Mar 08 said:
> 
> 
> > leogardini @ Thu Mar 08 said:
> ...


Yes, I know this (and actually it was nothing to do with the war), but the point is that it is not the same everywhere, so one has to be careful.

D


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Mar 8, 2007)

In Europe, it had everything to do with war. One of the arguments for the extention was that owners of intellectual property had been deprived of income during that period and there was a claim that these years should count for double-time extention...


----------



## Daryl (Mar 8, 2007)

Patrick de Caumette @ Thu Mar 08 said:


> In Europe, it had everything to do with war. One of the arguments for the extention was that owners of intellectual property had been deprived of income during that period and there was a claim that these years should count for double-time extention...


'Fraid not. It was introduced unilaterally by the French at the persuasion of Durand(?) who wanted to keep Ravel in copyright. The war argument was a total Red Herring. It was simply greed. If you look at the history of the number of years, you will find that Spain and Belgium actually have (or used to have, I can't remember if this has changed) an 83 year copyright period specifically for the War add-on years. There has also been recent talk of increasing from the current 70 years because of the war, although this has not got very far.

D


----------



## FrozeN (Mar 8, 2007)

It's 50 years here, lucky me. 8) 

http://www.cash.org.hk/aboutcash.asp?session=faq&lang=en

Cheers,
Frankie


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Mar 8, 2007)

Durand it is (and they were bought out by BMG). Yea, I am well aware of the whole attempt to prolong the years of copyright using the argument of the war. I thought the extention was connected to that argument...
I own a piece of Camille Saint-Saens rights (previously represented by Durand) and unfortunately it fell to PD last october :cry: 

An argument can be made as far as public domain goes.
Why would a composer lose the ownership of his/her music after 70 years?!
If you build a house, as long as the house stands up, you own it (and still own the land beyond that point)
I am not convinced about the legitimacy of the 70 years rule (and not because I lost Saint Saens' royalties but because I am a composer myself and in case of success would love to know that my children and beyond have an income from it...)


----------



## Daryl (Mar 8, 2007)

Patrick de Caumette @ Thu Mar 08 said:


> Durand it is (and they were bought out by BMG). Yea, I am well aware of the whole attempt to prolong the years of copyright using the argument of the war. I thought the extention was connected to that argument...
> I own a piece of Camille Saint-Saens rights (previously represented by Durand) and unfortunately it fell to PD last october :cry:
> 
> An argument can be made as far as public domain goes.
> ...


Actually, I can see the argument for reducing the number of years for Royalties. Originally it was necessary to provide for a wife and children, but these days it seems almost unnecessary and discriminatory to other sorts of work.

D


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Mar 8, 2007)

Unecessary?

I'd be very interested in hearing your argument.

Intellectual property might be just that, intellectual but it remains property nonetheless. What if we applied the same PD principal to all ownership?

If copyright ownership was extended, I actually believe that there would be a lot more work for musicians, since one would have to pay to use the works of established composers, the logical reation would be to turn to up-start composers instead of getting away with a free ride...


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Mar 8, 2007)

Daryl,

what was the cause of the 20 years extention? (just curious)


----------



## Mike Greene (Mar 8, 2007)

FrozeN @ Thu Mar 08 said:


> It's 50 years here, lucky me. 8)


The copyright period is determined by where it was copyrighted, not where the future user is. Some of Stravinsky's pieces are in PD while others are not, largely because of whether they were copyrighted in the U.S, France, or in Russia.

There are other complications like whether or not the user's country recognizes the copyright country's Intellectual Property laws. It's all very messy!

My understanding (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong) is that a piece is covered by copyright for the whole world as long as it's under copyright for it's place of origin (registration.) And when it's copyright expires in the country of origin, it becomes PD for the whole world, even in countries that would have had longer terms.


----------



## Mike Greene (Mar 8, 2007)

I can't imagine the copyrights for anything I've written will be worth a nickel 70 years after I'm dead. But even if they were, I personally don't like the idea of heirs that far down the line being entitled to a gravy train just because they were born into a certain family.

I know a few people who are in these kinds of families and they're almost always losers. Often rich, but losers nonetheless.

I like the original US version of 75 years after composition. That's plenty long enough for me and I think a large PD pool is a good thing.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Mar 8, 2007)

Mike Greene @ Thu Mar 08 said:


> I can't imagine the copyrights for anything I've written will be worth a nickel 70 years after I'm dead. But even if they were, I personally don't like the idea of heirs that far down the line being entitled to a gravy train just because they were born into a certain family.
> 
> I know a few people who are in these kinds of families and they're almost always losers. Often rich, but losers nonetheless.
> 
> I like the original US version of 75 years after composition. That's plenty long enough for me and I think a large PD pool is a good thing.



Do you have any children Mike?

Personally, I love the idea of my children being given a little bit of a buffer between them and the harshness of a possible future. 
Unless you are a heir to John Lennon's estate, I think you over-estimate the amount of money that would get to a 3rd generation heir to music royalties...

Royalties usually get split up pretty quickly among heirs and down the road, the amount we're talking about has nothing much in common with what the leaders of this world have been transmitting to their heirs for as long as we can remember.
Doesn't THAT picture bother you more? :twisted: 

How about this different look: a guy/gal writes a song and goes: here's my song! The song sells real well and generates royalties. Now this royalties get passed on to his/her heirs for less than two generations afterwards.
This other guy lands in America, claims some land that is not his, aquires a whole bunch of slaves to work that land and make him a rich, powerful man. That power gets passed on to many generations onward and eventually you are now looking at the president of the United States (not very bright but there's no PD possibility here...) now which of these two stories reflects a more legit idea of ownership?

I am very surprised that there are musicians anywhere that are against the idea of ownership when it comes to intellectual/composition property! >8o 

If you are not going to make a stand for it, who is?
There certainly are a whole bunch of non-musician/business type that are applauding you!


----------



## Mike Greene (Mar 8, 2007)

To answer your questions:

Do I have children? - Yes. One boy. I'm raising him to not need daddy's help 70 years after I'm dead.

Does what world leaders do bother me? - Yes. And that relates to copyright how?

Am I against slavery and stuff? - Yes. If I were Bruce, I'd know the right Latin phrase to describe how this also seems unrelated to copyright.

Understand I'm not against copyright law. I've made a penny or two in royalties and I'm very much in love with getting paid. And I admit maybe I did leave a little somethin' for my son in our will. 

To be clear, I'm not _"against the idea of ownership when it comes to intellectual/composition property."_ My quibble is more with how long the terms are. I like the old laws: 75 years after creation or 50 years after death. That seems like a pretty long term to me.

When I see stuff like the Holst estate suing over Zimmer's lift of "The Planets," written almost a century ago, I start to wonder how long do copyright terms really need to be. I'll bet none of the Holst heirs ever even MET their Great Grandpa Gustav. And if they're like the heirs I know, I'll bet they're a-holes.

Public domain is a healthy thing. Luckily 200 year old pieces are PD because otherwise it would be excedingly difficult to not step on someone's copyright if heirs dig deep enough. How many threads have we seen where this or that composer is alleged to have ripped off some classic? A ton!

Personally, I think it's pretty cool to borrow riffs from old tunes. I didn't write the 12 bar blues, but I use the heck out of it. Thank God the "Shave and a Haircut" riff is PD. And the trumpet/trombone loser "wah -wah-wah-waaaahhh" is PD and a staple if you do enough dopey comedies like I do. And how many times have I popped in "Hallelujah" in shows. Yes, I could write something different, but it wouldn't work as well, because those pieces are part of our culture.

In fact, shouldn't Happy Birthday be PD already? It's not and every time it gets used, producers have to secure permission and pay a couple of old bats for something their great aunts wrote a zillion years ago. Seems silly to me.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Mar 8, 2007)

Mike,

it seems to me that you are talking from the stand point of a guy that spends his time borrowing ideas from others rather than creating music that attempts to be original. From that perspective, I see why you'd rather do away with copyright.

Both you and I know that there is not enough music in a "halelluiah" or a one bar riff to claim ownership of that...

Why do hundreds of composers get sued for copyright infrindgment?
Because they actually rip-off stuff. We all know this as well. Temp tracks are our undoing. But they still rip stuff off. Take the risk, pay the consequences...
I won't be feeling sorry for Zimmer. You take a chance, make the big bucks and once in a while you get caught and pay the fine. Not so bad, is it?

And G.W. never met his ancestors either and yet he got all the power of the world given to him not based on his own merit. That power has been passed on for centuries.
That's the point I was trying to make.
If intellectual property ownership bothers you, you might as well start questioning the whole transmition of power on a global scale: it's a lot more harmful to all of us.
It seems to me composers are getting the short hand of the stick.
I personally think that if I write a tune and you want to use it, you should pay.
Now, tomorrow and in 200 years.

But I'd be happy to discuss the principle of capitalism as a whole because obviously, it doesn't really work, does it?

(And sorry, I am trying to raise my children as decent human beings with sound values myself and I doubt that a few extra dollars/year of income would turn them into greedy brats...it could pay for their children's education)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 8, 2007)

Just to be argumentative, how about Stravinsky's Pulcinella? All Pergolesi tunes and really great. Stravinski himself said the only thing he liked of Pergolesi was Pulcinella.

On the other hand, this says I'm wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_B ... _Pergolesi


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Mar 8, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Mar 09 said:


> Just to be argumentative, how about Stravinsky's Pulcinella? All Pergolesi tunes and really great. Stravinski himself said the only thing he liked of Pergolesi was Pulcinella.
> 
> On the other hand, this says I'm wrong:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_B ... _Pergolesi



Querelle des Bouffons: I like that! Very appropriate. 

I always enjoy your humor Nick o-[][]-o


----------



## Daryl (Mar 9, 2007)

Mike Greene @ Fri Mar 09 said:


> FrozeN @ Thu Mar 08 said:
> 
> 
> > It's 50 years here, lucky me. 8)
> ...


This is not true, otherwise Prokofiev's music would be out of copyright worldwide by now, rather than just in a few territories.



Mike Greene @ Fri Mar 09 said:


> [There are other complications like whether or not the user's country recognizes the copyright country's Intellectual Property laws. It's all very messy!


This has always been a mess. For example the old Eastern European countries never paid any Royalties at all



Mike Greene @ Fri Mar 09 said:


> My understanding (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong) is that a piece is covered by copyright for the whole world as long as it's under copyright for it's place of origin (registration.) And when it's copyright expires in the country of origin, it becomes PD for the whole world, even in countries that would have had longer terms


Again, not true. This is why Gershwin came back into copyright (having previously been PD) when the UK adopted the European 70 year rule.

D


----------



## bluejay (Mar 9, 2007)

Anyway, I've begun speaking with Faber Music Ltd about this.

I should get some answers on Monday but I've been told that this is quite an unusual request... Don't really know why. Isn't this the same as a band doing a cover version and making it available for download?

There is likely to be some kind of licensing fee involved so we'll see how much that is.

As much as I love this piece of music I'm not planning to put myself too far out of pocket for this.


----------



## Mike Greene (Mar 9, 2007)

Daryl @ Fri Mar 09 said:


> Mike Greene @ Fri Mar 09 said:
> 
> 
> > My understanding (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong) is that a piece is covered by copyright for the whole world as long as it's under copyright for it's place of origin (registration.) And when it's copyright expires in the country of origin, it becomes PD for the whole world, even in countries that would have had longer terms
> ...


That's interesting. And it sure makes things more complicated!


----------



## Mike Greene (Mar 9, 2007)

Patrick de Caumette @ Thu Mar 08 said:


> It seems to me that you are talking from the stand point of a guy that spends his time borrowing ideas from others rather than creating music that attempts to be original.
> From that perspective, I see why you'd rather do away with copyright.



:roll: 

If that's your understanding of what I wrote, then either I don't write very clearly or you don't read very carefully. Whichever the case may be, it's obviously pointless for me to continue with this.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Mar 9, 2007)

Mike Greene @ Fri Mar 09 said:


> Patrick de Caumette @ Thu Mar 08 said:
> 
> 
> > It seems to me that you are talking from the stand point of a guy that spends his time borrowing ideas from others rather than creating music that attempts to be original.
> ...



I'm sorry Mike, this was not a very nice thing for me to say.
I take it back if you let me...


----------



## Mike Greene (Mar 9, 2007)

Well, since you were so understanding that time you found out I was having an affair with your wife, I guess I can't really get all that bent out of shape over this. :mrgreen: o-[][]-o


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Mar 9, 2007)

Mike Greene @ Fri Mar 09 said:


> Well, since you were so understanding that time you found out I was having an affair with your wife, I guess I can't really get all that bent out of shape over this. :mrgreen: o-[][]-o



If you're refering to the trans-sexual that hangs out in your neighborhood: he's not my wife. Glad you had a good time though =o


----------



## bluejay (Mar 12, 2007)

Well I'm not trying to distract from Mike and Patrick flirting with each other here but heading back to the original topic...

It turns out that I will have to pay some level of licensing AND the Vaughan Williams foundation will have to review my piece and see if it's acceptable to be used.

So I've given up on this piece. I'll either use a PD Tchaikovsky piece or an original one instead.

Oh, and Jay has now done a mockup of this piece so there is becoming even less reason to do it.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Mar 12, 2007)

Sorry about the OT bluejay... :oops:


----------



## bluejay (Mar 12, 2007)

No problem Patrick. To be honest I was interested in your viewpoint about copyrighted material.

In my specific case it wasn't so much the money but the fact that I couldn't imagine the Vaughan Williams foundation allowing a version based on samples to be put online. I would have thought they would be orchestral purists.


----------

