5 ms·
It gets a little complicated around old pieces like that. As usual, I am not a lawyer, consult a legal professional before making any decisions based on this i
by techjamie 2y ago
It gets a little complicated around old pieces like that.
As usual, I am not a lawyer, consult a legal professional before making any decisions based on this information.
Even though an old work like that is in the public domain, if it was played as a recording, whoever owns the rights to the recording still has a claim to copyright.
But even if it was played live and sung by the attendees, that doesn't necessarily mean the sheet music is public domain. Pianos from hundreds of years ago didn't play exactly like a modern piano, so there may have been an intermediary step where the original piece was modified to work on a modern piano when the sheet music went to print. The modifications to the sheet music could grant the person who sold the book a copyright.
Doesn't necessarily mean the person has a valid claim, but it's not impossible.
- ClumsyPilot 2y ago> Pianos from hundreds of years ago didn't play exactly like a modern piano, so there may have been an intermediary step where the original piece was modified to work on a modern piano when the sheet music went to print. This is preposterous.
- grayhatter 2y agoWelcome to US copyright law
- AlotOfReading 2y agoTranscription (and arrangement) can involve a pretty serious amount of creative input. How do you think they should be handled instead?
- mort96 2y agoI certainly don't think transcribing an old piece should mean that you now own the piece for the next 160 years.
- gjsman-1000 2y agoThey don't own the piece. Anyone is allowed to transcribe the old piece for themselves, and then own the transcription they created.
- mort96 2y agoSame difference. It makes 0 sense that they own anything played based on the transcription for 160 years.
- immibis 2y agoIrrelevant. All playbacks of the piece will be copyright-struck, regardless of the transcription used.
- Manuel_D 2y agoBut there'd be a finite number of ways to transcribe a piece. This someone would be able to claim the only ways to faithfully play the original public domain piece.
- gjsman-1000 2y agoIn that case, the law is not incompatible with you both owning your own transcriptions, even if they are identical. You might need some proof that you created your own if sued, but that's the copyright system.
- ipaddr 2y agoWhy not copy and say it's independently created? It does make it incompatible.
- AlotOfReading 2y agoYou don't own "the piece", you have a copyright claim to the specific parts you contributed of the specific arrangement/transcription you produced for the duration of copyright. Someone else can take that original work and create their own transcription/arrangement that you would have no claim over. ContentID is unable to reliably distinguish these two.
- Covzire 2y agoHow can YT possibly arbitrate who transcribed/arranged a piece of classical music?
- AlotOfReading 2y agoThey don't. ContentID makes the claimant determine if a counterclaim is valid or not. YouTube forwards the messages, diverts revenue into an escrow bucket for the duration, and washes their hands of any decision-making in the matter after the automated notice.
- cam_l 2y agoThis, i argue, has nothing to do with the amount of work, but everything to do with the simplicity of proving a copy. A specific arrangement of words, music, or light (in the case of film) are well protected. Painting & sculpture, perhaps less so; fashion, dance, and architecture, sweet fuck all. Which all have as much if not more creative input than an arrangement. How I think they should be handled? Same as fashion or architecture, only direct copies in the same format are protected, everything else is derivative.
- gjsman-1000 2y agoThe same applies to books - even if you bought a public domain book like Alice in Wonderland, you could be sued if you make a scan. The typesetting and layout is copyrightable.
- jdietrich 2y agoThe piano thing is basically nonsense, but you're in the right general area. The copyright may have elapsed on the original composition, but a specific arrangement of a public domain composition may be entitled to copyright protection as a derivative work. For example, the song "Scarborough Fair" pre-dates the modern concept of copyright, but Simon & Garfunkel's performance of the song contains novel elements that are subject to copyright. (see article 802.6) https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap800/ch800-performing-arts.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap800/ch800-performing-art...
- alright2565 2y agoEven if the claimant's sheet music is used, how do they know that it is their sheet music specifically, and not someone else's transcription of the same music? They could include "paper towns" in the music, but that's not what these automated systems are looking for.
- xmodem 2y ago> Even though an old work like that is in the public domain, if it was played as a recording, whoever owns the rights to the recording still has a claim to copyright. I am aware of that. In this case it was played from sheet music by a professional organist. > The modifications to the sheet music could grant the person who sold the book a copyright. Do you have a citation for this?
- jenadine 2y ago> it was played from sheet music by a professional organist. I assume the claim didn't come from that organist. But would it be an infringement if it was?
- BeefWellington 2y agoOnly if the organist recorded it.
- techjamie 2y agohttps://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/when-transcribing-a-public-domain-music-piece-is-t-5413379.html https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/when-transcribing-a-publi... Here's some discussion on the matter that indicates that a transcription can be, but a lot of what I've seen is much like the rest of copyright, and it's a hot mess and very specific to what the circumstances are. The "might have a claim" about that topic in my original post is pulling a lot of weight for me.