Charles Tournemire and l'Orgue Mystique: Chant and organ
  • JeanL
    Posts: 21
    One Last word on Madame Tournemire. If one calls somebody a "profiteer," especially in a public forum and bases that "evidence" on the hearsay of others, that is known as gossip. Gossip is un-Christian. If she were alive it might even be actionable.
  • Downloading the materials for private use/study is legal even if it's not in the public domain.

    True, but I can't be the only one who wants to use these publicly. The searches I've done have come up with 40 pounds a piece (that's $61 and change) for the suites. Yikes. My budget isn't that big. Maybe we'll start with major feasts...
  • Erik P
    Posts: 152
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,182
    So does anyone have a friend in Europe who would print a copy legally and mail it to Andrew? :-)
  • Canada is fine, too! Again, I know nothing of copyright law, so as far as I know it might still be illegal to print it in Canada with the specific intent to bring it back to the US for use. Intellectual property law is so (in my opinion, deliberately) confusing.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,460
    Performance of a work is covered under copyright, not just printing.
  • Curses! Foiled again!

    Though I suspected that was the case.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,182
    And yet the Music Publishers Association web site says that performances in worship services are exempt from performance permissions.
  • DougS
    Posts: 793
    Solution: download for "private use." Practice and memorize. Perform at service. Simple, elegant, effective.

    I've been inquiring about whether or not something in the French public domain falls into international public domain. After all, a composer could have chosen a U.S. house if he/she wanted U.S. law to be in force.

    As an academic, I don't face this issue very often. I usually just download or photocopy whatever whenever.
  • BruceL
    Posts: 1,072
    Chonak: I had no idea. That's verrrrrrry interesting.
  • I've been on the phone with two different copyright lawyers this morning and gotten two different answers. Stand by for more information.

    Basically, it sounds like it's most likely legal for someone in Canada to print out this collection and send it to me here. I'm waiting to hear from the Canadian Copyright Office to double check that it's in the public domain, following the lawyer's advice.

    As to the performance (even if the public domain score was acquired legally), he said no, it's probably illegal. I referred him to the Music Publishers Association site posted above, and he said it would be wise to contact ASCAP to be sure of the law. I'm doing so now. I'll let you know when I get an answer from someone official.
  • DougS
    Posts: 793
    Sounds like talking to someone at the IRS!
  • R J StoveR J Stove
    Posts: 302
    Is this tome of interest to any Tournemirians out there?

    Pascal Ianco, Charles Tournemire, ou Le mythe de Tristan (Papillon, Geneva, 2001).

    I haven't read it myself, I simply saw it in a bibliographical listing.
  • marajoymarajoy
    Posts: 781
    well of course you can perform copyrighted religious works in religious services...otherwise no one would EVER be able to sing On Eagle's Wings (or anything not public domain) !
    that seems to be a different issue than whether you can *photocopy/print* copyrighted works for religious services, which I don't think anyone is claiming to be allowed to do.

    on the other hand, if someone does legally obtain some music from Canada, can they then photocopy it legally here in the US and mail it to the rest of us? :-) or do we all need to obtain it from Canada? And if that's allowed, then why hasn't someone in Canada made a big business out of selling this to Americans at a hugely reduced rate?!
  • on the other hand, if someone does legally obtain some music from Canada, can they then photocopy it legally here in the US and mail it to the rest of us? :-)

    I don't think so. However, your statement about performing copyrighted works is a little bit off. If you have purchased copyrighted music, you can perform it and play it, period (so long as the performance is not for profit). The religious exemption of copyrighted works seems to be related to music which you do not own. Copying said music is still illegal. Take, for example, Doug Shadle's suggestion of downloading, studying/memorizing, then playing from memory. I think that would be acceptable. It's fuzzy and I've found that ten different copyright attorneys will give you ten different interpretations of the law.

    I'm still waiting to hear back from a few places, but the plan to have a friend in Canada print/mail the score, then use it only for Mass seems legit up to this point. I found one book of scores at the Duquesne library, but they're tough to come by. It would be great to have the whole set available like this.
  • R J StoveR J Stove
    Posts: 302
    A Google search hasn't led me to the relevant document, but I have certainly read recently that successive French governments have always factored in the two world wars in any copyright period. Thus, to the standard (throughout the EU) 70 years of posthumous copyright coverage, France (or so I am told) adds another four years (World War I) and six years (World War II). If this is correct - and if it is not, I hope someone on this forum will tell me - then 2019 is the earliest that Tournemire (+ 1939) could go out of copyright.

    There have been allegations - circulated, if memory serves me, by Honegger - that Gounod's surviving family came near to starvation because Gounod's own music wasn't covered by copyright (certainly he sold the score of Faust to his publisher for - if you'll forgive the phrase - a song), and that this example of artistic ignominy shamed France's governments into taking copyright seriously, for composers in general, when Gounod was long dead. Does anyone have further details on this subject?
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,780
    I haven't heard about Gounod's heirs, but current law does treat compositions differently from other media:


    The linked :fr article has more detail and it sounds like the added term can reach 14 and 2/3rds of a year, but the exact duration seems to depend on complications like added leap year days. For Morts pour la Patrie the term is 100 instead of 70 years, so count on waiting for Alain.

    Performance rights are separate from copyright law as such, and are policed by BMI and ASCAP; typically the venue pays for the license. The exemption is for religious services and has nothing to do with profitability. I suppose Marajoy's emoticon indicates tongue-in-cheek, and that she knows better. To Andrew I suggest he have his Canadian friend send him an empty but postmarked envelope and make the contraband copies himself; then at least one of the two might get off the hook. :-|
  • Ha! I have no intention to take the chance if I'm at all unsure that it's legal. So far, the lawyers I've spoken to have said that it's legal to acquire the score in such a way, but they weren't sure about the religious services exemption. I'm still waiting on final word on both counts before I do anything. I'm not risking it.
  • R J StoveR J Stove
    Posts: 302
    Seems that I misremembered what I'd read about Gounod's heirs; it was (according to Honegger) Johann Strauss's daughter and heiress, not any descendant of Gounod's, who died of hunger because her father's work wasn't protected by copyright. Honegger did mention Gounod's family, but only as part of his general campaign to increase what was then the fifty-years-after-death term of copyright protection. (Source: James Harding, The Ox on the Roof [London, 1972], p. 231.)
  • Doug, could you please explain this?

    "Downloading the materials for private use/study is legal even if it's not in the public domain."
  • DougS
    Posts: 793
    Generally speaking, Noel, it falls under fair use. But the real question is about the channel through which the copy is acquired. In the Tournemire case, it's nebulous, but say for the sake of example that we know with certainty that it's copyrighted.

    Let's compare this to a library, the ultimate legitimate source of copyright materials: I have created .pdf scans of materials from permanent collections in libraries (i.e., items were not available for check out but the PDF allowed me to take them home to study and to use in my research). The library acquired the documents/scores through legal channels. As a logged patron of the library, my use is thus beyond reproach.

    Moving more fully into the digital world, I have also downloaded copyrighted documents from library-sponsored collections. This is essentially the same thing as making a .pdf scan, just that someone made the scan for me and made it available for download.

    This brings us closer to the scenario at hand: is there really a material difference between getting the score from a library or from Joe Uploader down the street? If it is theoretically possible to make copies legally, it shouldn't really matter where exactly those copies originated. In itself, then, downloading wasn't the violation. Joe Uploader is the violator for distributing without permission. And either way, once I have it, shouldn't I be able to use it according to the accepted norms of fair use? Knowingly downloading from an illegitimate source is clearly pushing the boundary (the old Napster, etc.), but in the Tournemire case here, where it's unclear, I think it would be ok if the intention is good.

    As this progression demonstrates, the constraints of fair use are just as fuzzy as the rest of copyright protection. Given that copyright seems to defy all logic, I can't guarantee that what I'm saying is correct; it only makes sense to me. There is a good website hosted by Stanford that goes into much more detail about fair use. YMMV!

    I realize this answer to your question was long-winded, but I also realize that perhaps my statement might have led you (or others) to believe that I think downloading willy nilly is OK as long as it's for private use. There is fair use, and frequently this equates to private study resulting in criticism. To amend what I wrote above, then, I would add something about downloading through *legitimate* channels (which doesn't always mean "paying full price for it").

    Maybe the distinction negates the provocativeness of the statement, but I felt like it was necessary to diffuse the notion that taking copyrighted material is sinful. It isn't, when fair use is at play. We scholars always fight uphill battles against copyright just to do our jobs, so I tend to lean on the loose side of fair use.

    I might add that a colleague of mine who studies French music from Tournemire's era believes that when the music is in public domain in the home country, it's in public domain everywhere. To me this also makes sense, but as I said, logic means nothing to the framers of copyright.
  • Joe Uploader did not pay for the original but the library did. They own the original and you, even if you are a member of the library do not own the right to make copies of it.

    Members of the library join it to share more books than they could afford as individuals. In some cases the community supports the library, in others people must pay to be patrons, either way, the library owns books that it may legally loan, but they may not make copies of the books...and neither may patrons.

    Fair use seems to be a much more limited permission...using a paragraph to illustrate something. Fair use was never created to permit people to copy entire the singers who show up at weddings with copies of their book to avoid paying for two books....or even worse, singing from illegal copies made by their teachers which they then copy themselves.

    Copying on page from an opera score to study it in class would be fair use. Making copies of the score to avoid buying it just would not be.....fair.

    I'm not criticizing or accusing, it is just that we don't need people making copies because they read on Musica Sacra you could.

    Downloading for private use...I agree with everything you've said, but the moment that you open your mouth in church or in a concert hall you've just made what you said was for private use public.

    I know that the academic world is just free and loose with this as the church world, but that does not make it right.

    At the same time, it is like software. If you price your program or book out of the realm of affordability to the average buyer, you have to expect that you will be ripped off.

    There is a Marian hymn that is popular that we were going to include in the PBEH collection but we were contacted by the person who still owns the rights from the original author. Now, I know that it was made available for free years before it was copyright which would invalidate the copyright based on US law.

    So, should be go ahead and share it for free? Let me add one more bit of information. The man that administers it takes the royalties every year and uses them to fund seminarians in training.

    I pulled it from the page. I'm sure that you would have, too.
  • It's also worth noting that "fair use" is not really an exception to copyright law so much as it is an affirmative defense if you are taken to court. In other words, if you are sued by someone, and you claim fair use, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it falls within fair use law. Since this is one case where such a thing is fuzzy, it's best not to take the chance.
  • DougS
    Posts: 793
    Noel, I agree with everythingy ou said, save for the idea of "the entire work." There is no need to get into the details here, but if I need an entire copyrighted edition of a symphony that is non-circulating at the library (for example), I have found that librarians are sympathetic with this situation and would allow photocopies. That's of course a slightly different scenario from your case of just taking a book not to buy it.

    When it comes to using single paragraphs, etc., I understand that aspect of fair use to refer to reprinting within another copyrighted work. The home use aspect is something different.

    Andrew, excellent point. But there aren't fair use police out there waiting to nab you! :-)
  • Nope. But there are lawyers, who are much more dangerous. ;-)
  • The older I get the more I find how little I know. Going through some bookmarks I was looking for a manuscript and ended up here:

    and this proves that I know nothing about Fair Use and withdraw everything I said. My apologies, Doug Shadle.

    [aside from the fact that copyright law is obviously written by lawyers on the way to becoming politicians]
  • sturge
    Posts: 1

    For all interested, a symposium will be held in Miami dealing with Tournemire's L'Orgue Mystique in the first week in Feb. 2012  You can read about it on the Musica Sacra events site.

    A full day of organ recitals will culminate with a Solemn Pontifical Mass in the Extraordinary Form celebrated by our archbishop, Thomas Wenski, at 7:30 PM on Feb.2 in which the L'Orgue Mystique set for the Feast of the Purification will be performed throughout the Mass by Thomas Schuster on the wonderful Ruffatti organ at the Church of the Epiphany in South Miami.

    If L'Orgue Mystique is either too daunting or too long to use during a typical Sunday Mass, you may want to look at the Preludes and Amens....short wonderful one page pieces...the Preludes are written for the same Sundays and Feasts as L'Orgue Mystique...there are a dozen or so Amens for selected Feasts.


    Thanked by 1Jenny Donelson
  • marajoymarajoy
    Posts: 781
    Going back to the copyright discussion... yet another reason we need a more reasonable copyright term!
    I came across this!/petition/reduce-term-copyrights-maximum-56-years/MnXrd3xG
    link to a petition to reduce copyright terms! Woo hoo! Sign away, please!
  • marajoymarajoy
    Posts: 781
    Has this conference in Pittsburgh in October been publicized on here yet?
    (Well, if it hasn't... here ya go!)