This isn't perhaps pertinent to your questions Jeffrey, but I have to say it: I think that there should be an international agreement to ban publishing houses from 'owning the copyright' for a composer or piece of music. Why should OUP get rich from royalties which ought to go to Ralph Vaughan Williams (or his estate)? I would be much happier seeing a notice that read something like :

Copyright (c) 1974, David Willcocks. All Rights Reserved. Administered by Oxford University Press.

than :

Copyright (c) 1974, Oxford University Press. All Rights Reserved.

So, who's work is it: Willcocks' or OUP's?

I have no problem with Composers slapping a Copyright notice on their own work, but I just think that the current publishing model is out-moded. After all, If OUP publishes the music of David Willcocks, the publisher will still get money from the purchase of their editions.

I think that there should be an international agreement to ban publishing houses from 'owning the copyright' for a composer or piece of music.

Nice idea, indeed, but unfortunately it isn't going to fly. Copyrights can be bought/sold (ie. assigned or transferred), all or in part:

Copyright is a legal right created by the law of a country, that grants the creator of an original work exclusive rights to its use and distribution, usually for a limited time, with the intention of enabling the creator to receive compensation for their intellectual effort.

Copyright is a form of intellectual property, applicable to any expressed representation of a creative work. These rights frequently include reproduction, control over derivative works, distribution, public performance, and "moral rights" such as attribution

A copyright, or aspects of it, may be assigned or transferred from one party to another. The creator (and original copyright holder) benefits, or expects to, from production and marketing capabilities far beyond those of the author. Some of the rights may be transferred, though many publishers will insist all rights be transferred, or else the copyright holder may grant another party a non-exclusive license to copy and/or distribute the work in a particular region or for a specified period of time.

A transfer or license may have to meet particular formal requirements in order to be effective. Under the U.S. Copyright Act, a transfer of ownership in copyright must be memorialized in a writing signed by the transferor. For that purpose, ownership in copyright includes exclusive licenses of rights. Thus exclusive licenses, to be effective, must be granted in a written instrument signed by the grantor. A simple document that identifies the work involved and the rights being granted is sufficient. Transfers of copyright ownership, including exclusive licenses, may and should be recorded in the U.S. Copyright Office.

Copyright may also be licensed. Certain classes of copyrighted works be made available under a prescribed compulsory license. Under this scheme, anyone who wishes to copy a covered work does not need the permission of the copyright holder, but instead merely files the proper notice and pays a set fee established by statute (or by an agency decision under statutory guidance) for every copy made. Failure to follow the proper procedures would place the copier at risk of an infringement suit. Because of the difficulty of following every individual work, copyright collectives or collecting societies and performing rights organizations (such as ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC) have been formed to collect royalties for many works at once. This market solution bypasses the statutory license, but the availability of the statutory fee helps dictate the price per work collective rights organizations charge.

These were published before 1923. I never made the claim that later works were.
Looking around, I found that IMSLP wasn't even having the argument...apparently the US is the ONLY country in which early Andriessen is PD, so they did a blanket ban. And I decided that if IMSLP (a fairly scrappy outfit) didn't want to have that fight, neither did I. So I removed link to the one file on my server (Magna res est amor). There's still a link, for now, to Missa "Sanctus Ludovicus", for 3 equal and organ... which is part of the Sibley digitization project. It will be interesting to see if that link goes dead.

What I've got is on the page. I try to list every work with a publisher and date (note that there are many more titles than files; I'm trying for a complete list). Most of these entries were derived from WorldCat, and many from older British entries, which tend to be spare. Also, we cataloguers want to have a date of some sort, even when it isn't on the item, so we tend to guesstimate. I had a solid date for Magna, and the file, so I put it up. The date info from the U. of Rochester file is on its face dubious, and if push comes to shove, I'll bet it comes down (so I downloaded it last night).

From my POV, I would think that having a few early Andriessen pieces available for download might actually HELP sales (esp. since, cough, there's no real Web presence). There was a time when the Missa fiat voluntas tuas was almost a repertoire item. That time isn't now. I was talking to a musically-astute member of this list (well, aren't we all?) who had never heard of Andriessen. Things might be different in the Netherlands, but I can't imagine we're dealing with a hot commercial property here.

Indeed. If you actually thought IP was property, you'd think it was property-in-perpetuity, like other property.

Copyright, is a spirit akin to the selling of indulgences in my book. Either the treasures of the church belong to the church (with an exception for a living composer perhaps) or they do not. Are they for the glory of God or are they for the glory and benefit of someones pocket book? With the idiocy and gestapo like character of copyright laws these days I wouldn't be surprised if someone made a case that Palestrina's work belongs to his "estate".

And despite the smoke and fingerprints of Satan all over the devices we're looking at now, thank God for them, as I remember too many hours spent in college libraries all over the globe (Germany, Poland, Sweden, Moscow) looking for Urtexts etc. Course, I was a youngin' then.

I suppose I shouldn't swing once you've backed off, Cantus, but...do you have a paid church music position? Is your talent for the glory of God, or a pocket book?

I think we run punch presses for the glory of God. But if the Church values liturgical music over stamped machine parts, it should pay for them, so that composers don't have to run punch presses. Now, that doesn't create a mint for publishers and grandchildren to coin money in. I'm sure we're in agreement there.

Noel:

I don't understand this statement.

The self-publisher, like a lawyer, often has a fool for his client.

Francis,

It is extremely difficult for a person that publishes their own music to successfully mount an effective marketing plan. It is very hard to step back, analyze the market and do what it takes to reach it.

I've run into many composers who try to make their own way and become bitter and give up. I'm impressed at how well you have kept on with your work with a happy attitude!

A great discussion, thank you to all who have contributed.

You would, lol!

Not even interested in duking it out with Adam, just amused that he'd consider a takedown notice an honor.

www.catholicromantic.com ?

Luckily I've only read this thread when it has petered out. As to copyright and public domain, I really believe the Sonny Bono/Mickey Mouse league has hurt all of us. Yes, copyright is a good thing; no, extending it to five generations (author's life + xx years) is not a good thing. Public domain is a very very very good thing and we've (in the USA) lived with a dead public domain for 20+ years now.