Are transcriptions covered by copyright?

[jools]

Cool, thanks Pete and Si, for an in-depth answer. I guess that the 'specific' answer lies out there (Pete's link) to a 'specific' question.

To go back to the idea of forum members transcribing stuff for learning, I suppose the general rule is:
You are ok to transcribe whatever you wish for your own study.
You can perform it in licensed premises.
Use of the transcription as a 'quote' is historically permitted.
You shouldn't really record it (nor sell that recording) without permission
and you certainly can't sell your transcription (legally or economically).



Now, where's my lawyer's phone number >:

 

[Pete Thomas]

Except for "You shouldn't really record it (nor sell that recording) without permission "

I don't know of a law that would stop you recording or selling a transcription of someone's previously recorded solo. The normal MCPS AP2 licence would cover that.

 

[Mikec]

Just to add fuel t the fire, if you can't copyright a chord progression, what about if I write a piano piece, say, that's completely chordal? I assume it would be copyrightable as a complete "work" even if it just consisted of chords with no melody. 8| . My brain hurts....

 

[Simon]

Hi Mike...
there's two main purposes to copyright:
1. the protection of the author's right to obtain commercial benefit from valuable work, and
2. more recently the protection of the author's general right to control how a work is used

If you feel a chordal arrangement with no melody would allow you to 'obtain commercial benefit', go for it. Is it copyrightable? Nope. Why? See 'obtaining commercial benefit'.

I refer again to the point - "if there's no money in it, there's no lawyers..."

Simon

Mikec wrote:
Just to add fuel t the fire, if you can't copyright a chord progression, what about if I write a piano piece, say, that's completely chordal? I assume it would be copyrightable as a complete "work" even if it just consisted of chords with no melody. 8| . My brain hurts....

 

[Pete Thomas]

You don't actually "copyright" a tune, the copyright is yours as soon as you've written it, but if there is no melody, I don't think you could claim a copyright.

You are now possibly about to ask how did John cage claim copyright for a 4'33" (a silent tune)?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/2276621.stm

 

[philthd]

yeah but batt shot himself over that one by crediting cage as co-author

mike - if your piano piece was just a chord sequence, thats one thing, but if your piece was specific inversions and voicings of chords that might well count as a composition

 

[Simon]

Hi Pete,

Not sure about that. I see copyrighting the tune in terms of how can I protect the ways it can be reproduced ? eg audio recording, live performance, written sheet music, downloadable mp3. If you wrote a tune and wanted to protect your future interests, you'd apply for a copyright considering the above ways of reproducing it.

If you don't 'produce' anything - "it was all in my head but someone else nicked it" (the music that is) - you may find testing that in court, er, problematic. Ditto that silly idea of mailing yourself a copy of your work, so that it gets date stamped. Legal fiction apparently.

Re Matt Batt - he made a donation to John Cage out of respect. Publishers wouldn't have a case I reckon.

Simon

Pete Thomas wrote:
You don't actually "copyright" a tune, the copyright is yours as soon as you've written it, but if there is no melody, I don't think you could claim a copyright.

You are now possibly about to ask how did John cage claim copyright for a 4'33" (a silent tune)?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/2276621.stm

 

[Pete Thomas]

Mailing a copy to yourself, depositing a copy with a bank or solicitor can all be ways of protecting a tune from being copied but are not necessarily foolproof. The best way is probably to have it published wand put a copyright notice on it. I don't think any of those actually mean "copyrighting" the tune though.

The thing about all of this is that you rarely find the answers in "the law". The answer is usually that the person or organisation with the most money and best/biggest lawyers are the ones who win, usually based on an out of court settlement.

 

[jools]

Pop and rock is peppered with such battles dating back decades and especially when bands split - who wrote what, who's part was more important, fragments of melody lines, etc etc etc...

 

[Mikec]

Pete Thomas wrote:
You don't actually "copyright" a tune, the copyright is yours as soon as you've written it, but if there is no melody, I don't think you could claim a copyright.

You are now possibly about to ask how did John cage claim copyright for a 4'33" (a silent tune)?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/2276621.stm

I was, yes! What if I "wrote" one called 4' 33'' and claimed it was a different silence? (I don't really expect an answer...)

 

[Mikec]

philthD wrote:
yeah but batt shot himself over that one by crediting cage as co-author

mike - if your piano piece was just a chord sequence, thats one thing, but if your piece was specific inversions and voicings of chords that might well count as a composition

I wondered about that, but it would still be a chord sequence. You could also argue that a melody is just broken chords (many are). on the other hand many classical pieces could be considered as purely chordal. I guess you just have to go for it and trust to people's sense of justice.

 

[Mikec]

simon wrote:
Hi Mike...
there's two main purposes to copyright:
1. the protection of the author's right to obtain commercial benefit from valuable work, and
2. more recently the protection of the author's general right to control how a work is used

If you feel a chordal arrangement with no melody would allow you to 'obtain commercial benefit', go for it. Is it copyrightable? Nope. Why? See 'obtaining commercial benefit'.

I refer again to the point - "if there's no money in it, there's no lawyers..."

Simon

That seems unjust. Philip Glass is an example of someone who has had huge commercial success without much in the way of melody. On the other hand you can't call his music "just chord sequences" either.
It seems that copyright law just doesn't fit all circumstances, like many other laws.

 

[jools]

What's amazing in this messy jungle of 'who owns what' is just how even the famous get stung.

Take George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord" which went through the courts as a DIRECT LIFT of the Charelle's (?) "He's so fine". I guess he figured that he was so big he could get away with it, but Motown had a bigger 'gang' than him, and they bashed him behind the bike sheds.

 

[Pete Thomas]

However, he would probably have got away with it had Billy Preston not embellished the line a bit which made it sound even more like "He's So Fine".

A similar thing happened to me with a Tennents Pilsner commercial which had a similar rhythm to the tune "Brazil". I had gone to great lengths to make sure the melody was completely different, and of course there is no copyright in a samba rhythm, the word "Brazil" was part of the voice over. However the voice over artist (no less than Viv Stanshall) , instead of saying the word, sort of half sang it to the tune of "Brazil".

You can see the videoclip and commentary on my site in the TV & Film commsions section