Hello. I'm considering making a score submission to CPDL. However, I'm not sure of the copyright issues surrounding what scores it is legal to submit.
For example, if I wished to make an edition of Arne's Help Me O Lord, knowing this to be currently available in an edition by OUP, would that be out of bounds?
What music counts as legal for submission, exactly?
Thank you for your comments.
J.
Copyright Question
Re: Copyright Question
I may be wrong about this (and I'm sure there'll be further posts to put me right if I am), but my understanding is that the legality of an edition prepared for CPDL very much depends on the sources you are using. Arne's music, it goes without saying, is itself in the public domain, since the good doctor died 230 years ago. If you were working from Arne's original manuscript or an 18th- or 19th-century printed edition, I can't see that there would be a problem.
The problems (in my understanding) start to appear when the question of transcribing modern editions arises. Editorial work falls under copyright in much the same way as original creative work does: it remains in copyright (in the US and EU) for 70 years after the editor's death. Now the big question is: how much editorial work has to be put into an edition for an editor to be able to claim copyright? I've seen it mentioned elsewhere in these forums that an editor has to have collated different editions, or to have done an appreciable amount of creative work (e.g. reconstructing a missing voice-part, realising a figured bass) in order to claim copyright, but I'm not sure whether that's right; in the famous case which nearly bankrupted Hyperion Records, Dr Lionel Sawkins was able to claim editorial copyright of his editions of Delalande even though, by his own admission, he hadn't done much more than copy the original printed editions.
So I would say in conclusion that the fact that the Arne piece is published by OUP doesn't matter at all, but that where you need to be careful is if you intend to transcribe a modern edition.
DF
The problems (in my understanding) start to appear when the question of transcribing modern editions arises. Editorial work falls under copyright in much the same way as original creative work does: it remains in copyright (in the US and EU) for 70 years after the editor's death. Now the big question is: how much editorial work has to be put into an edition for an editor to be able to claim copyright? I've seen it mentioned elsewhere in these forums that an editor has to have collated different editions, or to have done an appreciable amount of creative work (e.g. reconstructing a missing voice-part, realising a figured bass) in order to claim copyright, but I'm not sure whether that's right; in the famous case which nearly bankrupted Hyperion Records, Dr Lionel Sawkins was able to claim editorial copyright of his editions of Delalande even though, by his own admission, he hadn't done much more than copy the original printed editions.
So I would say in conclusion that the fact that the Arne piece is published by OUP doesn't matter at all, but that where you need to be careful is if you intend to transcribe a modern edition.
DF
Re: Copyright Question
There is an other point that might put an old work under copyright: when the piece has never been published before. In that case the copyright lasts for 25 years since the time of the publication (that's the German law, but as Germany has one of the most restrictive copyright laws in the world, I would guess that the situation is less worse in most countries).
The tricky part is what "published" means. When the piece already appeared in print, it obviously has been published. When it is a manuscript source, it has been "published" when it has been performed at least twice before a public audience. Incidentally there has recently been a lawsuit about exactly this issue that has obtained considerable media coverage. It was about the opera "Montezuma" by Vivaldi.
If the piece has been printed, it is amazingly easy to obtain a copy of the original print: go to the nearest library and look up the libraries holding extant copies in the RISM catalog. Then write to that library and order a copy. Note that the library will claim copyright on the copies provided and demand that you use them "for private use only". I have asked different libraries what this means and consistently got the reply that this restriction only applies to the images, but not the content (i.e. the music). So you may not publish a copy of the original print, but you may publish a transcription therefrom.
Hope this helps,
Chris
The tricky part is what "published" means. When the piece already appeared in print, it obviously has been published. When it is a manuscript source, it has been "published" when it has been performed at least twice before a public audience. Incidentally there has recently been a lawsuit about exactly this issue that has obtained considerable media coverage. It was about the opera "Montezuma" by Vivaldi.
If the piece has been printed, it is amazingly easy to obtain a copy of the original print: go to the nearest library and look up the libraries holding extant copies in the RISM catalog. Then write to that library and order a copy. Note that the library will claim copyright on the copies provided and demand that you use them "for private use only". I have asked different libraries what this means and consistently got the reply that this restriction only applies to the images, but not the content (i.e. the music). So you may not publish a copy of the original print, but you may publish a transcription therefrom.
Hope this helps,
Chris
Re: Copyright Question
These sorts of issues vary markedly from country to country, which doesn't make things any easier for us.
As I understand it, in the United States, merely publishing a copy of a work in the public domain doesn't produce any copyright protection. Only creative works, not mechanical transcriptions and so forth, are subject to copyright. Critical editions produced from comparing various sources can be copyrighted, as can editorial notes or new arrangements or other such like things. Purely mechanical transformations, such as transposing to a new key, are not covered.
Probably the best thing to do is to use as the source for your edition a copy that is clearly out of copyright and ignore the current published edition altogether. As a practical matter, though, if the published edition does not differ from the previous ones in any practical way (but is simply a re-engraving of the same music), it's rather hard to prove that you used the "wrong" edition as your source....
Please take this all with a grain of salt, as I'm not an intellectual property lawyer, not by a very long stretch.
As I understand it, in the United States, merely publishing a copy of a work in the public domain doesn't produce any copyright protection. Only creative works, not mechanical transcriptions and so forth, are subject to copyright. Critical editions produced from comparing various sources can be copyrighted, as can editorial notes or new arrangements or other such like things. Purely mechanical transformations, such as transposing to a new key, are not covered.
Probably the best thing to do is to use as the source for your edition a copy that is clearly out of copyright and ignore the current published edition altogether. As a practical matter, though, if the published edition does not differ from the previous ones in any practical way (but is simply a re-engraving of the same music), it's rather hard to prove that you used the "wrong" edition as your source....
Please take this all with a grain of salt, as I'm not an intellectual property lawyer, not by a very long stretch.
Re: Copyright Question
In a related matter, is it permissible to use the CPD works as a basis for an arrangement?
I would like to re-arrange a piece for use by our local city band, as a woodwind piece.
As part of the agreement, will I then be expected to post this for use by others?
I would like to re-arrange a piece for use by our local city band, as a woodwind piece.
As part of the agreement, will I then be expected to post this for use by others?
Re: Copyright Question
I am not an attorney. f the works you are speaking of are licensed under the CPDL license (not all works currently on the site necessary are), the following seems to be the provision that applies. It doesn't sem to prevent derivative works, or require that they be posted back to CPDL. Are you seeing something that makes you think otherwise?
http://www.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/ChoralWiki:CPDL
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Edition or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Edition, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified Edition to carry a notice stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Edition or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole under the terms of this License. c) You must print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Edition, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Edition, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
http://www.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/ChoralWiki:CPDL
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Edition or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Edition, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified Edition to carry a notice stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Edition or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole under the terms of this License. c) You must print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Edition, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Edition, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.