Using someone else's refrain/chorus/antiphon with someone else's verses - legal-ness?
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,696

    Is there any legal problem with taking someone's refrain/chorus/antiphon (whatever you want to call it) that is under copyright and using a Psalm for the verses instead of the (perhaps questionable) verses that the composer wanted you to sing with that refrain/chorus/antiphon? I, of course, have legal copies of said piece, have a license which allows me to print that piece in a worship aid... but is performing it with Psalm 118 set to a Psalm tone between refrains/choruses/antiphons somehow illegal? Do I have to write to that composer or their company to request permission?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937
    I do that with the hymnal and will have the choir sing the antiphon to a simpler set of verses. Some of the hymnal verses are difficult, or silly. It's my hymnal, and I can sing as much or little as I want.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    As long as you don't make any unauthorized COPIES or RECORDINGS.
    PERFORMANCE in a religious setting is "Free as in speech."
    (Or, more to the point, "Free as in religion.")
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,696
    So.... if I printed the verses under the antiphon for my choir, it would be DRAMA? Or would that be considered a courtesy copy that I can legally make and then destroy after the weekend?
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    So.... if I printed the verses under the antiphon for my choir, it would be DRAMA? Or would that be considered a courtesy copy that I can legally make and then destroy after the weekend?


    I had a well-known CMAA-friendly composer admonish me for printing the same verse, but a different liturgically-approved translation with this composer's refrain/chorus/antiphon.

    I think Adam is correct that in liturgy it can legally (civil law, not Church law) be performed in whatever manner you desire. The problem is with the printing. If you want to be completely safe, print the verses you wish to use on a separate page, but you could hole punch them so they can be on facing pages in your choristers' binders.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    There is no restriction (how could there be?) in putting two unrelated pieces of music on the same piece of paper.
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    There is no restriction (how could there be?) in putting two unrelated pieces of music on the same piece of paper.


    Well, I had re-typeset the music so that it was printed together. I suppose it's a fine line.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    Of course, if you were to sing it RECTO TONO, all your problems would be solved!
    Thanked by 1irishtenor
  • lmassery
    Posts: 406
    I do this with the Teitze antiphons - we sing the antiphon to the hymn tune but psalm verses to a psalm tone. I don't print the verses, just the antiphon.
  • mrcoppermrcopper
    Posts: 653
    I'd say it's not only illegal but inappropriate behaviour. Don't use the music, if you don't like how the writer wrote it.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    I'd say it's not only illegal but inappropriate behaviour. Don't use the music, if you don't like how the writer wrote it.


    That may be how you feel about it (especially as a composer), but it is hardly the facts of the matter.
    Thanked by 3marajoy lmassery CHGiffen
  • mrcoppermrcopper
    Posts: 653
    ... hardly the facts of the matter
    the various ways the legality might be circumvented are given in other posts, and sure, it's just my feeling
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    That's just it- there's no circumvention. It's not a loophole. It's explicitly the sort of thing the law allows for. And using the word "illegal" when you really mean "I don't think it should be done" is...illegal.
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    the various ways the legality might be circumvented are given in other posts, and sure, it's just my feeling


    I think the issue has to do with the structure of the liturgy. I've listened to some of the compositions you've posted on other threads. As these are very much through-composed, if there was a section I didn't like, at least speaking personally, I simply wouldn't program the work rather than try to alter it.

    However, if the work, like a Responsorial Psalm for instance, has a typical refrain/antiphon and verse structure, and the verses are set poorly, or to a translation that my pastor doesn't prefer, or are too difficult for my singers, I personally have no ethical problems with replacing the verse with a simple psalmtone that is compatible with the refrain. Most of the time, my congregations don't know who wrote the antiphons anyway, as I haven't been accustomed to printing a worship aid. If I did, I probably wouldn't be printing the music to the verses anyway. And if it sounds like a psalmtone, it's a pretty good chance everyone who cares will know the composer of the antiphon didn't really come up with that music!
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • mrcoppermrcopper
    Posts: 653
    As long as you don't make any unauthorized COPIES or RECORDINGS.
    PERFORMANCE in a religious setting is "Free as in speech."


    You said it yourself, Adam, and I'm sorry but that's a circumvention, or shall we a say a clarification or narrowing of the subject.
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    You said it yourself, Adam, and I'm sorry but that's a circumvention, or shall we a say a clarification or narrowing of the subject.


    But I still sense like you disagree with the provisions of the law for liturgical performance. I'm sorry, but I believe those allowances are there for legitimate reasons (one example I tried to give above). If a composer wants his or her music performed and interpreted pristinely, the concert hall rather than the liturgy is the place for them - under our modern interpretation of intellectual property. Music in the liturgy is at the service of the liturgy, and I might add the liturgical-musical constraints each parish faces is different.

    As a professional conductor, I know the ethics of performance in the concert hall, but I believe firmly the liturgy is a whole other ballgame.
  • Andrew Motyka
    Posts: 945
    A clarification of existing law is not a circumvention.
  • mrcoppermrcopper
    Posts: 653
    No, SkirpR, I didn't mean to give that impression, especially as limited as you described in your previous post, which I'm fine with.

    And, Ok, circumvention is the wrong word. A narrowing of the original post, which might have been construed to include copying and recording:

    taking someone's refrain/chorus/antiphon (whatever you want to call it) that is under copyright and using a Psalm for the verses instead of the (perhaps questionable) verses


  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    We're not supposed to niggle over copyright here (although that rule gets stretched a bit, sometimes), so I don't want to turn this into a big thing. But the fact of the issue is that it isn't "a clarification or narrowing." It's part of a basic understanding of how copyright works.

    Copyright law (for real, in practice, as intended - not just in some Adam Wood Open Culture Fantasy) is essentially an encroachment on constitutionally-granted (and naturally-derived) rights of Free Speech and Free Press. (The idea being that you can be stopped from saying or printing something, because someone else said or printed it first.) Like taxes and eminent domain (encroachments on the right to own property), it has been determined that such encroachment should be permitted for the good of society (because if people could say things you already said, or print things you already printed, you might not have said or printed those things in the first place).

    Just like with taxes, certain religious activities are exempted from the encroachment, and some are not. PERFORMANCE IN WORSHIP is exempted from encroachment. You can sing anything you like, any way you like, along with any other thing you like. PRINTING and RECORDING (each of which is covered by a different aspect of copyright law, as is public performance) is not exempt.

    Your opinion on the matter (it shouldn't be allowed) is no more relevant than mine (it shouldn't be an issue in the first place).
  • lmassery
    Posts: 406
    I had called WLP myself to ask permission to do this (what I said above) and they said it was fine since we have a reprint license.
  • bcb
    Posts: 36
    The exemption is for performance only. Not reproduction and not derivative works (which is what would happen if you alter the verses). Of course, if you obtain permission, then you can do whatever the copyright holder permits.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cluth/Copyright_law_for_church_worship_pastors
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    not derivative works (which is what would happen if you alter the verses)


    still missing the point.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,161
    The limitation on derivative works (including arranging) relates to reproduction (copying/publishing), not performance in church services.
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,696
    So... if Michael Joncas walks into Adam Wood's church, hears weird stuff coming out of the choir loft, walks up and sees the refrain to OEW stapled to the top of a Psalm 34 pointed to Mode II, can OCP sue Wood?
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,161
    Yes. Anyone can sue anyone for any reason.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    Not as long as the copy of OEW was made with adequate permission.

    I'd be more worried about the pointing of Psalm 34. I think drawing the pointing would violate RGP's copyright on the text, as well as Solesmes' ownership on small, horizontal lines.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    Also, we don't sing from the choir loft, and I would never use staples.

    So, you know- the whole thing seems unrealistic.
    (For those reasons, in particular.)
  • AP23AP23
    Posts: 119
    So... if Michael Joncas walks into Adam Wood's church, hears weird stuff coming out of the choir loft, walks up and sees the refrain to OEW stapled to the top of a Psalm 34 pointed to Mode II, can OCP sue Wood?

    Some choir lofts have a posted notice "Choir Members Only", so Joncas might not even be allowed up there. So Adam Wood should sue Joncas instead.

    Also, Adam Wood, why don't you use a choir loft?
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    Also, Adam Wood, why don't you use a choir loft?

    Don't have one.
  • AP23AP23
    Posts: 119
    Also, Adam Wood, why don't you use a choir loft?
    Don't have one.

    Get to work on it.
    Thanked by 2Adam Wood Ben
  • donr
    Posts: 971
    I don't use staples either, I use Elmer's glue sticks.
Add a Comment