Scrolling down to the foot of the "i" website this morning
(inews.co.uk) I saw a copyright statement (c)2021.
This prompted me to check with some others where I saw (c)2024 or
often nothing at all.
I can't actually see the point. Does it matter?
Nick
Scrolling down to the foot of the "i" website this morning
(inews.co.uk) I saw a copyright statement (c)2021.
This prompted me to check with some others where I saw (c)2024 or
often nothing at all.
I can't actually see the point. Does it matter?
Nick
This prompted me to check with some others where I saw (c)2024 or
often nothing at all.
I can't actually see the point. Does it matter?
It might matter in America, especially if they are regarded as publishing >anything in America. I agree it doesn't here.
Scrolling down to the foot of the "i" website this morning
(inews.co.uk) I saw a copyright statement (c)2021.
This prompted me to check with some others where I saw (c)2024 or
often nothing at all.
I can't actually see the point. Does it matter?
It's like a cargo cult, you do it because everyone else does it.
In USA, the absence of a notice might affect the damages you can claim
from an infringer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_notice
[quote]
Furthermore, in the event that a work is infringed, if the work carries
a proper notice, the court will not give any weight to a defendant's use
of an innocent infringement defense - that is, to a claim that the
defendant did not realize that the work was protected. An innocent >infringement defense can result in a reduction in damages that the
copyright owner would otherwise receive.
[end quote]
According to Tim Jackson <news@timjackson.invalid>:
It's like a cargo cult, you do it because everyone else does it.
In USA, the absence of a notice might affect the damages you can claim >>from an infringer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_notice
[quote]
Furthermore, in the event that a work is infringed, if the work carries
a proper notice, the court will not give any weight to a defendant's use
of an innocent infringement defense - that is, to a claim that the
defendant did not realize that the work was protected. An innocent
infringement defense can result in a reduction in damages that the
copyright owner would otherwise receive.
[end quote]
Keep reading the next few paragraphs and you'll find it is referring primarily to pre-1989 works. I follow US copyright law fairly closely
and I cannot recall any recent cases where the presence or absence of
a notice made a difference.
In the US if you haven't registered the copyright on something (which
has nothing to do with whether there's a notice), you can only sue for
actual damages from infringement. But once you do register, you can
get statutory damages which can quickly add up to hundreds of
thousands of dollars. Is the rule in the UK similar?
On 11/02/2024 04:58, John Levine wrote:
According to Tim Jackson <news@timjackson.invalid>:
It's like a cargo cult, you do it because everyone else does it.
In USA, the absence of a notice might affect the damages you can claim
from an infringer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_notice
[quote]
Furthermore, in the event that a work is infringed, if the work carries
a proper notice, the court will not give any weight to a defendant's use >>> of an innocent infringement defense - that is, to a claim that the
defendant did not realize that the work was protected. An innocent
infringement defense can result in a reduction in damages that the
copyright owner would otherwise receive.
[end quote]
Keep reading the next few paragraphs and you'll find it is referring
primarily to pre-1989 works. I follow US copyright law fairly closely
and I cannot recall any recent cases where the presence or absence of
a notice made a difference.
In the US if you haven't registered the copyright on something (which
has nothing to do with whether there's a notice), you can only sue for
actual damages from infringement. But once you do register, you can
get statutory damages which can quickly add up to hundreds of
thousands of dollars. Is the rule in the UK similar?
Not at all. There is no facility in the UK to register copyright.
And here we don't generally have the concept of punitive damages in
civil cases, the principle being merely that the wronged party should be
put back to the position he would otherwise have been in but for the
wrong, with his costs met by the losing side.
On 11/02/2024 04:58, John Levine wrote:
In the US if you haven't registered the copyright on something (which
has nothing to do with whether there's a notice), you can only sue for actual damages from infringement. But once you do register, you can
get statutory damages which can quickly add up to hundreds of
thousands of dollars. Is the rule in the UK similar?
Not at all. There is no facility in the UK to register copyright.
On the other hand, it can be far easier and cheaper to take a small,
simple copyright claim to court. The Intellectual Property Enterprise
Court has a costs-limited small claims track designed to be used by
parties who do not have a legal representative.
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 08:04:58 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
On 11/02/2024 04:58, John Levine wrote:
In the US if you haven't registered the copyright on something (which
has nothing to do with whether there's a notice), you can only sue for
actual damages from infringement. But once you do register, you can
get statutory damages which can quickly add up to hundreds of
thousands of dollars. Is the rule in the UK similar?
Not at all. There is no facility in the UK to register copyright.
On the other hand, it can be far easier and cheaper to take a small,
simple copyright claim to court. The Intellectual Property Enterprise
Court has a costs-limited small claims track designed to be used by
parties who do not have a legal representative.
It might affect the damages you can claim from an infringer.
Copyright etc Act 1988, section 97(1): >https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/97
[quote]
(1) Where in an action for infringement of copyright it is shown that
at the time of the infringement the defendant did not know, and had no
reason to believe, that copyright subsisted in the work to which the
action relates, the plaintiff is not entitled to damages against him,
but without prejudice to any other remedy.
[end quote]
"But I had no reason to believe there was copyright" might not be a good >argument anyway, but a notice kills it.
According to Tim Jackson <news@timjackson.invalid>:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 08:04:58 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
On 11/02/2024 04:58, John Levine wrote:
In the US if you haven't registered the copyright on something (which
has nothing to do with whether there's a notice), you can only sue for >> > actual damages from infringement. But once you do register, you can
get statutory damages which can quickly add up to hundreds of
thousands of dollars. Is the rule in the UK similar?
Not at all. There is no facility in the UK to register copyright.
On the other hand, it can be far easier and cheaper to take a small,
simple copyright claim to court. The Intellectual Property Enterprise >Court has a costs-limited small claims track designed to be used by
parties who do not have a legal representative.
The US recently instututed a Copyright Claims Board which is intended to
be the same sort of thing for claims up to $30,000, with simpler rules
for claims under $5,000. I gather it's not very popular.
https://ccb.gov/
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 22:07:16 -0000, Tim Jackson <news@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
It might affect the damages you can claim from an infringer.
Copyright etc Act 1988, section 97(1):
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/97
[quote]
(1) Where in an action for infringement of copyright it is shown that
at the time of the infringement the defendant did not know, and had no
reason to believe, that copyright subsisted in the work to which the
action relates, the plaintiff is not entitled to damages against him,
but without prejudice to any other remedy.
[end quote]
"But I had no reason to believe there was copyright" might not be a good
argument anyway, but a notice kills it.
I suspect it's rarely a good argument in the majority of cases, particularly when copying things from the web. But there are specific sectors of publishing where the absence of a notice could be significant. Sheet music
is a good example of that. Almost any commercially published sheet music has a copyright notice at the bottom of the page - for example, one I happen to have (entirely legitimately!) in front of me at the moment has a notice
which says "© 1964 Warner-Tamerlane Publishing Corp."
That serves a double purpose. It both indicates that the composition is subject to copyright, and it names the rightsholder. That's important, because it means that you know who to ask if you want permission to copy the music, or, alternatively, who you need to credit if you make permitted use
of it under a collective licensing scheme (eg, PRS).
If an item of commercially published sheet music were to lack a copyright notice, therefore, it would not be unreasonable for the purchaser to assume that it is not subject to copyright. In practice, music publishers try to avoid any ambiguity by stating explicitly when a composition is public
domain (I just also had a look at my copy of Ode to Joy, for example, where that is stated). But there may be a case where a copyright notice is inadvertantly omitted. Or, more plausibly, where a work is public domain in one country but still in copyright in another, so a sheet of music printed
by a publisher from the first country but bought by a customer from the
other will carry a PD statement that, for them, is not actually true. In
both of those situations, I suspect that section 97(1) would apply.
On 11/02/2024 20:48, Mark Goodge wrote:
If an item of commercially published sheet music were to lack a copyright
notice, therefore, it would not be unreasonable for the purchaser to assume >> that it is not subject to copyright. In practice, music publishers try to
avoid any ambiguity by stating explicitly when a composition is public
domain (I just also had a look at my copy of Ode to Joy, for example, where >> that is stated). But there may be a case where a copyright notice is
inadvertantly omitted. Or, more plausibly, where a work is public domain in >> one country but still in copyright in another, so a sheet of music printed >> by a publisher from the first country but bought by a customer from the
other will carry a PD statement that, for them, is not actually true. In
both of those situations, I suspect that section 97(1) would apply.
It is not just the 'composition' or 'tune', that may be the subject of >copyright.
Copyright may also subsist in the particular transcription
of it, the arrangement of it on the score etc. Even if the composer
died many years ago, therefore, as Beethoven did, it does not mean you
are free to copy anyone's version of it which is still in copyright, ie
is less than about 100 years old, which is the overwhelming likelihood,
and should be appreciated.
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 21:59:19 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 11/02/2024 20:48, Mark Goodge wrote:
If an item of commercially published sheet music were to lack a copyright >>> notice, therefore, it would not be unreasonable for the purchaser to assume >>> that it is not subject to copyright. In practice, music publishers try to >>> avoid any ambiguity by stating explicitly when a composition is public
domain (I just also had a look at my copy of Ode to Joy, for example, where >>> that is stated). But there may be a case where a copyright notice is
inadvertantly omitted. Or, more plausibly, where a work is public domain in >>> one country but still in copyright in another, so a sheet of music printed >>> by a publisher from the first country but bought by a customer from the
other will carry a PD statement that, for them, is not actually true. In >>> both of those situations, I suspect that section 97(1) would apply.
It is not just the 'composition' or 'tune', that may be the subject of
copyright.
A composition is far more than just the tune.
Copyright may also subsist in the particular transcription
of it, the arrangement of it on the score etc. Even if the composer
died many years ago, therefore, as Beethoven did, it does not mean you
are free to copy anyone's version of it which is still in copyright, ie
is less than about 100 years old, which is the overwhelming likelihood,
and should be appreciated.
Yes, but in professionally published music, that fact will be stated, if relevant. Another example from my music collection shows the composition as PD, but the arrangement with a copyright date of 1994. This, again, is necessary information for collective licensing reporting. So the absence of
a separate arrangement copyright is almost always a clear indication that
the only relevant copyright is the composition.
(There can also be separate copyrights in the words and the music. Again, this is stated if necessary in professionally published sheet music).
Scrolling down to the foot of the "i" website this morning
(inews.co.uk) I saw a copyright statement (c)2021.
This prompted me to check with some others where I saw (c)2024 or
often nothing at all.
I can't actually see the point. Does it matter?
On 12/02/2024 00:24, Mark Goodge wrote:
Yes, but in professionally published music, that fact will be stated, if
relevant. Another example from my music collection shows the composition as >> PD, but the arrangement with a copyright date of 1994. This, again, is
necessary information for collective licensing reporting. So the absence of >> a separate arrangement copyright is almost always a clear indication that
the only relevant copyright is the composition.
(There can also be separate copyrights in the words and the music. Again,
this is stated if necessary in professionally published sheet music).
It is not, however, a legal requirement, so can't be relied on in the UK.
Any score published in the UK in the last 100 years or so is very likely
to have some sort of copyright associated with it, whether indicated or
not. It is not therefore 'reasonable for the purchaser to assume that
it is not subject to copyright'.
Any score *first* published in the last 100 years or so is very likely to be still in copyright. But I would be willing to bet you a reasonable sum of money that you will not find commercially published sheet music in the UK that does not include all the applicable copyright statements.
On 12/02/2024 10:32, Mark Goodge wrote:
Any score *first* published in the last 100 years or so is very likely
to be
still in copyright. But I would be willing to bet you a reasonable sum of
money that you will not find commercially published sheet music in the UK
that does not include all the applicable copyright statements.
    Um. I have a decent-sized collection of sheet music [about six Billy bookcase (!) shelves], and I would take a reasonable bet that at
least half of it has no copyright statement at all. After that, I
suppose it depends what you mean by "applicable". A large majority of
the composers represented have been dead more than 70 years, but a lot
of the pieces have been edited more recently and most of the publishers
are still going strong [though often after mergers, which makes tracing
them non-trivial].
    [As near as I can judge from a quick sample, the earliest musical copyrights in my collection date from ~1910, but I have some pieces
published as late as the 1930s without copyright notices.]
On 12/02/2024 13:50, Andy Walker wrote:
On 12/02/2024 10:32, Mark Goodge wrote:
Any score *first* published in the last 100 years or so is very likely
to be
still in copyright. But I would be willing to bet you a reasonable sum of >>> money that you will not find commercially published sheet music in the UK >>> that does not include all the applicable copyright statements.
Um. I have a decent-sized collection of sheet music [about six
Billy bookcase (!) shelves], and I would take a reasonable bet that at
least half of it has no copyright statement at all. After that, I
suppose it depends what you mean by "applicable". A large majority of
the composers represented have been dead more than 70 years, but a lot
of the pieces have been edited more recently and most of the publishers
are still going strong [though often after mergers, which makes tracing
them non-trivial].
[As near as I can judge from a quick sample, the earliest musical
copyrights in my collection date from ~1910, but I have some pieces
published as late as the 1930s without copyright notices.]
Can I claim my 'reasonable sum' then now, please?
On 12/02/2024 13:50, Andy Walker wrote:["You" is Norman.]
On 12/02/2024 10:32, Mark Goodge wrote:
Can I claim my 'reasonable sum' then now, please?Any score *first* published in the last 100 years or so is very likely to be     Um. I have a decent-sized collection of sheet music [about six >> Billy bookcase (!) shelves], and I would take a reasonable bet that at
still in copyright. But I would be willing to bet you a reasonable sum of >>> money that you will not find commercially published sheet music in the UK >>> that does not include all the applicable copyright statements.
least half of it has no copyright statement at all. After that, I
suppose it depends what you mean by "applicable". [...]
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 08:09:58 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 12/02/2024 00:24, Mark Goodge wrote:
Yes, but in professionally published music, that fact will be stated, if >>> relevant. Another example from my music collection shows the composition as >>> PD, but the arrangement with a copyright date of 1994. This, again, is
necessary information for collective licensing reporting. So the absence of >>> a separate arrangement copyright is almost always a clear indication that >>> the only relevant copyright is the composition.
(There can also be separate copyrights in the words and the music. Again, >>> this is stated if necessary in professionally published sheet music).
It is not, however, a legal requirement, so can't be relied on in the UK.
It's not a legal requirement, no. But it's a practical necessity for the functioning of a collective licensing scheme. So, in practice, it is so ubiquitous on commercially published sheet music that purchasers can reasonably be allowed to draw an inference from its absence.
Any score published in the UK in the last 100 years or so is very likely
to have some sort of copyright associated with it, whether indicated or >>not. It is not therefore 'reasonable for the purchaser to assume that
it is not subject to copyright'.
Any score *first* published in the last 100 years or so is very likely to be still in copyright. But I would be willing to bet you a reasonable sum of money that you will not find commercially published sheet music in the UK that does not include all the applicable copyright statements. Music publishing in the UK is a fairly niche industry where the industry body, the Music Publishers Association, has developed a set of common standards for publishing music that are almost universally adhered to even by non-member publishers. And one of those is that all the relevant copyright information must be explicitly stated. Where music is published as part of a collective licensing scheme (eg, the Schools Printed Music Licence), the provision of that information is part of the licence requirements. So including it is the normal, done thing, and consumers of sheet music will be familiar with that. Which means that they are entitled to assume that the copyright statement(s) on the published material does contain all the necessary information.
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 14:50:14 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 12/02/2024 13:50, Andy Walker wrote:
On 12/02/2024 10:32, Mark Goodge wrote:
Any score *first* published in the last 100 years or so is very likely >>>> to be
still in copyright. But I would be willing to bet you a reasonable sum of >>>> money that you will not find commercially published sheet music in the UK >>>> that does not include all the applicable copyright statements.
    Um. I have a decent-sized collection of sheet music [about six >>> Billy bookcase (!) shelves], and I would take a reasonable bet that at
least half of it has no copyright statement at all. After that, I
suppose it depends what you mean by "applicable". A large majority of
the composers represented have been dead more than 70 years, but a lot
of the pieces have been edited more recently and most of the publishers
are still going strong [though often after mergers, which makes tracing
them non-trivial].
    [As near as I can judge from a quick sample, the earliest musical >>> copyrights in my collection date from ~1910, but I have some pieces
published as late as the 1930s without copyright notices.]
Can I claim my 'reasonable sum' then now, please?
Take a photo of the commercially published sheet music you've got that you know to be in copyright but doesn't have a copyright statement, post it somewhere on the web that I can look at it, and then yes, if it's legitimate I'll pay up.
On 12/02/2024 10:32, Mark Goodge wrote:
Any score *first* published in the last 100 years or so is very likely to be >> still in copyright. But I would be willing to bet you a reasonable sum of
money that you will not find commercially published sheet music in the UK
that does not include all the applicable copyright statements.
Um. I have a decent-sized collection of sheet music [about six
Billy bookcase (!) shelves], and I would take a reasonable bet that at
least half of it has no copyright statement at all. After that, I
suppose it depends what you mean by "applicable". A large majority of
the composers represented have been dead more than 70 years, but a lot
of the pieces have been edited more recently and most of the publishers
are still going strong [though often after mergers, which makes tracing
them non-trivial].
[As near as I can judge from a quick sample, the earliest musical
copyrights in my collection date from ~1910, but I have some pieces
published as late as the 1930s without copyright notices.]
On 12/02/2024 10:32, Mark Goodge wrote:
Any score *first* published in the last 100 years or so is very likely to be >> still in copyright. But I would be willing to bet you a reasonable sum of
money that you will not find commercially published sheet music in the UK
that does not include all the applicable copyright statements.
Um. I have a decent-sized collection of sheet music [about six
Billy bookcase (!) shelves], and I would take a reasonable bet that at
least half of it has no copyright statement at all. After that, I
suppose it depends what you mean by "applicable". A large majority of
the composers represented have been dead more than 70 years, but a lot
of the pieces have been edited more recently and most of the publishers
are still going strong [though often after mergers, which makes tracing
them non-trivial].
[As near as I can judge from a quick sample, the earliest musical
copyrights in my collection date from ~1910, but I have some pieces
published as late as the 1930s without copyright notices.]
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 13:50:23 +0000, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk>
wrote:
On 12/02/2024 10:32, Mark Goodge wrote:
Any score *first* published in the last 100 years or so is very likely to be
still in copyright. But I would be willing to bet you a reasonable sum of >>> money that you will not find commercially published sheet music in the UK >>> that does not include all the applicable copyright statements.
Um. I have a decent-sized collection of sheet music [about six
Billy bookcase (!) shelves], and I would take a reasonable bet that at >>least half of it has no copyright statement at all. After that, I
suppose it depends what you mean by "applicable". A large majority of
the composers represented have been dead more than 70 years, but a lot
of the pieces have been edited more recently and most of the publishers
are still going strong [though often after mergers, which makes tracing >>them non-trivial].
[As near as I can judge from a quick sample, the earliest musical >>copyrights in my collection date from ~1910, but I have some pieces >>published as late as the 1930s without copyright notices.]
As you are nearer your stash of sheet music than I am mine, I wonder
if you might check something for me? If I were at home I'd be looking
for the copyright statements on some songs and tunes that I know to be traditional and which I recall the performer has claimed copyright for without doing any more than performing, unaltered, the traditional
piece. "Composed by Xxxxxxxx" not even "traditional, arranged Xxxxxx."
Obviously Mr/Mrs/Miss/Mx Traditional is not going to rise up from the
grave and sue and it's an obvious way of earning the composer's wodge
when nobody else is going to but, really????
By "applicable" I mean a copyright statement that was correct as of the date the sheet was printed.Any score *first* published in the last 100 years or so is very likely to beUm. I have a decent-sized collection of sheet music [about six
still in copyright. But I would be willing to bet you a reasonable sum of >>> money that you will not find commercially published sheet music in the UK >>> that does not include all the applicable copyright statements.
Billy bookcase (!) shelves], and I would take a reasonable bet that at
least half of it has no copyright statement at all. After that, I
suppose it depends what you mean by "applicable". [...]
[As near as I can judge from a quick sample, the earliest musicalBy "published" do you mean the music was first issued to the public in that year (composition publication), or do you mean that the copy you have was printed in that year (manuscript publication)? If the latter, then I suspect that antique music books are not really germane to the matter at hand.
copyrights in my collection date from ~1910, but I have some pieces
published as late as the 1930s without copyright notices.]
Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
Scrolling down to the foot of the "i" website this morning
(inews.co.uk) I saw a copyright statement (c)2021.
This prompted me to check with some others where I saw (c)2024 or
often nothing at all.
I can't actually see the point. Does it matter?
Presumably the date is relevant when calculating the expiry of the
copyright? No date could mean ambiguity, much cheaper to systematically
date things.
As you are nearer your stash of sheet music than I am mine, I wonder
if you might check something for me? If I were at home I'd be looking
for the copyright statements on some songs and tunes that I know to be traditional and which I recall the performer has claimed copyright for without doing any more than performing, unaltered, the traditional
piece. "Composed by Xxxxxxxx" not even "traditional, arranged Xxxxxx."
On 12/02/2024 21:25, Mark Goodge wrote:
[As near as I can judge from a quick sample, the earliest musicalBy "published" do you mean the music was first issued to the public in that >> year (composition publication), or do you mean that the copy you have was
copyrights in my collection date from ~1910, but I have some pieces
published as late as the 1930s without copyright notices.]
printed in that year (manuscript publication)? If the latter, then I suspect >> that antique music books are not really germane to the matter at hand.
I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make. Quite a lot
of printed music has no copyright notice at all, but can still be dated
in various ways. I'm not clear why you think [your example of] a Beethoven >piece edited in 1964 has "all applicable copyrights" but pieces from a few >years earlier are "not really germane" when they have no copyright notice
at all but are [in some cases] still protected in 2024. 1964 is 60 years >back, so you weren't thinking only of recent publications.
As you are nearer your stash of sheet music than I am mine, I wonder
if you might check something for me? If I were at home I'd be looking
for the copyright statements on some songs and tunes that I know to be >traditional and which I recall the performer has claimed copyright for >without doing any more than performing, unaltered, the traditional
piece. "Composed by Xxxxxxxx" not even "traditional, arranged Xxxxxx."
Obviously Mr/Mrs/Miss/Mx Traditional is not going to rise up from the
grave and sue and it's an obvious way of earning the composer's wodge
when nobody else is going to but, really????
Where it might get murky is if there is an argument about whether a >newly-published edition has sufficient musical changes from the original
to generate a new "life-of-editor-plus-70-years" copyright.
For example:
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2004/1530.html
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/565.html
Before the advent of photocopying and desk top publishing there would seem >little point in copyrighting sheet music, per se.
According to billy bookcase <billy@anon.com>:
Before the advent of photocopying and desk top publishing there would seem >>little point in copyrighting sheet music, per se.
In the 1800s perhaps, but by the 1911 act there were records and soon
after there was radio.
Before the advent of photocopying and desk top publishing there would seem >little point in copyrighting sheet music, per se.
Sheet music publishers profits will have derived from marketing and selling >actual physical copies of sheet music to be subsequently performed by both >amateurs and professionals regardless of the actual content. A fairly
niche market.
In the 1800s perhaps, but by the 1911 act there were records and soonSo that the presence or absence of a copyright notice on a particular
after there was radio.
piece of sheet music had no bearing whatsoever on whether a recording
company would be entitled to record that music, nor a radio station to >broadcast a subsequent recording.
However in the days of widespread photocopying, it would obviously be >tempting for say amateur orchestras to produce multiple scores
by that means, rather than going to the expense of buying multiple
original copies. Which would be a clear breach of copyright which
would impact directly on the publishers profits; hence the need for
the copyright notice.
According to billy bookcase <billy@anon.com>:
In the 1800s perhaps, but by the 1911 act there were records and soonSo that the presence or absence of a copyright notice on a particular
after there was radio.
piece of sheet music had no bearing whatsoever on whether a recording >>company would be entitled to record that music, nor a radio station to >>broadcast a subsequent recording.
Nor whether someone else can reprint the sheet music. What's the difference?
However in the days of widespread photocopying, it would obviously be >>tempting for say amateur orchestras to produce multiple scores
by that means, rather than going to the expense of buying multiple
original copies. Which would be a clear breach of copyright which
would impact directly on the publishers profits; hence the need for
the copyright notice.
Having been in several church and secular choirs, I can assure you
that they are quite aware of the rules around copying sheet music,
with or without a notice. That's not to say they always follow the
rules, but it's not for lack of notice.
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 18:57:48 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Before the advent of photocopying and desk top publishing there would seem >>little point in copyrighting sheet music, per se.
Copyright in the UK has always been automatic; there has never been any need to use the word as a verb. But yes, prior to the advent of cheap personal copying equipment, there was little need to ensure that copyright statements were prominent on published material. Also, although the concept of collective licensing agreements dates back to 1914, it didn't really take
off until the 1960s. Collective licensing (whereby you don't need to explicitly ask for permission to publish or perform the music of a member rightsholder provided you pay the stipulated royalties) is the basis for the vast majority of secondary music publishing these days, but one of the requirements of utilising a collective licensing agreement is that you include the copyright statement on each work published.
Sheet music publishers profits will have derived from marketing and selling >>actual physical copies of sheet music to be subsequently performed by both >>amateurs and professionals regardless of the actual content. A fairly
niche market.
It's not a huge market, but it's not that niche. Pretty much anyone who can play an instrument and reads music, even if only at beginner level, will
have bought sheet music at some point. This sort of thing sells well enough:
https://amzn.to/4bERPlG
Even those who couldn't read music would probably have bought it in the
past, because they were buying something which contained the music staves as well as the guitar chords that they really wanted. But that particular
market has pretty much disappeared now with the ready availability of
popular (and even fairly unpopular) music chords on the Internet.
Mark
For most things, the copyright expires 70 years from the death of the
author, so is not related to any date in a copyright notice. A notice
may help when claiming damages (as discussed earlier in the thread) but doesn't necessarily have to include a date.
Tim Jackson <news@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
For most things, the copyright expires 70 years from the death of the
author, so is not related to any date in a copyright notice. A notice
may help when claiming damages (as discussed earlier in the thread) but
doesn't necessarily have to include a date.
Does that apply to a newspaper website? Some items have bylines, some
don't. The articles often have multiple authors, editors, etc, who each generate a copyright in the work that they do.
The people doing the writing presumably assign the copyright to their employer as part of their contract of employment, and don't receive any
later royalties. In other words, the works aren't (c) Charles Dickens, they're (c) Associated Newspapers Ltd. If Associated Newspapers or their IP-holding descendant is still around in 70 years time, how does the date of death rule work?
(Presumably Mr Dickens' works also had editors etc - how does it work if his understudy actually wrote part of Chapter 5? Does the copyright not expire until 70 years after the death of the understudy?)
"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message >news:s1knsidveovtvtarbuh78qv9s2gk3fqo18@4ax.com...
It's not a huge market, but it's not that niche. Pretty much anyone who can >> play an instrument and reads music, even if only at beginner level, will
have bought sheet music at some point. This sort of thing sells well enough: >>
https://amzn.to/4bERPlG
Well yes. But that's nowadays with the internet.
The sales of sheet music would always have been niche because presumably >there would have been relatively few sales outlets for it.
I'd imagine this market would have been pretty well tied up by sales >representatives of the major publishers. Who would soon have reported back
to HQ on the arrival of any new, possibly illegitimate, kids on the block.
Dr Sawkins appears to be something of an expert in making music of the era playable by modern orchestras and ensembles. I presume his motto is, if it ain't Baroque, don't mix it.
It works as set out in Section 12 of the Copyright Designs and Patents
Act 1988:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/12
It's ludicrously complicated and indeterminate....
There is no justification for copyright lasting anything like as long
as it does....
However, we are bound, as are most other countries, by the Berne
Convention, and it's most unlikely that anything will ever be done
about it....
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 10:45:14 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message >>news:s1knsidveovtvtarbuh78qv9s2gk3fqo18@4ax.com...
It's not a huge market, but it's not that niche. Pretty much anyone who can >>> play an instrument and reads music, even if only at beginner level, will >>> have bought sheet music at some point. This sort of thing sells well enough:
https://amzn.to/4bERPlG
Well yes. But that's nowadays with the internet.
The sales of sheet music would always have been niche because presumably >>there would have been relatively few sales outlets for it.
On the contrary, pretty much any bookshop would have had a music section. That's where I used to buy mine, pre-Internet. Music shops would have had it as well, of course, but they were a long way from being the only outlet.
Book shops in general, of course, have been a big casualty of online retail, and those which remain have mostly dropped music books from their range -
not just because of online sales of the type of publication I linked to, but also because of the growth in print-at-home digital copy sales, and even digital-only versions that you view on a screen rather than on paper - but, historically, music books were just one of many genres they would have sold.
Just over 10% of the population is functionally competant at playing an instrument, and does so regularly either for personal pleasure or for performance. Pre-Covid that was on a general downward trend, although
there's evidence that lockdown signifcantly boosted it, at least in the
short term. Historically, it was higher. Pre-war, if you were middle class and couldn't play an instrument (typically, the piano) then you'd have been the outlier. So music sales were also historically higher than they are now. There was easily enough demand to sustain sales through non-specialist retailers. Music sales have become more, not less, niche as a result of the Internet.
I'd imagine this market would have been pretty well tied up by sales >>representatives of the major publishers. Who would soon have reported back >>to HQ on the arrival of any new, possibly illegitimate, kids on the block.
I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm merely pointing out that your impression of music publication as some obscure, tiny niche market is inaccurate.
(I don't know if you're familiar with the common social media meme, but your responses in this subthread are all perfect examples of "Tell me you're not
a musician without telling me you're not a musician").
Mark
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 13:00:26 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
[Copyright expiry]
It works as set out in Section 12 of the Copyright Designs and Patents
Act 1988:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/12
It's ludicrously complicated and indeterminate....
There is no justification for copyright lasting anything like as long
as it does....
However, we are bound, as are most other countries, by the Berne
Convention, and it's most unlikely that anything will ever be done
about it....
A significant part of the complexity is to specify shorter durations
than life of author plus 70 years in particular circumstances.
For example, where the author is unknown, so life plus 70 would be indeterminate. That actually makes it more determinate, not less.
Also, Berne only requires life plus 50 years, whereas many major
countries nowadays give life plus 70.
This is the reason for subsection (6), which says that works
originating in other countries only get UK copyright for 70 years if
they give it to us.
"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message >news:2gfpsidg1nru0c90vt9snf13v1volo5lm1@4ax.com...
On the contrary, pretty much any bookshop would have had a music section.
That's where I used to buy mine, pre-Internet. Music shops would have had it >> as well, of course, but they were a long way from being the only outlet.
Book shops in general, of course, have been a big casualty of online retail, >> and those which remain have mostly dropped music books from their range -
not just because of online sales of the type of publication I linked to, but >> also because of the growth in print-at-home digital copy sales, and even
digital-only versions that you view on a screen rather than on paper - but, >> historically, music books were just one of many genres they would have sold.
O.K let's try another approach, Python
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 14:56:09 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message >>news:2gfpsidg1nru0c90vt9snf13v1volo5lm1@4ax.com...
On the contrary, pretty much any bookshop would have had a music section. >>> That's where I used to buy mine, pre-Internet. Music shops would have had it
as well, of course, but they were a long way from being the only outlet. >>>
Book shops in general, of course, have been a big casualty of online retail,
and those which remain have mostly dropped music books from their range - >>> not just because of online sales of the type of publication I linked to, but
also because of the growth in print-at-home digital copy sales, and even >>> digital-only versions that you view on a screen rather than on paper - but, >>> historically, music books were just one of many genres they would have sold.
O.K let's try another approach, Python
[snip]
Even after re-reading that several times, I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make.
On 14/02/2024 16:34, Tim Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 13:00:26 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
[Copyright expiry]
It works as set out in Section 12 of the Copyright Designs and Patents
Act 1988:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/12
It's ludicrously complicated and indeterminate....
There is no justification for copyright lasting anything like as long
as it does....
However, we are bound, as are most other countries, by the Berne
Convention, and it's most unlikely that anything will ever be done
about it....
A significant part of the complexity is to specify shorter durations
than life of author plus 70 years in particular circumstances.
For example, where the author is unknown, so life plus 70 would be indeterminate. That actually makes it more determinate, not less.
Also, Berne only requires life plus 50 years, whereas many major
countries nowadays give life plus 70.
This is the reason for subsection (6), which says that works
originating in other countries only get UK copyright for 70 years if
they give it to us.
If there is any justification at all for such terms, why should it
*ever* end?
A perpetual term would at least provide certainty, and could be
justified on the basis that no-one is entitled just to take someone
else's creativity for their own benefit.
As it is, it's an absolute mess based on no discernible or supportable principle.
"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message >news:qndqsitravsb9ohsclqgum1n890kc2k0ii@4ax.com...
Even after re-reading that several times, I have absolutely no idea what
point you are trying to make.
That while there would have been plenty of legitimate outlets of all sorts >for the sheet music published by reputable publishers, which nobody has ever >disputed, there would have very few if any outlets for pirated sheet music. >Unlike other illegitimate stolen/counterfeit goods, which were often sold
in pubs.
This was the point about it being a niche market. Buyers only ever bought >legitimate sheet music from legitimate sellers. Simply because they
would be largely be unaware of counterfeit sheet music, even if it existed. >As any attempt to market it would soon come to the attention of the
major publishers.
Hence my original point that in the absence of pirated sheet music there
was little point in legitimate publishers appending copyright notices to >their offerings.
The sales of sheet music would always have been niche because presumably there would have been relatively few sales outlets for it.
My original statement referred to sheet music with a contemporary document publication date. The example I gave of a 1964 copyright was from an online source accessed at the time I wrote the statement. Obviously the website, as a whole, has its own copyright and its own copyright date, but the indidividual works it makes available all have specific, older copyright dates (or, in some cases, PD statements).
But it's not a particularly niche market. People didn't sell counterfeit copies of novels or newspapers, either. And nobody would describe those as niche markets.
Hence my original point that in the absence of pirated sheet music there >>was little point in legitimate publishers appending copyright notices to >>their offerings.
Again, I have not disputed that. I'm merely disagreeing with your
description of music publishing as "niche", when in fact it has always been
a significant part of the publishing sector.
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 18:25:57 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
On 14/02/2024 16:34, Tim Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 13:00:26 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
[Copyright expiry]
It works as set out in Section 12 of the Copyright Designs and Patents >>>> Act 1988:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/12
It's ludicrously complicated and indeterminate....
There is no justification for copyright lasting anything like as long
as it does....
However, we are bound, as are most other countries, by the Berne
Convention, and it's most unlikely that anything will ever be done
about it....
A significant part of the complexity is to specify shorter durations
than life of author plus 70 years in particular circumstances.
For example, where the author is unknown, so life plus 70 would be
indeterminate. That actually makes it more determinate, not less.
Also, Berne only requires life plus 50 years, whereas many major
countries nowadays give life plus 70.
This is the reason for subsection (6), which says that works
originating in other countries only get UK copyright for 70 years if
they give it to us.
If there is any justification at all for such terms, why should it
*ever* end?
A perpetual term would at least provide certainty, and could be
justified on the basis that no-one is entitled just to take someone
else's creativity for their own benefit.
As it is, it's an absolute mess based on no discernible or supportable
principle.
So, in summary:
(a) Norman complains about how long copyright lasts. But then says that
a perpetual term would be better than the current situation.
(b) Norman complains about how complicated and indeterminate it is.
But then fails to address the explanation about how the complications arise from situations where the term is made shorter and more determinate.
For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not saying that the normal 70 year term
is right or wrong. I'm just pointing out the illogicality of Norman's position.
Pianos were as ubiquitous in 1900 as TVs are today.
Correspondingly, sheet music sold
in the same sorts of quantity as records or CDs more recently.
Worth noting too that music became very cheap in the late Victorian and Edwardian era; whereas books [before paperbacks] cost shillings, piano
music and popular songs often sold for pence [printed on very cheap
paper and unbound]. Some was more expensive, of course.
"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message >news:5uursi5inrs9q8ur8ttnkq75vdo9lq1qn5@4ax.com...
Again, I have not disputed that. I'm merely disagreeing with your
description of music publishing as "niche", when in fact it has always been >> a significant part of the publishing sector.
Indeed But how far has the publishing sector impacted on many people's lives >apart from maybe formerly newspapers and magazines ? And are you really
going to insist, that that many people really did have a piano in the
front room. Or blew (their own) trumpets etc. etc. ?
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 13:09:34 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message >>news:5uursi5inrs9q8ur8ttnkq75vdo9lq1qn5@4ax.com...
Again, I have not disputed that. I'm merely disagreeing with your
description of music publishing as "niche", when in fact it has always been >>> a significant part of the publishing sector.
Indeed But how far has the publishing sector impacted on many people's lives >>apart from maybe formerly newspapers and magazines ? And are you really >>going to insist, that that many people really did have a piano in the
front room. Or blew (their own) trumpets etc. etc. ?
I wouldn't go quite as far as Andy Walker in his parallel reply where he stated that pianos were once as ubiquitous as TVs are today. I suspect that, as you suggest, tin baths were more popular :-)
But, certainly, prior to the widespeard availability of recorded music
almost every middle class household had a piano (or sometimes an organ),
even if only a relatively cheap one. And anyone who had been to grammar school would be able to read music.
Even now, around 10% of the population
are in the target market for music publishers, and it has been much higher
in the past.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 47:24:42 |
| Calls: | 6,710 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,354,494 |
| Posted today: | 1 |