Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
I think that there is plenty of confusion in this thread! Not sure if I can actually help (or if I understand things right), but here it goes:
(Most usually): Anything composed prior to 1923 is copyright free. Which includes scores, the music, etc. You can do whatever you wish with a Beethoven Sonata. It may be of extremely bad taste, but it's not illegal. With scores there is the tiny detail of editors though: An urtext edition is copyright free (assuming nothing has been added to the score, by editors or others). An edition with fingerings, and critical analysis, etc, is NOT, even if the music is. The creative work of the editor is still in copyrights. So while the Beethoven Sonatas are "free" and available in IMSLP, the same cannot be said for most editions out there. Otherwise photocopying would be fine, which is not!
Anything composed after 1923 is usually not copyright free. Ligeti, Messiaen, Cage, whatever is not. Which means that you are pretty much tight to the wishes of the copyright holder. If I don't want you putting lyrics to my music, I may be an arse but I still have the rights to stop you. And I have the rights to stop you from posting your result on YT or here or anywhere. With performances there comes (Again) the creative work of someone else apart from the composer: the performer. Anything performed by Argericht (for example) is not copyright free, even if it's very very old music. Her performances are the ones which hold copyrights!
Apart from copyright, which is what the word states (the rights to copy/distribute), there's also the thing about royalties (airtime royalties in face). Every time my music gets performed in public, in the radio and the tv (but not the Internet usually) I get a tiny amount of money. IF you think this is little, think that people make a living out of airtime royalties and that they can add up to plenty of thousands of $!
This is where it gets tricky for living composers (and not classical most usually). They want their royalties. And while ASCAP, BMI, etc will get those from radios, etc, and most usually (at least in most countries) the live venues will provide a general fee to the performing rights society of that country (area), the same does not apply for Internet covers.
And this is where it gets silly. I do think that, while not on my perfectly legal rights, in my common sense rights I have the ability to whistle a tune, or play it on the piano. This doesn't make me a scam artist! Now, with YT, 95% of the people posting there also do not get anything out of it, apart from the joy of sharing. But YT does! And there's no royalties to be seen anywhere! So it remains a largely gray area! There are bands who are selling the covers they have made, but they are only grabbing performance rights, not composing, and have probably acquired a license to do so (Pomplamoose comes in mind).
The silliest of all was when they started taking down lyrics sites, which is extremely silly. Yes, it's copyrighted material, but who on earth can't make out the lyrics? If one reads, or sings along is also breaking the law? Or the DRM stuff, where you can buy DRM free or DRM from iTunes!
Heh... for a composer I think I'm rather open minded!
PS. Do correct me if I'm wrong anywhere in the above. I think I have the juice right, but certainly things are different in various countries, plus I may have the tiny details wrong...
The biggest problem is, that "common sense justice" could be but more often is not applied because the party we're dealing with is usually not a musician but a company. Companies try to protect and make money of assets, not art.
They have no sensitiveness which use is actually more like advertising the original product rather than ripping it off. A beautifully played cover might make we wanna buy the official songbook rather than NOT buying the soundtrack. But the law is on their side and it can be used in a way where common sense has nothing to do with things anymore.
As for artists, possibly ROB would have been perfectly happy, if those restaurant people had asked, whether they might continue using his piece, and maybe put a link to his website on an about-page on their's.
There is a very good presentation on digital property and the remix culture held by Lawrence Lessig (caution - it is 83 minutes long):
The biggest problem is, that "common sense justice" could be but more often is not applied because the party we're dealing with is usually not a musician but a company. Companies try to protect and make money of assets, not art.
This is why the Internet feels so important to me. I actually did my whole thesis on open office 3 (freeware, and open source). This type of software would've never existed had there not been for the Internet and piracy!
Quote
They have no sensitiveness which use is actually more like advertising the original product rather than ripping it off. A beautifully played cover might make we wanna buy the official songbook rather than NOT buying the soundtrack.
This is where it gets probably more complicated. PW is filled with grown ups and even "old" people (compared to me at least, at the age of 32 and compared to pretty much any other forum I've been in). Piracy, which is very linked to what we're talking about here (and this is why I keep bringing it up) is about ignorance and mostly greed. People pirating are treating art like an asset (and a worthless one at that). Sadly musicians who just like to do covers and provide a service to the rest of the world (I REALLY believe that), are also thrown in the pit.
Quote
As for artists, possibly ROB would have been perfectly happy, if those restaurant people had asked, whether they might continue using his piece, and maybe put a link to his website on an about-page on their's.
True enough and I agree! A little courtesy would take those restaurant people a long way... Not that there's much that Rob can do (unless he does visit the restaurant, in which case this actually I'd like to see! :D)
Hope to find some time and watch the video, it looks very interesting! Thanks!
There's nothing magical about the year 1923 - the copyright applies for 70 years after the death of the composer no matter when the music was composed.
So.... if you composed something in 1918 when you were, say, 18, but you lived until 1992, then your music will still be in copyright (even the stuff you composed in 1918) until 2062. It used to be 50 years, but a contingent of interested parties lobbied to have this extended to 70 years, and whenever that changeover happened the extended period was not extended back an extra 20 years. So music by Bartok is now public domain (he died in 1945) for instance, while music by Poulenc is not (he died in 1963) and won't be until 2033.
Copyright in the edition lasts for 25 years. So if you buy a 2nd hand copy of Beethoven's Sonatas published in 1970 you are behaving quite legally when you photocopy it, but if you photocopy your new edition (published 2009) you are breaking the law.
And then there are the rights inherent in a mechanical recording, and rights to broadcast (different to rights to perform). No wonder there's a big trade in copyright law.....
Teacher, Composer, Writer, Speaker Working with Hal Leonard, Alfred, Faber, and Australian Music Examination Board Music in syllabuses by ABRSM, AMEB, Trinity Guildhall, ANZCA, NZMEB, and more www.elissamilne.wordpress.com
Just to clear up any mis-understandings, I post my music on Soundclick.com
I am aware that any member can embed a player with a single track, or a whole playlist, on his/her website, with, or without permission from the artiste, so I am not really in a position to complain.
However, I do feel for those artistes whose music is used without their permission, and who receive no recompense for their efforts.
As a former member of the UK Musicians Union, I feel it is my duty to support any musician, making a living from their craft.
Edited to add: The cafe is not a place I would visit, out of choice, and neither is the music of any quality.
I was just experimenting with some electronic stuff, at the time.
The website is here: (music takes a few minutes to load)
To be fair, they do at least, have a link to my SoundClick page :-)
The reason pre-1923 is a rule of thumb in the US is because every US copyright act which changed terms also provided that any published work whose copyright was already expired, stayed expired. Could you imagine the problems if it were otherwise? Works published here Pre-1923 entered the public domain after 75-years at the end of 1997. Sony Bono got his law passed 1st extending the term to 95 years in late 1998.
Edited to add: The cafe is not a place I would visit, out of choice, and neither is the music of any quality.
I won't comment on the music (in fact I quite liked it for what it is!), but actually the website is quite awful, filled with ready made pics (or pics without getting permission), a link to soundclick :O, and everything compressed to no end.
I would be seriously scared to eat anything there!
BTW, the pirate party (elected in the European Union 'congress' (<-not the right word) last year) is aiming for a copyright lasting 5 years after the creation of the work! While I think this is amazingly silly, I still find that copyrights should expire a few years after the death of the composer and not last 3 generations of people to feed of them!
Please Note: Repeat incidents of copyright infringement will result in the deletion of your account and all videos uploaded to that account. In order to prevent this from happening, please delete any videos to which you do not own the rights, and refrain from uploading additional videos that infringe on the copyrights of others. For more information about YouTube's copyright policy, please read the Copyright Tips guide.
That is the second infringement notice in the last two days. Both were from Alley Music Corp. Either they own a lot of music that I like or I have been incredibly unlucky in my song selections. I have also removed this video which was my March Piano Bar submission.
Update: I think I have solved this mystery. Hal Leonard is the publisher associated with the publisher imprint Alley Music Corp. I used a Hal Leonard Fake Book as the basis for my piano/vocal renditions of the songs in dispute (Happy Together and Under the Boardwalk).
Update: I think I have solved this mystery. Hal Leonard is the publisher associated with the publisher imprint Alley Music Corp. I used a Hal Leonard Fake Book as the basis for my piano/vocal renditions of the songs in dispute (Happy Together and Under the Boardwalk).
I wouldn't think they would have any way of knowing if you had used their book, so it must be the songs themselves. I never knew covers were being taken down until this thread started. I assumed no one really cared because the covers of the artists I watch the most never get taken down. Some of them have been up for years.
I'll figure it out eventually. Until then you may want to keep a safe distance.
I wouldn't think they would have any way of knowing if you had used their book, so it must be the songs themselves.
You are right, of course, it is the songs themselves. I have 3 or 4 Hal Leonard Fake Books and a large percentage of the songs I post on YouTube come from these books.
I think more copyright owners just need to calm down and realize youtube can be properly exploited for their commercial gain if done correctly. The little ads that come up with the option of buying the song through itunes is a win/win situation I think. I just used one today watching a music video that had obviously been uploaded fom an old VHS tape of MTV. I get to watch the video, they got my $1.29 when I realized that I didn't already have the song in my itunes library. Win/win!!!
I'll figure it out eventually. Until then you may want to keep a safe distance.
That is the second infringement notice in the last two days.
What a bummer.
Well, on the bright side, at least you've had the chance to briefly share those with us. I would think those of us who have had the chance to see these missing videos are a privileged group.
maybe you can try to just upload mp3's for now on box.net until you figure out the youtube thing Bill. Your vids are great and it's a shame that youtube is taking them down
I am currently uploading all of my written piano sheets onto my blog to make things easier. I also have written out a few more sheets. All free check it out if you want Any questions, PM me
BTW, the pirate party (elected in the European Union 'congress' (<-not the right word) last year) is aiming for a copyright lasting 5 years after the creation of the work!
It's usually referred to as pirate parties, since what they support depends entirely on which country you're in, since copyright is different in every country.
In the US, they want copyright to be returned to 14 years + one 14 year extension.
The 5 year plan is really neat in theory, but I don't think it's very practical. Copyright would expire in 5 years UNLESS it would be beneficial to the public for copyright to be extended. So, if everyone benefits from Microsoft having a copyright on the .doc format, it would be extended. Or if a band releases free and accurate sheet music, since they have helped the public, they could file for an extension.
Content creators would have to support the public or else lose their rights to their works. Good in theory, but I can't see how it would be anything but arbitrary in practice.
Dr. Appleman, former NASA engineer, Empire of Earth and B.S. of Ninjutsu at MIT.
LBE, I was curious about Under the Boardwalk so I checked and here's what I found... there seem to be two writers and publishers:
Songwriter/Composer......Publisher RESNICK ARTHUR (BMI), ALLEY MUSIC CORP (BMI) YOUNG KENNY ( ASCAP), TRIO MUSIC COMPANY (BMI)
Checking further, Alley Music is owned by Carlin International. They're one of the largest publishers around, having acquired numerous other smaller ones. They don't own Hal Leonard, however, but they're reported to be partnered up with them on numerous things like a big Stephen Sondheim folio. Their president recently got appointed to the Governing Board of ASCAP. Oddly, however, they're one of the publishers known to dispute their own performance assignments to BMI relating to Internet audio/visual usage, particularly YouTube. I assume their logic also applies to ASCAP licensing. I've known them in the past to use the Internet search service BayTSP to hunt down Internet video material and issue take-down notices. This activity must be impacting the efforts of their own rights organizations to license YouTube or anyone else. Based on this thread, I'm getting the idea they might also be impacting anyone who buys any Hal Leonard folios to learn material for audio visual based promotion because of the likelihood of stumbling into a piece they own.
Or the DRM stuff, where you can buy DRM free or DRM from iTunes! 
While I think this is amazingly silly, I still find that copyrights should expire a few years after the death of the composer and not last 3 generations of people to feed of them! 
![[Linked Image]](https://www.pianoworld.com/ABF_Medals/3medals.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://www.pianoworld.com/forumpicts/MOYD_2011/MOYD_1.gif)
![[Linked Image]](https://www.pianoworld.com/ABF_Medals/9medals.jpg)
<- 10+ ABF recitals