Finding copyrighted sheet music online
  • Casavant Organist
    Posts: 805
    I often go looking for hymns online to see if I can purchase them, but I also find a lot of copies of them which are unprotected full versions of hymns. Should I use these or actually purchase them? Have any of you had a similar experience or experiences?
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    If you feel the hymn is protected under copyright and you would be violating that copyright by its download and use, then refrain from doing so. It's on you to make sure that you don't violate copyright, even if someone offers the opportunity.
    Thanked by 2Casavant Organist Andrew_Malton
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,216
    Generally, under US rules, if the sheet music is older than 1923, it's in the public domain and you can copy it.

  • Casavant Organist
    Posts: 805
    Most of the music I find online is either the publisher forgetting to put the preview watermark over it or I find it elsewhere online, and all of this music is not in the Public Domain.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    Printing a bunch of unlicensed copies of a piece of music you find online is in the same legal and ethical category as making a bunch of unlicensed photocopies of a piece of music in your library. That category is "things you should not do."

    I'm pretty anti-copyright, I don't actually believe in intellectual property, and I think that so-called "piracy" for personal use is a moral gray area. I don't feel guilty about all the music I used to listen to from Napster, and if I knew how to use bittorent I would have already downloaded the entirety of Babylon 5 from The Pirate Bay. I'm mentioning this contrarian viewpoint because I want my very-conventional, toe-the-line advice to stand in startling contrast:

    Illegal copying for church use is not a gray area. It is highly unethical and immoral.

    Why? When you do so you open your church up to potentially devastating copyright infringement litigation. The risk you take with copyright infringement has the potential to cause great harm to your parish. It violates professional ethics and and Christian morality.
    Thanked by 3Casavant Organist Cantus67 Choirparts
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,193
    What Adam said ... in boldface:

    Illegal copying for church use is not a gray area. It is highly unethical and immoral.

    Why? When you do so you open your church up to potentially devastating copyright infringement litigation. The risk you take with copyright infringement has the potential to cause great harm to your parish. It violates professional ethics and and Christian morality.

    At CPDL (of which I am president), we take copyright issues seriously, and we try to navigate those murky waters for the benefit of our users, especially those seeking choral music for use in churches.
    Thanked by 4canadash Casavant Organist Cantus67 Choirparts
  • Casavant Organist
    Posts: 805
    @CHGiffen
    I didn't know you were president of CPDL!

    Thanks for all the advice, I don't copy them to distribute to other choir members, they are usually just to look over at home and I would never use it in public, as I do agree with all of you. That being said, it makes me wonder if I should use those pdfs on my iPad for reference at all.

    The person providing the majority of music for our church uses photocopies even from hymnals, and distributes them to the entire choir. I don't want him to keep doing this, but I don't want to sound rude in telling him to stop. Should I tell him at all?
  • Cantus67Cantus67
    Posts: 208
    Noeisdas, Are you certain you're using "copyrighted" materials, or that these examples that you found are of copyrighted materials? The reason why I ask is because in the case of a hymn arrangement that was done in the late 1800s but has an edition that was made in the 1950's the actual music itself is NOT copyrighted, only the edition is copyrighted and any other edition of that music that has not been copyrighted or is publicly posted under say a CC statement is fully usable and not illegal to copy. I'm just hoping that you understand that. Now an "edition" of a piece that does have copyrighted notes in it is still under the copyright, if the edition was not intended for personal use then it still is considered under copyright and the person who made the edition may also have breached the law. If you're referring to arrangements and melodies written before 1923 but edited after that date you may be referring to an edition. I welcome any correction of my thoughts here but I'm pretty sure that I've got that one right.
  • Casavant Organist
    Posts: 805
    @Cantus67 I am talking mainly about materials that are found from, lest I say it, OCP or GIA. Sometimes I have to (and don't necessarily want to) find contemporary music for other choirs at my church. I don't distribute the unlicensed copies, but I pay for them rather. I am just talking about when I find such online and what I should do if I need to use it just for myself at home.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    what I should do if I need to use it just for myself at home.


    Publishers make their money from bulk sales to churches. I don't think any publisher is going to care (or, you know, find out) that you printed a single copy of something for at-home personal use. Especially since they will usually send you a single copy of just about anything for free.
    Thanked by 2Casavant Organist Cantus67
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    A mentor of mine said it best, I think, "Can they get you? Yes. Will they? Probably not."
    Thanked by 1Casavant Organist
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 1,164
    Publishers make their money from bulk sales to churches. I don't think any publisher is going to care (or, you know, find out) that you printed a single copy of something for at-home personal use. Especially since they will usually send you a single copy of just about anything for free.


    A mentor of mine said it best, I think, "Can they get you? Yes. Will they? Probably not."


    Tell that to Napster's subscribers.
    Thanked by 3Spriggo Casavant Organist CHGiffen
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,980
    Fair use does exist and it's legal. I make copies to facilitate page turns and it is legal, as long as I don't distribute copies and throw away my copies when I am finished with them.
    Thanked by 2ClergetKubisz Casavant Organist
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    You have to be careful, though, to be sure you know exactly what constitutes fair use and what doesn't. Some things that may seem to be fair use, actually aren't, and vice-versa.
    Thanked by 3CharlesW Casavant Organist CHGiffen
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    Tell that to Napster's subscribers.


    That isn't really the same, since someone listening to a pirated copy of the latest U2 album is unlikely to buy a dozen copies of the octavo for choir.

    Recording artists are in the business of selling recordings, and they don't like things that interfere with that. Music publishers are in the business of selling lots of copies of printed music, and they do like anything that promotes that.

    Fair use does exist and it's legal. I make copies to facilitate page turns and it is legal, as long as I don't distribute copies and throw away my copies when I am finished with them.


    That is not what Fair Use is. Copies for page turns is legal for entirely other reasons.


    Some things that may seem to be fair use, actually aren't, and vice-versa.


    It really is not all that complicated.

    Last year I wrote a fairly extensive guide to copyright: here is my chapter on Fair Use.
    Thanked by 1Casavant Organist
  • Casavant Organist
    Posts: 805
    Adam Wood for the win again!

    Your guide is really informative. I agree with it and I don't think that anything that I am doing for my own purposes is infringement, because this stuff is never performed to a "small audience" or others.

    Thanks for all the help!
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    It really is not all that complicated.


    I put my statement in there because many people that I've spoken with, especially as a teacher, think that they are entitled to copy whole chapters and the like from textbooks or whatever they want because it's "for educational use." There are limits to that, and they are well defined in the legal code. Just because a school or church is using it, or nobody is going to sell it or make money on it doesn't mean it's legal. I am simply pointing out that there are common misconceptions about Fair Use, and that one must be careful to ensure that they are fully informed.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    I am simply pointing out that there are common misconceptions about Fair Use, and that one must be careful to ensure that they are fully informed.


    This is true.

    I think Copyright Law is like the Bible sometimes:
    "It's too difficult to understand," is often the position of people who would have to stop what they were doing if they did understand it.
    Thanked by 4ClergetKubisz Casavant Organist Andrew_Malton eft94530
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,980
    I found the answer to all copyright issues some time ago - CPDL. No one will ever live long enough to exhaust all that is there, and the price is right! :-)
    Thanked by 5Adam Wood Casavant Organist MatthewRoth CHGiffen eft94530
  • Casavant Organist
    Posts: 805
    IMSLP too, until they added that membership thing...

    Did anyone actually buy that?
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,980
    I didn't think the IMSLP membership was mandatory. It is just a way of raising some funding that they need. It's more of a contribution.
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • Casavant Organist
    Posts: 805
    I know, but still, the most annoying thing ever...

    Would re-typesetting for ease of reading for "older" choir members be considered to violate this copyright law, and if I purchased enough editions in the first place for the entire choir?
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 1,164
    U.S. Copyright Legislation, if anyone is actually interested. http://copyright.gov/title17/
    Thanked by 1Adam Wood
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    Would re-typesetting for ease of reading for "older" choir members be considered to violate this copyright law, and if I purchased enough editions in the first place for the entire choir?


    Yes.

    Contact the publisher and work it out. There are real people on the other end of most copyright notices. And most of them are pretty reasonable.
    Thanked by 1Casavant Organist
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,611
    First, I am firmly in favor of copyright - just last week negotiated with a person that had typeset music out of print for IMSLP.org and posted it, but will not permit anyone to use it for $ purposes. Agreed not to do so, and will be working from another source.

    Would re-typesetting for ease of reading for "older" choir members be considered to violate this copyright law, and if I purchased enough editions in the first place for the entire choir?


    How is this different from making a copy of a page for a page turn?

    I've done this, put the copies in the choir's three ring binders and posted on each page that an original is on file for each page copied and that the originals are under lock and key.

    The bottom line is this: If you make a copy to avoid buying one, it's illegal. If you buy the music and make a copy - or copies if you buy multiple originals, and then lock the originals away in a cabinet, especially if it makes the music accessible, it does not deny the creator payment.

    You may be unaware that copyright laws have changed and almost everything may be put into braille....except for dramatic works...still have not gotten a determination on what "dramatic use" is...especially since dramatic use rarely is done to printed pages, but by memory.

    It's really time for the copyright police to storm the opera stage and arrest all the singers for singing from illegally memorized copyright music.

    Fair Use allows you to make copies of a copyrighted work for the purpose of comment, criticism, or parody.
    I do not believe that this is legal in any way. If this were accurate, any choir could be handed illegal copies and sing from them, the reason being that we are going to talk about the music when we are done performing it during our entire tour. A comedy troupe could make copies and then improvise from them on stage and call it parody. BOTH of these deny the creator payment for their work. Let the copyright battle continue.
    Thanked by 1Casavant Organist
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    Fair Use allows you to make copies of a copyrighted work for the purpose of comment, criticism, or parody.

    I do not believe that this is legal in any way.


    This is precisely the purpose of Fair Use.

    Fair use is a legal doctrine that promotes freedom of expression by permitting the unlicensed use of copyright-protected works in certain circumstances. Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides the statutory framework for determining whether something is a fair use and identifies certain types of uses—such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research—as examples of activities that may qualify as fair use.
    - http://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    that may qualify as fair use.


    This is an important part of that statement. My purpose in commenting here is to reiterate the misconceptions that exist. Just because an activity may qualify as fair use, does not make it fair use: it still has to meet the requirements set forth in the Copyright Act.
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,611
    Adam, you've left out the list of fourth things to consider. most importantly:

    Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole:


    The way you presented it would appear that anyone can make a copy to take home to criticize, comment, teach or use for research. That's not FAIR USE. A portion. Not the whole thing.

    And this being an international group, it needs to be stated, this is for the US only.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    A portion. Not the whole thing.


    That's not right, either.

    From copyright.gov

    Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: Under this factor, courts look at both the quantity and quality of the copyrighted material that was used. If the use includes a large portion of the copyrighted work, fair use is less likely to be found; if the use employs only a small amount of copyrighted material, fair use is more likely. That said, some courts have found use of an entire work to be fair under certain circumstances. And in other contexts, using even a small amount of a copyrighted work was determined not to be fair because the selection was an important part—or the “heart”—of the work.


    And it isn't to "to take home to criticize, comment, teach or use for research." Put that way, it isn't Fair Use. You can't Xerox a book in order to read it for the purpose of criticizing it. You can reproduce portions of a work (or, in some cases, the whole thing) as part of your critique, analysis, parody, commentary, or news reporting.

    Also, the European situation is remarkably similar.

    Fair Use (or Fair Dealing in many countries) has essentially the same purpose everywhere: to allow people to criticize, comment on, report on, make fun of, and otherwise talk about other people's work. It is a Free Speech and Free Press issue. (Which is why making page-turn copies is not "Fair Use".)
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • PaxMelodious
    Posts: 442
    Another dimension to this:

    Some of the on-line copies you will find are on hymnary.org. They have arrangements with certain publishers to allow them to display scanned works. For some (eg Hope), this involves the website-visitor ticking a box to affirm that they are in the USA. The publishers must enter these arrangements knowing that people can print / download the works - and they must believe that the generated sales make it worthwhile.

    Others are on the websites / servers of the copyright owner.

    I have no qualms about using copies I find in this way for personal / home use. And I know that I am far more likely to but legal copies of music if I have seen the score and know that it will be usable for musicians with the skills levels that my parish has.
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,611
    You do realize that this sentence:

    "some courts have found use of an entire work to be fair under certain circumstances."

    means that people who have done this have exposed their church/college/local copy place to the humongous expense of a lawsuit that can take years and bankrupt the church/college/copy place...and you as well.

    Go for it. People will not forget your name. Eventually spending (wasting) thousands and thousands of dollars to avoid paying for a book or piece of music to have it in your hands without paying the composer.

    And a lawsuit is filed against YOU, which means you can't drop it, you HAVE to defend yourself.

    How to win friends and influence people.
  • Marc Cerisier
    Posts: 537
    Did anyone actually buy that?
    (IMSLP membership)

    Absolutely did! IMSLP has been a constant resource for me for years, and I was happy to support them monetarily.
    Thanked by 1noel jones, aago
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,216
    Adam was making a valid point, Noel: "fair use" seems to be defined in terms of some general principles; it doesn't have completely clear boundaries and nice neat rules such as the one you were offering.

    Now, if you want to offer a conservative set of practice guidelines for Fair Use that people can follow to keep from risking legal hassles, that's welcome and probably useful.

    OTOH, as the forum guidelines say, this isn't an IP board, so we don't have to get too deep in the weeds here.
    Thanked by 2noel jones, aago Casavant Organist
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 1,164
    I am amazed that people in the music business, such as the members of this forum are, would advocate violating copyright law. On the music forum that I co-administer, the OP would be warned against what he is suggesting doing and the entire thread would be locked, if not deleted. Copyright infringement is very serious. DON'T DO IT!!!!
    Thanked by 2noel jones, aago mattebery
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,216
    Oh, is this the Overreacting Hour? If you review this thread, you'll find that the vast majority of messages are from people who do not advocate violating copyright. And indeed, nobody actually directly advocated it.

    US copyright law, in its present state, with its overly long period of "protection", is what economists call "rent-seeking": the transfer of money from some parties to other parties, causing substantial burdens and without a sufficient rationale. The effects are anti-consumer and anti-culture. If people are afraid to talk about how unjust this is, it cannot be changed: indeed, it will be impossible to even resist the periodic demands of big media companies to "protect" older and older content.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,315
    Also, none of us are lawyers, so we cannot dispense legal advice. But I think laying out what is copyright protected, what is fair use, etc. and what is a “do not do at all” vs. “do not do at your peril” vs “talk with reasonable people” are fair for discussion.
    Thanked by 1Casavant Organist
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    Good lord.

    Fair Use DOES NOT APPLY to any of the situations regularly encountered by church musicians.

    How many times must I repeat? Commentary, criticism, reporting, satire, parody.

    It has nothing to do with copies for personal or professional use. In fact, if you are actually "using" the copy, it probably isn't fair use.
    Thanked by 1PaxMelodious
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,216
    Here is a checklist developed by Columbia University to help members of their community identify whether the factors favoring or opposing use of a copyrighted work are present:
    https://copyright.columbia.edu/basics/fair-use/fair-use-checklist.html
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,611
    Did anyone actually buy that?
    (IMSLP membership)

    Absolutely did! IMSLP has been a constant resource for me for years, and I was happy to support them monetarily.


    I did, as well. No one is denied access if you do not join and pay, but paying is cheap and you get faster access and like having TSA PRE-CHECK!
    Thanked by 1Casavant Organist
  • Casavant Organist
    Posts: 805
    Could everyone calm down here please? All I did was ask a question about my use which is considered fair, and I don't know how this thread turned into a big fight.

    Thank you in advance.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,980
    All I did was ask a question ...


    Trouble maker! LOL.
    Thanked by 2Casavant Organist canadash
  • Casavant Organist
    Posts: 805
    Well I contacted the publisher and this is what I got back:
    Hello,

    Today I received your forwarded message and am happy to follow up with you.

    Your question brings to mind an article from an issue of GIA Quarterly written years ago by senior editor Bob Batastini. In brief, he explained that “if, in making a copy or copies, you avoid purchasing the music you sing, you have broken the law. If you own enough copies, however, but need to copy for convenience, you've paid the price and may feel free to adapt as needed."

    So, this proposed accommodation for some of your choristers is fine, since your church has a sufficient number of purchased copies of the music.

    I hope this helps. If you have any other questions, let me know.
    Thanked by 5Adam Wood Choirparts CHGiffen chonak ClergetKubisz
Add a Comment