QUOTE(dotted quaver @ Nov 19 2011, 06:03 PM)
So what's the position regarding candidates taking an ABRSM piano exam and going into the actual exam with handwritten copies of their exam pieces? Surely that can't be legal?
Why not ?
If the piece is by a composer who has been dead over 70 years, you should be able to go in with any copy you like.
There is absolutely no reason why a copy by the ABRSM or Peters or Oxford or whoever is worth more than your copy - they haven't any special rights over the piece - the Mozart belongs to you as much as it belongs to them.
(This does NOT apply to more recent composers or if you have slavishly copied out their edition, with every little mark).
Everyone should remember that the 'public domain' is a wonderful, powerful concept.
After all, when Elgar died I assume he left a house, a bank acocunt, whatever. Maybe he made beautiful jewellery in his sparetime. No matter - all that passes along the family and never becomes public property.
But his music has protection only for his lifetime (as it was his livelihood) and the lifetime of his children (the 70 year rule).
After that, the law thinks that music (and literature etc.) is so important to the public well-being that it should belong to everyone.
And it does . . . despite interested companies trying to erode that right . . .
Neil clarinet, that's not right - the fair use code only applies to music where there is a copyright protection. Photocopying is not always illegal.
Photocopying is only illegal if you infringe someone's rights - of course you can photocpopy music if the rights to it have expired.
Which is the case, for instance, with all the works from composers who've been dead for over 70 years and the edition was published over 25 years ago (or a new edition has been entered using a music software program and the programmer is happy for that to be public).
That's why IMSLP and the Petrucci library and the big US libraries are all perfectly legal.