Hey folks

I just made a recording of a piece by Carl Nielsen, who died in 1931... BUT... the piece has been edited and, crucially, tranposed... it hasn't been changed in anyway, the whole thing has just been put up a minor third... of the two editors, one I have not heard of, one is James Galway who (unless I missed something) ain't dead yet.

Is this piece OK to put up on the recording site/my website, or not??

Ooooh...you'll have to ask katyjay! I wouldn't have thought that a transposition would give you the copyright, otherwise anyone could just claim copyright to pieces that they essentially didn't write, but I'm not that brilliant with things like this! Personally, I think the copyright should be the composers and not the arrangers, unless it's a very different arrangement, for example many of the Eva Cassidy arrangements, but then I suppose it may be hard to draw the line...
Sorry I can't be much use!

That's OK - I tend to think the same as you, but am also similarly unsure about whether I am right!!

Sorry Crazy Cow and Sarah-Flute, katyjay doesn't know offhand. And at the moment I can't find the reference.

Gut reaction is that it should be OK, but hold fire until I'm sure, if you please!

OK, thanks KJ - yes, I am going to be careful!! Don't want to land YAP in stick!

You'd need to find out who (if anyone) owns the copyright for the composition. Just because the composer has been dead for a while doesn't mean that noone owns the copyright.

In theory, if the piece has fallen into public domain then you can distribute your own edition without any problems. In practice its a little more complicated.

But also bare in mind that unless you're selling your edition then its highly unlikely that anyone would give a monkey's about you putting your version up for download.

If I remember the address of the two big organisations for buying rights to use other people's music then I'll post them.

As a rule of thumb, copyright runs out 75 years after the death of the composer. However, a publisher may still own the copyright after this.

It's 70 years in the UK.
The publisher can only own copyright to the _edition_ and this lapses after a shorter period..

As Mr B says the UK copyright lasts for 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the last remaining author of the work dies.

For typographical arrangements of published editions in the UK, copyright lasts for
25 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was first published. This is the way that publishers can ensure that old works remain protected by copyright.

You can check about copyright issues here and here.

Not necessarily. The publisher *can* own the copyright for anything - they're a legal entity as any other. But they wouldn't normally unless they'd bought it for some reason.

The copyright can be extended beyond the 70/75 years of an author's death. Since Purple Viola posted that link, I'll use the example offered there:
The copyright for JM Barrie’s work Peter Pan, was due to expire in 1987 in the UK, but an amendment to the 1988 Copyright Designs and Patents Act (instigated by Lord Callaghan) was passed to allow the copyright to run indefinitely in the UK.

Surely that was a very specific case to ensure that GOSH continued to receive the funds generated by the work still being in copyright. Can you provide any other examples, especially in the field of published music?

They changed the law to allow it. The law (as far as I know) doesn't actually mention Peter Pan by name; its a legal technique that can be applied for. But I'd imagine will often be denied.

More examples? Erm... if memory serves the other two biggest examples of this are Mickey Mouse and Happy Birthday (the song - which is actually copyright - hence Radio 1 on many occassions complaining when people have sang it on air since they need to pay a royalty when that happens).

Edit: Apologies - in the case of Peter Pan it is specifically written into the 1988 act. But the legal process does allow for anyone to make this application to the courts.

Regarding Happy Birthday To You:

http://www.unhappybirthday.com/

LOL

This mentions the extensions, but mostly in the context of the US who are barking mad when it comes to such things and like nothing more than a lawyer fest at any given opportunity.

Hahahah. True.

But by agreement many of the copyright laws are covered internationally. I doubt the Walt Disney corporation had to apply to every single country for an extension on ownership of Mickey Mouse. But I think there are still some countries who don't have this agreement and Mickey is probably public domain.

Edit: BTW Thanks for the link - it linked off to ASCAP who are a pretty good resource for searching for who might own the copyright on a song. There are other bodies but its a good start. http://www.ascap.com/index.html

Edit2: There's lots listed for Carl Neilson - http://www.ascap.com/ace/search.cfm?reques...s_pp=20&start=1

It can be hard to draw the line sometimes with what actually gives you intellectual property rights. I wanted to put up the Tartini Concertino for clarinet and strings (with backing on MIDI), but although Tartini is long, long dead, it is actually arranged from a violin sonata. It's probably note for note most of the time, but it's still an arrangement by someone still in copyright. Also, as there are usually many editions of the same piece, no-one will really know what edition you use to perform, and of course the performer should make their own decisions as well (something we looked at in my musicology course here). As far as I know the copyright in editions applies to physical reproduction, ie photocopying, downloading without payment, copying as another edition exactly as etc. I wouldn't think transposing a piece gives you copyright, as it's not really showing any skill or intelligence.

The Happy Birthday thing does surprise me somewhat. For such a universally known song it sounds bizzare, for want of a better word. You're not exactly hearing something you otherwise wouldn't have known.

From that site, it looks like the tune itself is not copyrighted but the words are? Or did I misunderstand it? I wonder what the words are copyrighted as, as surely each time ones sings it they change slightly, depending on whom one is singing to....

I rather like the idea of everyone who uses it writing to the copyright owners

The melody/tune is not copyright.

Changing the one word (someone's name) of a song wouldn't normally let you claim it as your own either. Otherwise I'd have some great tracks in my portfolio.

Edit: But its quite bizarre that lyrics as basic as that (and one's that have passed into western culture) would be protected.

If you read some of the articles that the site gives links to it seems that the copyright for the lyrics is a bit dubious.