Choral Public Domain Library

Hello,

just spotted some editions posted by the composers themselves on the CPDL server under a "Personal" license rather than the CPDL (or something equivalent) license. As this is against the hosting terms of CPDL, I wonder how to proceed with these editions?

The editions in question are

Zion, Awake, Thy Strength Renew (Thurlow Weed)
Introit for Passiontide (Malcolm Dedman)

and presumably other pieces by the same composers (I have not checked all).

Any suggestions?

Chris

This kind of issues is being throroughly discussed at the committee level. Some specific legal support on copyright matters has been recently obtained.

At the present time, AFAIK, the "standard" CPDL rules remain valid, i.e. (see, for example, Help:Do all CPDL scores have the same copyright?, ChoralWiki:Personal):

- any intellectual property rights existing on the scores remain with the author(s). CPDL as an organization never holds any intellectual property rights;

- authors may license the scores under the CPDL license conditions, but they may also opt for other conditions that they define on a personal basis ("personal" copyright);

- if the authors opt for "personal" copyright, but then they do not define the specific license conditions on the score itself, or on their user pages or websites, the CPDL license policy applies by default.

When "personal" copyright is chosen and the conditions defined are quite different from the CPDL policy (or ambiguous), discussion may arise whether such scores are eligible for being hosted or linked to from CPDL. This is a "grey area" that needs clarification for the future.

Max

The scores that I mentioned are reside on the CPDL server. I have read on

http://choralwiki.net/wiki/index.php/He ... _scores%3F

that "The CPDL copyright license applies to all scores and texts which reside on the CPDL server."

I had thus concluded that all scores residing on the CPDL server must be freely usable without mandatory performance fees. If this is no longer right (or was never right), I am sorry for being confused,

Chris

The CPDL copyright license applies to all scores and texts which reside on the CPDL server

In principle this is true, but in reality many contributors have submitted scores showing non-CPDL copyright notices.

In some cases, the "personal" copyright was chosen, but without any specification about what "personal" means. According to:

http://choralwiki.net/wiki/index.php/Ch ... i:Personal

such scores can be regarded as equivalent to scores released under the CPDL copyright policy.

In other cases, the "personal" copyright is specified. What kind of "personal" copyright is compatible with the CPDL spirit? Please note http://choralwiki.net/wiki/index.php/He ... _anyway%3F:

The primary goals of CPDL are:

- To make vocal sheet music available for free.
- To create a website for public domain music that includes only legally (In United States) downloadable scores.
- To allow development of a viable collaborative model for sheet music distribution.
- To publish scores that are not otherwise commercially viable.
- To create a website that catalogs a large number of other free sheet music websites.
- To encourage (through the CPDL Bulletin Boards) sharing between lovers of vocal music.

The term "available" is tricky. Music can be made available and used for many different purposes (personal use, rehearsal, public performance, liturgy, recording, ...). If some uses are free but others are not, is this enough for such scores to be hosted at CPDL, or linked to CPDL? Which uses must be free, as a minimum, for scores hosted or linked to CPDL? This is, in my opinion, the "grey area" that is still unclear and needs to be clarified.

In the specific case of the two scores that you mention:

Thurlow Weed wrote:
While I do retain a personal copyright for all my compositions, they may be freely printed out from the CPDL and used for any religious service or performance. I wrote the music to be sung and enjoyed. Soli Deo Gloria!

Uses out of "any religious service or performance" fall in the "grey" area, however my (very) personal opinion is that such a copyright statement is compatible with the CPDL spirit.

Malcolm Dedman wrote:
This short Introit was originally intended for inclusion in an Anglican Communion Service and is a setting of the Passiontide statement for the Series 3 service. It may be performed in concert as well as liturgically

Ii is not clear whether the use for performance in concert as well as for liturgy is granted for free. According to:

http://choralwiki.net/wiki/index.php/Ch ... i:Personal

I would assume that the CPDL policy applies for anything is undefined under the "personal" copyright, so my personal opinion is that such a copyright statement is compatible with the CPDL spirit.

I hope that, with the help of a legal/copyright advisor, the CPDL committee will be able to define more "black" and "white", and less "grey" areas in the future.

Max

Concerning the pieces by Malcolm Dedman, I have learnt from him by private communication that his works are registered with "The Performing Right Society" (PRS) and that in all cases of performance royalties are due to PRS. So this seems to be a rather dark grey if not even black...

While I have no problem in general with composers registering their works at PRS/GEMA/whatever to collect royalties from performing choirs, I have serious concerns when these works are posted on CPDL, and when these editions do not even carry a warning that the music may not be freely used. This can bring choirs in a lot of trouble because that is not exactly what can be expected from a "Choral Public Domain Library". And this may harm the reputation of CPDL and all other contributors sharing actually freely usable music.

What do you think? Shall a warning be added to the editions (eg. "Performance of this work requires the payment of royalties to PRS in the UK, or its associates in other countries")? Or should the editons not be hosted on CPDL?

Or am I the only one with these concerns?

Chris

Chris, this bothers me as well and has done for some time. You're quite right to raise the issue. In my opinion, in an ideal situation, all content stored on the CPDL server(s) should be available to the public under the CPDL licence - it's that simple. If composers want to index their work on CPDL but host it elsewhere then different standards should apply (though this clearly needs lots of consideration before applying any policy). Unfortunately, CPDL germinated out of an idea which then mushroomed into a resource which has not been professionally managed. The absence of clear policy is a problem which I hope will move towards being solved when CPDL begins to receive professional legal advice. This is in the process of being arranged. I hope this is of some reassurance to you.

I think that, moving towards a more clear policy, we should adopt very clear stataments to prevent and correct some misconceptions, misunderstandings and misexpectations about CPDL that seem to mushroom (thanks Rob, I've learnt a new term ) like "urban legends" from time to time.

Reading through the forums, I've noted the following examples:

- publishing a score under the CPDL license policy implies a transfer of the intellectual property rights from the author to CPDL;

- "all rights reserved" on a score necessarily implies that such a score cannot be used for free;

- CPDL somewhat guarantees that all scores at CPDL can be used by anybody, free of charge for all possible purposes and in any part of the world.

All the above statements are obviously false. Nevertheless, as Chris correctly noted, some users may expect something like that from CPDL. I think the legal advisor will help to better clarify, with the appropriate wording, what is within the scope of CPDL, and, especially, what is not.

Max

Bob,

I am glad to hear that I am not the only one who is bothered by CPDL being (ab)used as a free (as in beer) marketing tool for commercially licensed music. I am not sure however whether the legal advice will give any insights into this issue, because this seems to be more of an ethical than a legal issue.

Concerning the pieces by Malcolm Dedman that were the starting point of this thread, he has asked me in a private email how to delete his pieces and his composer entry. AFAIK, ordinary users cannot delete entries, but only open up delete requests (which does not seem to be simple and maybe even beyond the capabilities of many users), I will forward his email to you so that you can delete entries (assuming that you have delete permissions).

Concerning the more general problem, I have thought about a simple solution, but am not sure whether the issue is of any interest to others than Bob and me. Should there be some interest, I can post it to the "Implementation Issues" forum.

Thanks,

Chris

Concerning the pieces by Malcolm Dedman, I have learnt from him by private communication that his works are registered with "The Performing Right Society" (PRS) and that in all cases of performance royalties are due to PRS. So this seems to be a rather dark grey if not even black...

I even find strange that PRS is accepting this situation. For instance, the French SACEM forbids this kind of publication to composers who have given to them the management of their author fees.

publishing a score under the CPDL license policy implies a transfer of the intellectual property rights from the author to CPDL;

In France (or perhaps in Europe), "intellectual property" is different from US copyright, and cannot be tranferred!
You can allow anyone to do anything with your work, but you remain the author for ever!

Anaigeon, please read all the sentences:

publishing a score under the CPDL license policy implies a transfer of the intellectual property rights from the author to CPDL;
(...)
All the above statements are obviously false.

I took it as an example of "urban legend" about CPDL.

Max

Thus we agree! My mistake, sorry

Just wanted to echo what Max said.

Clarifying CPDL policy about what restrictions (e.g. pay if performing, or religious purposes only) are acceptable use, if any, is definitely on the to-do list. And then we will need to fix the documentation so it's not inconsistent (as it now is). This is recognized to be in need of fixing.