Jeff Ream Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Not sure if this has been mentioned... So apparently a publisher decided to interpret a law differently and that has caused all of this for DCI and WGI (BOA/Music for All too?). Who is to say that the publisher is interpreting the law correctly? Isn't anyone going to challenge them? Or, can this publisher just do whatever they want? I'm guessing that it is too expensive for anyone to challenge this publisher in court, and this publisher knows that, which may make it virtually impossible to challenge them. Doesn't seem right though. If someone with deep enough pockets claims that the sky is not blue and tries to enforce it, and if no one can afford to challenge it in court, we all just have to accept it as being correct?? Is that really how our legal system works?? that's why lawyers are involved Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Yes, Garfield's point was valid, but it would weaken the activity to discourage copyrighted music. In general, the music we love is the very best of the very best (in a given genre, according to people's subjective standards in that genre). What I mean is, maybe 1% of composers are really great. And only 10% of their works are really great. (Obviously wild estimates, but probably on the high side). So that means at most 0.1% of works created are actually great according to a given person's standard. So - how do I say this delicately - what are the odds that your drum and bugle corps arranger is going to hit it out of the park on the very next try? Sorry to dig up an old thought, but I wonder... How many (besides my Be Italian! friends and we TCM honks) ever thought that Fellini was a great composer prior to BD doing it? I grew up with classical, but I can't tell you how many shows introduced me to great tunes instead of played tunes that I already thought were great. Holzinger's Cadets Aviation theme became great music to me because he wrote it, not because he arranged an already favorite. I still think we'll see more original writing as a result of this licensing push. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Presenting their 2015 show - music so old it's in the public domain - drum corps international is proud to present - EVERY CORPS OUT THERE !!!! This is still one of the funniest posts of the thread. But, Jeff says (elsewhere) that the cost of "the older stuff" is way more than the expected revenue to host it on FN. I know someone here knows: What is the cutoff in years where a piece becomes public domain? Is HockeyDad's funny post really a derogatory thought? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HornTeacher Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) This is still one of the funniest posts of the thread. But, Jeff says (elsewhere) that the cost of "the older stuff" is way more than the expected revenue to host it on FN. I know someone here knows: What is the cutoff in years where a piece becomes public domain? Is HockeyDad's funny post really a derogatory thought? O.K. -- I'll take a stab at this (at least to the best of my abilities). 1) All music published before 1923 is now Public Domain (although new editions of these works may become copyrighted). 2) Much music which was not renewed (through formal application for copyright renewal) is also in the Public Domain. 3) Facsimiles of original older or out-of-copyright scores and older publications are not copyrightable. 4) Before 1976, USCL (United States Copyright Law) stated that copyright existed for 28 years, and could be renewed for an additional 28. 5) After 1976, USCL states that for music published before 1976, the term of copyright is the original 28 years, plus an additional 47 years (or 75 years in total -- I think this is basically the answer for which you were seeking, Gar. I'm just elaborating the other points, since it's not a totally simplistic situation). 6) A new Copyright Law was subsequently passed which extended the length an additional 20 years. However, music in the Public Domain cannot suddenly become copyrighted. If a piece was in the Public Domain at the time of this newest law, then it remains in the Public Domain. 7) In Europe, the length of copyright protection is 70 years after the composer's death, though it can be longer if it is owned by a publisher or by the composer's estate. And no, I did not consider Dad's comment to be derogatory in the least. As Shakespeare is supposed to have said "Many a truth is said (spoken) in jest", though a variation of this is found earlier in Chaucer's A Monk's Tale. I hope this helps... Edited for typographical errors (which, as far as I know, are not copyrightable and remain erroneous in perpetuity ). Edited January 22, 2015 by HornTeacher 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) O.K. -- I'll take a stab at this (at least to the best of my abilities). 1) All music published before 1923 is now Public Domain (although new editions of these works may become copyrighted). 2) Much music which was not renewed (through formal application for copyright renewal) is also in the Public Domain. 3) Facsimiles of original older or out-of-copyright scores and older publications are not copyrightable. 4) Before 1976, USCL (United States Copyright Law) stated that copyright existed for 28 years, and could be renewed for an additional 28. 5) After 1976, USCL states that for music published before 1976, the term of copyright is the original 28 years, plus an additional 47 years (or 75 years in total -- I think this is basically the answer for which you were seeking, Gar. I'm just elaborating the other points, since it's not a totally simplistic situation). 6) A new Copyright Law was subsequently passed which extended the length an additional 20 years. However, music in the Public Domain cannot suddenly become copyrighted. If a piece was in the Public Domain at the time of this newest law, then it remains in the Public Domain. 7) In Europe, the length of copyright protection is 70 years after the composer's death, though it can be longer if it is owned by a publisher or by the composer's estate. And no, I did not consider Dad's comment to be derogatory in the least. As Shakespeare is supposed to have said "Many a truth is said (spoken) in jest", though a variation of this is found earlier in Chaucer's A Monk's Tale. I hope this helps... Edited for typographical errors (which, as far as I know, are not copyrightable and remain erroneous in perpetuity ). The 'Micky Mouse Protection Act' from the late 1990's. A lot of the Copyright extensions are because Disney continually lobbying Congress to extend copyright terms further and further so they don't lose STEAMBOAT WILLIE to Public Domain. *EDIT* FWIW STEAMBOAT WILLIE goes into Public Domain in 2023, so expect new copyright law changes/extensions in the next several years Edited January 22, 2015 by perc2100 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HornTeacher Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 The 'Micky Mouse Protection Act' from the late 1990's. A lot of the Copyright extensions are because Disney continually lobbying Congress to extend copyright terms further and further so they don't lose STEAMBOAT WILLIE to Public Domain. *EDIT* FWIW STEAMBOAT WILLIE goes into Public Domain in 2023, so expect new copyright law changes/extensions in the next several years Thank you for clarifying that, Perc. I appreciate the backup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) Thank you for clarifying that, Perc. I appreciate the backup. It's gotten more confusing, and messier, the last several years. Disney (the corporation, not the actual human creator of the cartoon) has had copyright law changed/extended three or four times in order to accommodate STEAMBOAT WILLIE. The real interesting thing about that, is there are some experts who think that Disney is incorrect and STEAMBOAT WILLIE is indeed in Public Domain due to a technicality/error in the original copyright paperwork (or something like that: I don't recall the explicit details). I think Disney sued the expert. When a Georgetown law student wrote a thesis paper researching the STEAMBOAT WILLIE copyrights, and came to the same conclusion/backed up the original expert who pointed out the film was in Public Domain, Disney sued her. There really is a fine line in my opinion of "creator should keep/retain rights for themselves & immediate family" and "corporation can continue to make lots of money of someone else's creation long after the creator is dead." I support the creators' rights 100%, including the disappointment of DCI fans not being able to enjoy archived internet streams of shows because of creator copyright. But I do get frustrated at the greed of corporations who want to tightly grasp onto copyrights of intellectual property made via supposed 'work for hire' (see WB/DC and Superman) or purchased. I know terms of contracts are what they are, but it really sucks when fans ultimately miss out due to corporate greed (and don't even get me started on the corporate greed behind WB/DC and what they did to the creators of Superman who pretty much died in poverty while SUPERMAN film was breaking Box Office records and the comics were selling very well) Edited January 22, 2015 by perc2100 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Sorry to dig up an old thought, but I wonder... How many (besides my Be Italian! friends and we TCM honks) ever thought that Fellini was a great composer prior to BD doing it? ... Just for the record...Fellini wasn't a composer any more than John Williams directs feature films. :) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Just for the record...Fellini wasn't a composer any more than John Williams directs feature films. :) Exactly! And FWIW I knew Nina Rota was a great composer prior to BD doing their show last year (or GODFATHER several years ago) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Just for the record...Fellini wasn't a composer any more than John Williams directs feature films. :) Sure he was! He composed films! You know, like you compose cheese? Apparently I don't do sarcasm that well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.