I'm very confused as to if I can photocopy music for pupils (not whole books), just a grades worth of scales (I used the really old fashioned laid out in grades Clarinet scales book) or a movement of a sonata / concerto etc..

Please help!!

As far as I'm aware you can't do it legally.
You can have a study copy for yourself but if someone else is using it then they should own the original.

Thank you

This is correct. If you write the scales out by hand and then photocopy that is OK though.

(Although officially if you put "ABRSM Grade 2 scales" or whatever at the top then you need permission first - ABRSM hold the copyright of that particular grouping of scales, I'm told )

In many cases, then yes, you can, because they're out of copyright. However, determining whether a particular edition is out of copyright can be tricky! If it's available on IMSLP, though, you can download from there and at least fall back on the argument that to the best of your knowledge you aren't breaching UK copyright (that site is hosted in Canada, due to their relatively lenient copyright restrictions).


I'd like to know the legal argument for that! Certainly implying any direct connection to or representation of the ABRSM would be a no-no, but putting 'Grade 2 scales, as specified by the ABRSM syllabus' gets around that. I can't see how the grouping of scales can, in itself, be subject to copyright.

There is a slight misunderstanding.

Unless the scales are a unique 'composition' by the Board, if they were published over 25 years ago, normally you'd have no problem photocopying them and doing what you like with them. The Board may well own copyright on them but this is not an infinite right - the time frame is very clearly laid out.

The publisher of a piece of music (as opposed to the composer) has a 25 year copyright on his printed version of the piece. No more.

Equally, a movement of a sonata from a composer that died over 70 years ago AND from an edition printed over 25 years ago has no copyright protection and you are at complete liberty to photocopy it, lend it, give it and even sell it. It is completely in the public domain.

However, if it is a new edition (i.e. printed within the last 25 years) this does not apply. Or if it is an edition printed 50 years ago, say, but from a composer who only died quite recently (less than 70- years ago) this does not apply either.

I am not a practising lawyer now but loved intellectual property law when I did it and the general public should not be scared off from what is their legal right by companies who try to protect their financial interests over and above their due.

PS I am not refering to the Board here.

You 'own' Mozart's sonatas, for instance, - everyone owns them - they are a gift to the public. And a wonderful gift, at that - you don't need to pay for them.

.

Do you know if this is true of French copyright law as well?

Very tricky! Just because the music contained within a volume is out of copyright doesn't necessarily mean the edition as published in a volume is not copyrighted separately, e.g. many pieces in the AB piano syllabus are out of copyright but once placed in the AB selected piano examination pieces books they are once again copyrighted material, usually because fingering marks or editorial dynamics have been added. You may legally download the exact same music, but you must not copy the one printed in the selected examinations book. I have a copy of one of my pieces which is pinned to the front of the original just because I didn't want to write experimental fingerings all over the original and then perhaps rub them out and not be able to see what I eventually decided on. Insanely, this copy is still illegal even though it resides directly with the original. The same music, downloaded from the internet, is behind both copies, and it's legal. Boggle!

Like almost every part of law, the various copyright acts are not consistent with each other and there is often not a single right answer to any question of copyright. For example, it's expressly legal to make a copy of something in an alternative format so that you personally, while still owning the original, can enjoy it on alternative media. So you can rip a CD onto MP3 so you can play it on your MP3 player. Except that the law also says that "overriding the copy protection on a CD" is a copyright offence, so if it's copy protected then you are not given freedom to enjoy your right to rip the contents. There is a section in the original and un-repealed legislation stating that "Nothing done for the purposes of education" shall breach copyright, yet all schools have to abide by copyright laws. Who's right? Whoever wins the court case!

IF the publishers are signed up to the Music Publishers? Association?s Code of Fair Practice appendix C that allows you to make copies within certain restrictions, details available at the MPA website.

So, if I've understood this correctly... for example I have all the old ABRSM piano grade books dating from the 70s and early 80s (so around 30 years old) and I would be able to photocopy those pieces by composers who have been dead for more than 70 years e.g Telemann, Beethoven etc. Is this right? It would be a useful source of material if so!

Edited to add... or perhaps not now having read RoseRodent's reply. <confused>

To clarify, it needs to have been published over 25 years ago - reprints of old editions don't gain a new copyright, because there's no creative act involved, and this is why Dover Scores have long been able to reprint old editions and sell them cheaply.

(The work of editors and engravers both count as creative acts for this purpose.)

What I know for a fact is that the 70 year composer's copyright law is the same - 70 years after the composer's death, his/her music is in the public domain and everybody has equal right to it. (see http://www.myriad-online.com/images/forum/...ts_dauteur.pdf).

There is also a French law which allows a single photocopy to be made of any music as long as it is made privately, by the individual, to be used in the idividual's home (see further down on the same site). There's obvisouly a bit of vagueness here but it is assumed that it would not cover a teacher making lots of photocopies but would be fine for pupils to have their own copy at home, especially useful if, for instance, they live half the time with one parent and half with the other.

I should know, but have just realised that I'm not 100% sure, about the publishers' rights. I know about UK ones but France I'm going to check.

Roserodent, you're right that there are certain complications but the basics for printed music are very clear - just remember 25 years after publication and 70 after composer's death.

And Owainsutton, good point.

.

Useful info here: http://www.mpaonline.org.uk/?q=content/code-fair-practice

I was told by the copyright person at ABRSM that the syllabuses themselves are copyright, and that includes the scale requirements. I was making my own booklet of pieces from the Grade 1 and 2 lists at the time, having obtained permission from the publishers. ABRSM were not happy at the thought of me typing the scales out (loss of sales from their own scale publication I suppose); I got round it by including some other scales too and just telling my pupils which ones to practise




If fingerings, dynamics etc have been added then you have to wait 70 years after the person who did them is dead before you can photocopy, because they have added their own "creative bit".

No, Alison, the fingerings and dynamics do not, in the normal course of events, constitute a new version sufficient to create a new composers' copyright - i.e. the piece does not become Mozart's sonata as arranged by X just because X has added some editorial fingering and dynamic suggestions.

They are, howvever, part of the publishers' copyright and so protected for 25 years after the first publication.
This is exactly why the publishers have a copyright - to repay them for that time and effort. And why it is shorter - because, quite rightly, it is deemed less important than the actual composing of the work.

(An actual arrangement of a piece is a different issue - that has a new 'composer' and so a new composers' copyright).

.

So I agree with Impressionist - those old 1970 exam pieces from old composers are not covered by copyright.
It is also worth noting that the publisher would have to show that they had added new and original dynamics and fingerings. Now, it's pretty obvious that although Mozart himself may not have added specific dynamics to his Minuet, it's not rocket science to have (off the top of my head) lines 1 and 2 mf, line 3 p and line 4 f, for instance. Plenty of 19th century versions will have that marked and so it doesn't 'belong' to the 1970 publisher - indeed, if it is relatively standard 'minuet' practice, then it doesn't 'belong' to anyone.

Everyone has to make up their own mind and I understand that some people says it's not worth the bother but many judges get very irate that public works are being tied up because publishers have corporate clout and Joe Public gets scared off. The 25 year and 70 years after death rules are the norm, anything else has to be justified as an exception.

.

.

I think they might have given you incorrect information. The syllabus itself is copyright, sure, and you can't freely photocopy it or reproduce large chunks of text. The syllabus requirements, however, are a different matter, and creating one's own notation of scales does not breach copyright, I'm confident of that (or I wouldn't have produced my own!).

No, but for further complication, a new edition with anything that has changed and has a separate copyright date goes from the second date. You need to see the difference between "Copyright 1970, reprinted in 1994 by Jones Books" - copyright has expired - and "First Published 1970, this edition 1994, Copyright 1994 Jones Books" - copyright enforced for 25 years from 1994. The new edition must have "material changes" inside it, not just a new cover, so if it's identical to your old copy it's a reprint and they have just tried to get a new copyright through the back door. If it has been redone inside, e.g. new pictures of kids wearing more up to date clothing instead of kids with mullets in shorts and aron sweaters then it's a new copyright... even if the music is the same and you don't copy any of the images!!!

Want to blow your brains out yet?

Well explained, Roserodent.

If you look inside most school text books, for instance, there is a list of re-print dates and the occasional new edition date because the re-prints are exactly that, just an extra run of copies printed because they're run out in the book shops (hence no new copyright) whereas the new edition is a revamping of the book and involves new work - new design, new exercises, new lay-out, new examples whatever - so the publisher has a new copyright protection.

.

As far as I know there is no copyright on scales, otherwise somebody would be a multi-millionaire as surely these are the most played "pieces"! I tend to print scales myself which I have already typed using a music software program, so I can photocopy them as much as I like and so can anyone else who wants to.

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?

Copying is copying.

Legally the answer is never photocopy unless it is covered by the Fair Use code, though lots of people do and it seems tacitly accepted in some circumstances.

I'm more interested in the position with imslp as even if the composer is out of copyright, surely the edition scanned in is copyrighted and still sold by online retailers.

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 . . .

PS
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.

.

.

My understanding is that you could go in with a handwritten or photocopy assuming that the piece/edition from which you made the copy is either covered through the fair use guidelines, or is out of copyright. A blanket assertion that it's OK because the composer's been dead 70 years is not strictly always the case.

I think, I will add a little more to all the confuzzlement with a question of my own.

Those copies, that are still protected under the copyright act, are there any differences between a copy bought for practice at home and copies bought for performance in a concert hall?

No so far as I know.

Yes, sorry if I wasn't clear, I completely agree Seer Green.
Which is what I meant later when I said 'as long as you haven't slavishly copied out their version'. The piece must be out of copyright BOTH in relation to the composer (the 70 years) and the publishers' specific edition, which a hand-written or music software copy almost certainly will be unless you;ve put in every tiny editorial mark from a specific publishers' edition AND those marks were all original.

I don't know which pieces these candidates played, but surely they couldn't have chosen 3 not covered by copyright? I'm thinking the list C piece here at least.

I wouldn't have thought it possible for List C.

The 2012 Grade 8 violin syllabus has the Debussy sonata and a Kreutzer study in list C, both of which are available on IMSLP...

I think many of the previous posters were talking piano, where list C is a different beast to string list Cs...

Debussy at Grade 8 again, along with Chopin, Schumann, Smetena and Liszt...