"The Story of Redemption for Children"--copyright?

amindthatsuits

Someone recommended the Story of Redemption for Children from this websites downloadable literature. It was copyrighted in 1952, but I am guessing it was not renewed as it needed to be in the 1970s. Is it available to perform for free?

Thanks.

Kenneth

chonak

If I understand aright, there is a provision in US copyright law exempting church services from performance royalties. (Note: church services only; not school events, etc.)

tomjaw

Have just looked through the book "Copyright GREGORIAN INSTITUTE OF AMERICA"

I looked on the Library of Congress, but it is difficult to search their early records, so could not find the original copyright or if it was renewed.

I have also looked on the GIA website and can find no reference for this book.

You could get in touch with GIA? but I would be tempted to assume that it is not copyright.

Also I found this,
http://www.traditionalcatholicliving.com/free-catholic-sheet-music/story-redemption-introduction/

and Recordings,
http://www.traditionalcatholicliving.com/free-catholic-sheet-music/story-redemption-sound-recordings/

CHGiffen

amindthatsuits

Oh, so that's what GIA stands for? Never knew. And CHGeffen is correct, as always. The new Copyright Law has requirements about which ones were or were not renewed prior to , I think, 1977, but in this case the renewal fell after that date. Which actually means it was automatically extended--that cut-off date was an arbitrary delineation of which works would be covered by the "life of the author plus 50" rule. I know that because I control some copyrights that fall on either side of that date. Rats. Have to find out now.

Church services are in fact covered by copyright and you need performance clearance. That's why buying copies of published material (as in hymnals and songbooks) can be financially worthwhile, because the clearances are tied to copies of the publication. For other material, you need a licence from some organization like CCLI. My own parish is very cost conscious, as it should be, and I was told to use, for a parent/student meeting, strictly public domain. It's a congregation full of lawyers,too.

You should be aware, too, that if you accept ads on your YouTube channel, you will need clearance. For 80% of music performed today, or so it claims, that is Sony/ATV's licensing website, wearethehits.com It is not on that website, then you have to contact the publisher just to be sure. Most non-Sony songs will get caught by the automatic licensing software YouTube uses, but if not, that will be a coypright violation. I think it is three of those, and you get your channel pulled.

Don't have time to investigate before Sunday, so that is something to file for later.

Thanks to all.

Kenneth

CHGiffen

I searched the Copyright Registration records and the Copyright Renewal database. As far as I can tell, copyright was not renewed.

amindthatsuits

Thank you. Very helpful. I have to check the law and see if a copyright that expired in 1980 got automatically extended.

Many thanks again.

Kenneth

amindthatsuits

It would appear not. 20 years was added for works in their original terms, so that would put this at 2000. They would have had the right to extend it, and if they didn't, then it would lapse.

Thanks for checking that.

Kenneth

CHGiffen

Clarification:

All copyrightable works published in the United States before 1923 are in the public domain; however, works created before 1978 but not published until recently may be protected until 2047.

For works that received their copyright before 1978, a renewal had to be filed in the work's 28th year with the Copyright Office for its term of protection to be extended. The need for renewal was eliminated by the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992, but works that had already entered the public domain by non-renewal did not regain copyright protection. Therefore, works published before 1964 that were not renewed are in the public domain.

This last item applies to "The Story of Redemption for Children" by Frederick Anthony Adair (original copyright 1952, not renewed in 1980). There were no "20 years added to term" in this case by the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 (the "Sonny Bono Act"), which does not apply retroactively to works published before 1964 that were not renewed, since by copyright not being renewed they fell out of copyright and entered the public domain.

Adam Wood

All copyrightable works published in the United States before 1923 are in the public domain

Unless you can make a lot money extorting people, in which case its only Public Domain after a long legal battle and a judge's decision.

CHGiffen

I quote from Circular 15a Duration of Copyright from the U.S. Copyright Office:

Effect of 1976 Act on Length of Subsisting Copyrights
The 1976 Copyright Act carried over the system in the
1909 Copyright Act for computing copyright duration for
works protected by federal statute before January 1, 1978,
with one major change: the length of the renewal term was
increased to 47 years. The 1998 Copyright Term Extension
Act increased the renewal term another 20 years to 67
years. Thus the maximum total term of copyright protection
for works already protected by January 1, 1978, has
been increased from 56 years (a first term of 28 years plus a
renewal term of 28 years) to 95 years (a first term of 28 years
plus a renewal term of 67 years). Applying these standards, all
works published in the United States before January 1, 1923,
are in the public domain.

noel jones, aago

You know, being the government, they could have placed the last sentence first and saved us a lot of time.

Applying these standards, all works published in the United States before January 1, 1923, are in the public domain.

Effect of 1976 Act on Length of Subsisting Copyrights

The 1976 Copyright Act carried over the system in the...

This office must be used to train people to go one and write the tax code.

PaxMelodious

All copyrightable works published in the United States before 1923 are in the public domain; however, works created before 1978 but not published until recently may be protected until 2047.

For works that received their copyright before 1978, a renewal had to be filed in the work's 28th year with the Copyright Office for its term of protection to be extended. The need for renewal was eliminated by the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992, but works that had already entered the public domain by non-renewal did not regain copyright protection. Therefore, works published before 1964 that were not renewed are in the public domain.

This last item applies to "The Story of Redemption for Children" by Frederick Anthony Adair (original copyright 1952, not renewed in 1980). There were no "20 years added to term" in this case by the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 (the "Sonny Bono Act"), which does not apply retroactively to works published before 1964 that were not renewed, since by copyright not being renewed they fell out of copyright and entered the public domain.

All good stuff.

I know that this is the CMAA, but there are some international lurkers and posters around, so it may be worth noting that this advice only applies in the USA. In other countries the situation will be different, and in many copyright status will be based on N years after the author's death, or after first publication where the author is unknown. N varies between countries, but is now 70 in (most of?) Europe, anyway.

amindthatsuits

I had forgotten to check the circulars, which I read many times 10 years or so ago. I reread the "Mickey Mouse Protection," but the relevant sections are "delete this many years and substitute this many years," so hard to read. Another website misstated, or I misunderstood, the 20-year thing, and that indeed affects the extension term and not the original term.

The basic circular is here:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf Easy to understand and well worth having at hand.

I will agree with Adam Wood in that these things are clear until the lawyers get involved. Some years ago someone suggested in this forum that CMAA scan and post the 1906 edition of the English Hymnal. I pointed out that the 1933 Edition is very much under copyright, and so a plausible claim could be made that, say, a Vaughan Williams setting that was original had been caught up in the 1933 copyright. CMAA or any other organization would have to compare their available legal resources and those of Oxford University Press. OUP might lose, but they might also try to simply intimidate you through costs.

It's true that the terms were written to protect a certain cartoon character who debuted in 1928--nearly everyone admits Congress more or less took dictation on the bill--but every other corporation has caught on. If it is ambiguous, check with the publisher.

Interestingly, when I was looking into posting videos and adding advertising, I found out that Sony/ATV insists that you actually talk to a person on their staff who walks you through the terms. I explained that my highest number of views was 300, and the most likely would be a much smaller number than that. Didn't matter: I had to call and actually talk to a person. If you go to wearethehits.com, everything is spelled out for you and the process is self-evident.

Even though Google has a software that gets clearance for you for most non-Sony/ATV publishers, Google itself says, 'Check with the publisher."

Kenneth

chonak

I'm not sure I understand the part about a 1906 hymnal. That's all public domain now, and even if the same hymns appear in a copyrighted 1933 edition, the older one is still fair game.

amindthatsuits

The point was Adam's point--and it might not apply to that hymnal, so perhaps it was a bad example. The idea is that one can say, "Oh, it's from before 1923," but if there is any possible way for a rich publisher to make trouble, they might, so check. Ask. Always ask.

Adam Wood

The point was Adam's point

My comment only was in reference to one song which, were money not an issue, would have clearly passed into the Public Domain many years ago and — if we had sane copyright law — would never have been copyrightable in the first place.

If you need a hint:
My weirdest Christmas ever involved singing it TWICE, once at a Protestant service, and then later that night, at a Catholic Midnight Mass.

amindthatsuits

Chonak, I wish to apologize, in that I overstated the case. You are right: there IS an exemptoin, but in our world of easy printing and easy broadcasting, it has become quite restricted.

That is, if you perform a song and no copies are provided to the congregation, you are fine Anything else requires a license. CCLI licenses turn out to be reproduction licenses, or at least that is one kind. It is needed for any overhead or for any printing done to hand out. Broadcasting, whether in the traditional sense, or on YouTube, requires a performance license. Church events that are not specifically religious services could be covered.

As CHGeffen points, that these complications are so present in our musical lives is all thanks to the Sony Bono Act, the Copyright Extension law named after its chief sponsor, the Distinguished Gentleman from the Disney Corporation, whose amanuensis he was.

Here is a useful sheet put out by a licensing company.

https://www.christiancopyrightsolutions.com/docs/factsheets/factsheet-performancerightsmyths.pdf

But I apologize for getting it wrong.

chonak

I'm probably too cynical about these things: I worry that some publisher will claim a work is restricted even when it's not. But maybe some of you have had good experiences of honest replies in such cases.

eft94530

Adam, the song was about the manger managerie, right?

Hippo birdie two ewes ...

Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!

Categories