New Arrangement of the Storrington Gloria (ouch!)
  • francis
    Posts: 10,810
    I know, I know... why am I setting Haugen?!

    Two reasons:

    1. Our diocese is mandating his setting for diocesan masses. OK... so our parish has to learn it. Since we have to use his melody, I figure I would compose a more traditional four part accompaniment.

    2. I would also share it with those who would like (need) to use it.


    QUESTION:

    What is the law when it comes to making a new arrangement of someone else's melody? I believe it's a statuatory copyright fee, but thought I would ask those of you who know. Once something is published can you make your own arrangement and give it away (or even sell it?)
  • MarkThompson
    Posts: 768
    An unauthorized derivative work, such as an arrangement made without permission, is an infringement of the copyright. There is no such thing as a "statutory copyright fee," if by that you mean some specified fee prescribed by law. It is for the copyright holder to determine the fee -- or to give permission as a courtesy, or to withhold permission altogether.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,473
    Assuming you have purchased the right number of parts for our own church (how ever many scores you would need otherwise), there is a commonly understood, but not explicit, permission to make your own arrangements for your own use. Jazz musicians do this all the time (although they don't usually "write down" the arrangement). Alas, as with all things "commonly understood, but not explicit" you can still get in trouble for it if somebody decides to enforce their "rights" under the ridiculous rules of IP law. ("IP" stands for "idea prison").

    The big problem is the interplay between the rights of the composer and the rights of the publishing company that may or may not actually own the copyright.

    Most composers (and I bet Haugen would be included) would be thrilled to know people are making derivative works, and would simultaneously grant permission and laugh at the idea that you even thought you needed to ask in the first place. Most publishers (and I'm certain GIA is included) feel very different about such things, and view the act of non-sanctioned performance (which could include singing in the shower) or non-licensed copying (including the two lines of lyrics you scribbled on the bottom of page three to help you avoid page turns) to be criminal acts.

    Your best bet is to use the arrangement in your parish as needed, and otherwise keep a low profile about it.
    If you have any friends (or friends of friends) at GIA, you could see if they are interested in publishing it.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,810
    Adam and Mark:

    Thanks for input. Will let you know what happens.
  • Jeffrey CogginsJeffrey Coggins
    Posts: 360
    What is the law when it comes to making a new arrangement of someone else's melody? I believe it's a statuatory copyright fee, but thought I would ask those of you who know. Once something is published can you make your own arrangement and give it away (or even sell it?)


    I would contact GIA directly.

    GIA's Reprint/Copyright Information for non-commercial use

    You can't even make a recording without paying a license.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,211
    I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that you're free to make and perform your own arrangement in church, but not to copy it or perform it elsewhere.
  • Marc Cerisier
    Posts: 536
    I asked GIA about making an arrangement of one of their pieces a while back (a year or two), and they sent their arrangement policy to me. Basically, as long as you don't change the melody or words, you can do anything you want except for distribute it. Be sure and put at the bottom that your arrangement is copyright GIA. I'm not at work, so I don't have the document handy, but I'm sure they'd be happy to send it to you. I emailed their permissions department. I use this permission often to arrange things for my treble choir, or to make cleaner engravings of their older works. Because of copyright law, it's up to each publisher to grant this permission. I've never inquired with any other publisher on this topic as the need hasn't arisen. While they catch a lot of flack here, I have found them to be most accomidating over the years to my varied requests.
  • Marc Cerisier
    Posts: 536
    Regarding the comment that you can't even make recordings w/o paying--you ought to just ask them. I asked about making cantor CDs (for the guimont psalms) and they gave me permission at no charge as long as they were only distributed to cantors and discarded once we are done with them. When I asked OCP about the same for the schiavone psalms, I was told pay up. And think--they're the non profit publisher!
  • Jeffrey CogginsJeffrey Coggins
    Posts: 360
    Regarding the comment that you can't even make recordings w/o paying--you ought to just ask them. I asked about making cantor CDs (for the guimont psalms) and they gave me permission at no charge as long as they were only distributed to cantors and discarded once we are done with them.


    Yes, this falls under fair use. However, making CDs of their music as party giveaways does not.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,810
    fair use

    that is what i have been reading about also. it's a touchy subject.

    well, here's a novel idea.

    what if i print the ATB parts without the author's melody, give attribution to ICEL for the text and leave it at that? you can fill in the melody yourself after you download the pdf.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,473
    what if i print the ATB parts without the author's melody, give attribution to ICEL for the text and leave it at that? you can fill in the melody yourself after you download the pdf.

    Still counts!

    There is no "bright line" in copyright law. I've heard uninformed people tell me that there is some particular number of notes a melody has to duplicate before it infringes. This is clearly false.
    The standard (if it ever came to a court case) is: Can it reasonably be said to be derivative?
    Since you've already told us that it is, the answer would have to be... yes.

    Also...
    Fair use is not a magic loop-hole. It is intended for academic use, critical response, and parody.
    Again, there is not a "bright line" test- which means that if it is clear (or could reasonably be shown) that your claim of "fair use" is aimed at circumventing otherwise applicable rules, then fair use protection doesn't apply.

    But finally...
    Contrary to what the anti-piracy warnings at the beginning of your DVDs attempts to make you believe, copyright violations are not prosecuted the way (for example) illegal drug use or jaywalking is.
    That is- the police aren't going to come, unannounced, to your house (or church) on suspicion that you have violated copyright laws.
    It is up to the copyright holder (the publisher) to enforce their copyrights, and sue people who break them.
    (When the police fine you for speeding, the state is acting on it's own behalf. When they levy a fine against you for copyright infringement, the state is acting as an agent of the copyright holder. Not that they would ever describe it that way.)

    This means (in case you care) you are almost certainly not going to get fined or go to jail for re-arranging a song or providing rehearsal tracks for your choir.
    As long as you keep quiet about it.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,810
    Adam

    I find it hard to believe that if the melody does not reside anywhere in an ATB arrangemet or STB even, that that would infringe on copyright. The content is completely new and original.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,473
    I agree that it is hard to believe.
    That doesn't make it less true, though.

    I(dea) P(rison) law is baffling, oppressive, and in a state of expansion.
    While one could argue it makes good business sense (it doesn't, but you could argue it), the nature of copyright law generally is counter-intuitive to the way most artists (especially classically trained ones) think of the very nature of creation and development. And publishers (even well meaning ones, often) take advantage of that misunderstanding in a way similar to the (apocryphal?) story of the purchase of Manhattan: "You're going to pay me, and in exchange I'm going to say that this thing I don't own, which no one can own or control, belongs to you instead of me? And I still pretty much get to use it the way I'm using it currently? Um... I guess I can sign something like that."

    I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV.
    But I've worked for lawyers, am friends with lawyers, and I have spent a lot of time with some of the best and brightest IP and Entertainment Lawyers in the industry (including a few who work exclusively with musicians), attending, coordinating, and supporting workshops for artists and entrepreneurs. I would be willing to bet real money that any decent IP Lawyer would give the following advice:
    1. Don't distribute your arrangement of someone else's copyrighted work, even while omitting the source melody, without prior consent. It is probably a violation, and even if it isn't, you can't afford the legal fees to argue that it isn't.
    2. If you really think you have something other people might find helpful, just call or email GIA and ASK THEM. Sometimes people are really nice.


    PS: I think IP law is stupid. You probably do too. Unfortunately, that's not a viable defense.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,810
    Here is whay GIA sent me about my request to make a new arrangement.

    -----------

    1. Melody of the original GIA publication may not be altered without specific written permission from GIA Publications, Inc.  For a Mass setting, melody and words of the original GIA publication may not be altered.

    2. The name(s) of the composer(s) and text author(s) along with the proper copyright acknowledgment must appear on copies of the setting, arrangement, and/or derivative work.

    3. GIA automatically owns the copyright for any setting, arrangement, and/or derivative work based on its copyrighted music.  If the composer decides to submit the piece for publication and it is accepted, the publisher must contact GIA for permission to use the setting, arrangement, and/or derivative work.

    4. In the case of a piece arranged for specific use inside a parish community, copies of the setting, arrangement, and/or derivative work may not be distributed or used outside of the parish.  If a composer decides to submit such a piece for publication, permission to make the necessary number of copies to do so is granted, in which case the name(s) of the composer(s) and text author(s) along with the proper copyright acknowledgment must appear on all copies.

    5. In the case of a live performance, copies of the original music must be purchased from GIA in the same amount as the quantity that the arranger intends to duplicate, or in a quantity sufficient for all performers (in the case of instrumental arrangements).

    6.  Apropos to 5., if there is a bulletin or program available to the assembly, the name(s) of the composer(s) and text author(s) along with the proper copyright acknowledgment must appear on copies of the setting, arrangement, and/or derivative work.

    This policy in no way contradicts or negates the policy that photocopying words or music under copyright without permission is illegal.
Add a Comment