I copy for page turns. The way I read the law, I believe that is fair use. Of course, I own the music I copy.

"I am not sure about the details of copyright, but I am fairly certain that you have to pay a fee each year just to have the music at hand,"

This sounds like the permission from OneLicense that lets you copy legally music that they control here in the USA.


"and then a fee for each time your perform it."

This is not copyright, this is a commercial practice in the UK and other countries where churches are not exempt from performance fees. In the US this practice is in effect in funeral homes and bars and any other commercial place that offers live music.

These are both an administration of copyright.

There are other issues, in the US it is illegal to record a piece that has never been recorded while under copyright. The moment that you permit anyone to record it, then everyone may record it but they have to pay a fee for each cd it appears on...sometimes 7.5 cents...but the fee is negotiable.

Copyright is essential to encourage composers, otherwise they woudl all go around smelling like french fries.

There was an interesting story in the American Conservative on how copyright became a kind of weapon in a factional fight between two camps within Orthodoxy. I posted about it on the ChantCafe. i was thrilled about the editorial conclusion of the writer.

http://www.chantcafe.com/2012/08/go-therefore-and-teach-or-cease-and.html

I'm interested in the fact that you're not addressing the (billions) of cases where copyright is falsely claimed. You're certainly free to share whatever thoughts you wish, but I strongly urge all to refrain from trying to scare people into compliance, when nobody on this forum has even gotten to Step One. I've said it before and I'll say it again: those who claim copyright are responsible for enforcing it. I have a way to look up court cases (which are all public). Perhaps you're willing to share the relevant information about this alleged graduate student, so we can all view the public court proceedings? I have a strong suspicion that the actual facts are more nuanced than what you describe, but the official court proceedings will certainly show us the truth.

By the way, "I don't have any budget" and "I don't have any money" are not valid reasons to break the law or steal.

JennyH ...

At CPDL we have indeed received, quite recently, a cease and desist letter, researched the posted work, discovered it was indeed under copyright and, alas, had to take it down. Sad, because it is a wonderful English anthem. It's a good thing that we have no idea who or how many people might have downloaded the score when it was available, but it might be a bad thing if the publisher that owns the copyright ever finds out who any of these individuals are.

There is no use arguing morality or immorality of copyright law. There are ethical decisions that individuals must make (depending upon their value systems and beliefs) as to whether to exercise their right to copyright their own original work. Many fine composers today earn at least part of their living from publishing their works. It's no different for those who are authors and copyright (or assign copyright to their publishers for royalties) their novels, poetry collections, histories, cookbooks, etc.

Whether I choose to copyright my "Waltz in A major" for piano is my business, not yours (I haven't published it, so it is only available directly from me). I have published nearly all of my sacred choral music and arrangements at CPDL, personal copyright for CPDL. That is an ethical decision I made, since I have always felt that these sacred works are composed for the glory of God alone, and because (at least in the past) I felt that I have been able to absorb the costs in time, software, paper, etc. that goes into creating these works and preparing them for publication.

That is also my rationale for contributing my efforts at CPDL for nearly eight years. It's public service, it's how I've managed to give back to others. I'll stay with CPDL for as long as I'm able to contribute effectively. Whether I can afford to keep publishing my own sacred music works for free is something that I may or may not have to reassess, as age, economic recession, and obligations assert themselves.

Chuck

People download from the CPDL in good faith that the works are indeed Public Domain. It only takes one person to typeset/engrave a piece which is not public domain and upload it for trouble to begin. Is CPDL to blame? No, the person who didn't do their homework is to blame.

CHGiffen, I am not surprised CPDL has received one. I think they have something like 450,00 scores online.

I'm not interested in entering a 'heat' conversation, but I do note that I have never once used sarcasm while others have.

What's with the attitude, girl?

Oh, come on, Noel, as if you didn't have any! :-)

One question of fair use:

Is it "fair use" to create a folder of photocopied enlargements? I find most hymnals difficult to read and whenever I do a page for a performance folder I always enlarge it.

I don't think it's analogous to turning the volume up.
I do think it is analogous to making braille and large-print editions for the blind- which is allowed.

layouts in gia accomp books are abysmal as are their choir hymnals
the art of music engraving is extinct from the big 3

So this means that I should, technically speaking, throw the copies away after the mass that I use them instead of keeping them in the folder.

Yes. You aren't supposed to keep them in a folder. You are supposed to dispose of them.

That, in a church, is an unholy matrimony, an abomination of music for the mass!

I agree, but it does happen and of course if you wish to be employed, you have to do what your employers request. Otherwise you have to look for other employment. Just think of it as if you are doing your penance. :)

As for making your own superimposed hymnal; I think at that point, you should probably contact the publisher/s to request permission, and explain exactly what you are doing and why. They may grant you permission.

I have copied numerous organ works of which I own copies. I use them to haul around to play at recitals and services, etc.. There is never any question of them being given to others, or sold, or such. It's just that they are easier than lugging around a stack of books in a case, plus it saves wear and tear on my precious real, bought, copies. And, it enables me to tape pages together to fit given organ music desks so that I don't have to turn pages. Again, I only do this with music of which I own purchased copies.
There isn't anything wrong with this, is there?

1. Fair use is a defense to a claim of infringement and any one can use it, so the suggestion that it doesn't "encompass churches" seems incorrect. The only question is whether under the particular circumstances of the case your use is "fair use."

2. I'm not surprised a publisher would ask you to destroy it. If you ask someone for what is in effect a license, they can put conditions on it. That has nothing up do with fair use, which is a right under law. You don't need anyone's permission for a fair use. If it is, as a matter of law, fair use to make a particular copy, then I think it is incorrect to suggest there is a duty to destroy the copy at some point. If there is some federal court decision or regulatory guidance from the Copyright Office to the contrary, I will stand corrected.

I don't understand your point. I didn't say churches are exempt from anything, technically or otherwise. You said fair use "doesn't typically encompass churches." If you mean a church can't claim the defense of fair use, I think you're mistaken. The fair use defense is available to anyone, including a church. That is, if a church copies a protected work in some fashion and is accused of infringement, the church can plead as its defense that the particular act of copying was a fair use. Now, that defense may be good or it may not, depending on the circumstances. But it's not correct to say a church cannot raise the defense. If that's not what you meant, then I apologize for misunderstanding what you meant by "the fair use provision doesn't typically encompass churches."

Making a personal copy of a page turn sounds like a fair use to me, and if I'm right, I don't think there is any obligation to destroy it. If there is federal case law or regulatory guidance otherwise, I'll stand corrected. What publishers will or will not permit is irrelevant to whether that is fair use, since the right of fair use exists independently of the copyright holder's consent.

Dont get me wrong. I agree with everyone regarding making copies for the benefit of page turns, enlargening music. All I am pointing out, from lots of personal research on this, is that the area is very gray with regard to this. When in doubt, just ask the publisher or copyright holder. I see no problem with making a set of personal copies for turns, magnifying, etc.

Whatever Jeffrey Tucker may say or think, JennyH, except for the usual allowances for copying in print music (eg. for study, research, etc.) that is under copyright, you can land in a heap of trouble by making, say, 24 copies for your choir of an out of print work that is still under copyright. It's not fair, but that's just the way that it is.

For example, I would dearly love to get my hands on all eight of Everett Titcomb's "Eight Short Motets for the Greater Festivals of the Church" originally published in the U.S. by Carl Fischer, Inc.– real gems – but only a couple of them seem to have been reissued. I have two of them ("I will not leave you comfortless" and "Christ, our Passover") and used to have a third ("Sing ye to the Lord") which I somehow lost.

With digital reprinting as an increasingly viable option, the cost prohibitiveness of reissuing out-of-print items is loosening, especially if the item was produced in an electronic format in the first place.

You'd think publishers would make a killing selling digital copies of previously out-of-print items for a dollar or two--infinitely more than they make not selling anything.

BachLover2, I fully agree: the notion that a publisher would come after a parish director photo-copying an out-of-print work is extremely rare. I suppose the odds are close to 1 in 10,000. It's simply not worth their time or money, nor would they know about it. However, if one profits from the sale of copyrighted works, that is something else entirely, and morality also enters in. It is in their interest to send a 'cease and desist' letter . . . sometimes.

Here is an excerpt from a recent copyright notice that appears on several editions of choral works in the public domain:

All rights reserved. Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx and Xxxxxx Xxxxxx have agreed to permit others to make printed and digital copies of this document at their own expense for the purposes of performance, research, study, criticism and review free of charge and without specific consent from the copyright owner provided no alteration or addition is made to the original document and that this copyright notice remains displayed on each copy. Any copying of this document for commercial purposes shall require the prior permission of Xxxxxx Xxxxxx.

The music notated in this document may only be performed in public if the owner or occupier of the venue in which the performance shall take place shall have a licence from the Performing Rights Society Ltd (PRS) or, if the performance shall take place outside the United Kingdom, from a society affiliated to the PRS.

Permission to make a recording of a performance of the music notated in this document must be obtained from Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx prior to the making of the recording.

So, you can copy it, but if you perform in public or record a performance of the notated music (even if you perform it from totally different editions?), a licence and/or prior permission must be obtained – even if yours is a nonprofit organization. Morevoer and apparently, even if you perform it using some other edition, you may be liable, because the statement refers to the music and not the editions thereof.

This is illustrative of the sorts of copyright restrictions we have to deal with currently, so don't think you can ignore the fine print.

Here is an excerpt from a recent copyright notice that appears on several editions of choral works in the public domain:

If the works in the edition are in the public domain, i.e., whatever copyright protections they once have have now expired, then that notice is toothless unless the editor has made significant creative changes to the work, in which case he only has copyright in the changes and the right to control copying or performance of the work as edited. If the works are not in fact public domain, then all this notice does is grant a general license to copy without prior permission for some purposes.

Am I missing something?

And, increasingly, the take-down notices (many automatically generated) have resulted in a "guilty until proven innocent" atmosphere wherein all works are considered to be copyrighted unless adequate proof of their Public Domain status is found- proof which is often unavailable, even when self-evident. Further, even when the PDness of a work is obvious and documented, no small performing-arts organization or non-profit publishing house has the money or energy to defend itself from attack. And the big players that have the money (YouTube) have neither the inclination nor the bandwidth.