I didn't want to take another thread off at a tangent, so started a new topic.

With regards to copyright, under what circumstances is arranging music legal or illegal? We were told nothing concrete at university, just that the guidelines are "vague" and that we'd have to make it "sufficiently different from the original".

Now, to me, that would mean that the grade 2-ish arrangement of Michael Jackson's "Thriller" I did for a pupil last Hallowe'en could be legal or illegal. It certainly sounds like the original in that it is recognisable; but as it's a simplified version for solo piano it is in fact very different from the original. I didn't use any illegal copies to make the arrangement; I did it by ear. Obviously Michael Jackson has not been dead for 70 years, but (in my mind) it's not the same as a situation where someone photocopies the exact score that a composer created.

Or the keyboard music and classroom arrangements that lots of secondary schools use - maybe some pop/rock/film music - if this has been arranged by the teacher, without use of illegal copies of the original, is this legal or illegal?

Can anyone more knowledgable shed some light on the topic?!

I was once told that you can use 6 bars withouth variation of someone else's music and no more. The rest has to be original. Although 'sounding similar to' ie 'snatches' of motifs is ok. Correct me if I'm wrong!

If the music is in copyright, then the copyright holder's permission is required to do an arrangement. There is lots of useful information on the music publishers' association website. Link

Jon

From what I've read on the subject, I think it is basically illegal.

"Copyright" literally means "the right to copy", and by making your own copy, albeit by hand, you are violating the rights of the owner of that particular melody.

When a simplified arrangement of a popular song appears in the AB or LCM exam books, do they need prior permission to do so from the owners of the song in question, and pay them any royalties due? Yes? Well then, this means that if you want to produce a simplified version of a song for any purpose, you need the same permission.

It makes no difference whether you are charging your students directly for the arrangement or giving it to them for free.

I think the "grey area" a lot of people seem to mention with regards to this matter is more to do with the likelihood of prosecution, should the MCPS catch you doing it. A blatant photocopy, and I've heard tell of GBP1000 per page being the fine you can expect. An arrangement you've done yourself is far more likely to be met with a "Don't do this again."

(I.A.N.A.L.)

Michael Jackson was only the performer, the song itself was written by Rod Temperton, who's still with us, so it's certainly not out of copyright, and won't be for some while.

Thank you all for the clarification, particularly the website, very useful!

In theory, you need to permission of the original copyright holder to make an arrangement, unless the music you wish to arrange is in the public domain. For those pieces which are still in copyright but where the composer etc. has died, permission would need to be sought from the person/organisation who administers the estate of the deceased.

In the end, it's like photocopying - everyone does it, and you have to make a personal choice about whether you wish to break the law or not (that sounds harsh - it's not meant to, but it's the reality).

Very harsh and very true. Every music teacher I know photocopies - until something is changed in how licensing works or schools are given unlimited budgets, I can't see that changing without the pupils' musical education suffering gravely. I don't like it, it makes me uncomfortable, but I do it too. I think all we can do is limit it as much as we can - for example I get my pupils to pass on old exam books and borrow books from me; I don't let pupils use photocopies in performance classes, exams or concerts; and while I do lots of modern arrangements of songs, because the pupils love them; I don't seek to make money out of it. None of this makes it any more legal, but eases my conscience slightly.

Speak for yourself. There are many who don't.

Personally, I restrict my use of photocopying to specific situations; for instance, if I'm teaching a pair, and one of them forgets their book, I'll copy the page we're working on for that lesson. Or, occasionally, if I really want to get started on an exam piece, but the student can't get hold of the book for another week (but is definitely going to buy it), I'll give them temporary use of a photocopy.

I found this on "fair use" - it's quite interesting

What is Fair Use?
Fair use is the most significant limitation on the copyright holder's exclusive rights. Deciding whether the use of a work is fair IS NOT a science. There are no set guidelines that are universally accepted. Instead, the individual who wants to use a copyrighted work must weigh four factors:

The purpose and character of the use:
Is the new work merely a copy of the original? If it is simply a copy, it is not as likely to be considered fair use.
Does the new work offer something above and beyond the original? Does it transform the original work in some way? If the work is altered significantly, used for another purpose, appeals to a different audience, it more likely to be considered fair use.
Is the use of the copyrighted work for nonprofit or educational purposes? The use of copyrighted works for nonprofit or educational purposes is more likely to be considered fair use.

The nature of the copyrighted work:
Is the copyrighted work a published or unpublished works? Unpublished works are less likely to be considered fair use.
Is the copyrighted work out of print? If it is, it is more likely to be considered fair use.
Is the work factual or artistic? The more a work tends toward artistic expression, the less likely it will be considered fair use.

The amount and substantiality of the portion used:
The more you use, the less likely it will be considered fair use.
Does the amount you use exceed a reasonable expectation? If it approaches 50 percent of the entire work, it is likely to be considered an unfair use of the copyrighted work.
Is the particular portion used likely to adversely affect the author's economic gain? If you use the "heart" or "essence" of a work, it is less likely your use will be considered fair.

The effect of use on the potential market for the copyrighted work:
The more the new work differs from the original, the less likely it will be considered an infringement.
Does the work appeal to the same audience as the original? If the answer is yes, it will likely be considered an infringement.
Does the new work contain anything original? If it does, it is more likely the use of the copyrighted material will be seen as fair use.

(and since this in itself might be copyright, I'll credit the source website! http://www.umuc.edu/library/copy.shtml#whatis )

That is according to US copyright laws. I think you'll find that the UK laws are far less forgiving.

Ok, so here's a situation. Tell me if it's correct.

A band want to play a pop song cover at a gig.

If they do it by ear, and pay PRS, then they're covered (I'm assuming)

However, if they grab a bit of manuscript paper to scribble down the parts then this classes as an arrangement and would they need permission from the copyright holder?

Expand this to a choir. Would learning a performing an arrangement by ear alone be acceptable (assuming PRS is paid) but writing parts out and distributing them wouldn't be?

Does Elton John really have to have to reply to a letter from every school choir who wants to sing Your Song?

mmm...tricky one...I suppose in the end, an arrangement's an arrangement whether it's written down or otherwise. Not entirely sure how PRS works with arrangements - I think that the original copyright holder would want a cut of the PRS royalties for it, but you'd have to check that one out with them.

If a school choir were performing 'Your Song' from a published arrangement or published original then permission wouldn't be needed as it wouldn't be the school making the arrangement; however, if the school decided to make its own arrangement, then they would need permission (not from Elton himself, but whoever owns the copyright which is usually the original publisher).

I just pay ?30 odd pounds to PRS for Music for my PRS license for each concert. They don't want to know what we're singing!

That's right, and then each year to compile a sample from selected venues, though composers/arrangers can report live performances too. I think though that the PRS consideration is a separate issue to the arranging one.

Personally, I found this helpful http://www.mpaonline.org.uk/content/code-fair-practice

The section which applies to me is right at the end and relates to the rearrangement of music for educational purposes only. I do a lot of jiggery pokery with pieces in order to provide something fun for pupils - especially when they are struggling - or when the only versions available are too hard. It seems that the crucial issue here is performance. So long as we don't do a concert using some of my pared down versions of things we are OK. There is a declaration though, which should go on the copies, to indicate that it is an unauthorised version and cannot be performed in public. I may start doing this - especially as it will then be clear to the parents that I have not photocopied or downloaded the music.


Regarding photocopying - I have always taken the simple view that provided a copy is not a substitute for buying the music then it is OK. So if it is easier to carry about a photocopy of one piece out of a book which you own that's OK. Similarly, with pupils who have parents who live apart I scan or photocopy their pieces so that they have a spare to use at one house.

Actually this seems not to be the case. I just happen to have a copy of the Copyright Act by my desk (!), and s21 says:

"The making of an adaptation of the work is an act restricted by the copyright in a literary, dramatic or musical work.

For this purpose an adaptation is made when it is recorded, in writing or otherwise."

It goes on to explain that "adaptation...in relation to a musical work, means an arrangement or transcription of the work".

So.. that seems, to me, to mean that the arrangement itself would not be an infringement unless written down (or otherwise recorded).

I know this is way off topic but LCM Composition exams ask for arrangements as well as an original work. The arrangement is usually from their own piano exam book but I think there is also a song to arrange

I confess that I wouldn't have thought about copyright under those circumstances.

Many of our university assignments involved us breaching copyright! We were asked to arrange Christmas songs (you could probably find one in the public domain), folk songs (again, most were ok there) and we had to make several classroom arrangements of popular music (little we could do about that) and a couple of others.


That's really useful - I may start doing the same. I have never found piano arrangements at appropriate levels for songs I've arranged and a lot of Disney/pop "easy" piano arrnagements are in fact anything but. And our classroom arrangements certainly don't exist in that format anywhere else and they're never used for performances.

Does anybody use IMSLP online? It seems amazing... but is it legal? I used it to download an old (18th century) edition of a Handel keyboard piece to show a pupil (who was learning it from a book!). This was fascinating to look at - there were lots of differences, including it being in a different key, and it seems likely the piece was copied out, at the time, without permission! This led to a great discussion on editions and interpretation and I produced a 'bare bones' copy of the piece so my pupil could create his own edition by adding tempo, dynamics and articulation markings.

,... so I expect I was acting illegally in producing a bare-bones copy from a book. But, really, this was such a useful exercise. I did the same thing with... AHHH .... exam pieces for a group lesson where 'audience' members wrote on blank copies what dynamics etc they thought were being executed by the performer. I destroyed the copies after the lesson. Should I hand myself in now?

Yes, it's legal, as long as the work is in the public domain in your country.

Chris