Advertise on ChoralNet
Men's Chorus arrangements of SATB musicDate: July 20, 2010 by Joseph Guy
Hello all,
I recently talked to the man who made many arrangements for SATB music for a men's chorus I now direct. He did not have permission but stated that he gave credit to the original arranger. Is this enough to make the copies legal? I assume no. However, would purchasing sufficient SATB versions make it legal? I need to put this one to bed.
Joseph Guy
Replies (13): Threaded | Chronological
John Howell on July 20, 2010 9:12pm
Joseph: You're asking whether a RE-arrangement is a "derivative work." Just asking the question in those terms answers it. Of course it is derivative, and therefore not permitted without permission.
BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE!!! Order in the next 10 minutes ... oops, wrong promotion, there. Sorry!
There is a provision in the Fair Use Guidelines that legally purchased copies may be "edited or simplified" if needed (or words to that effect). So does that open up an opposing viewpoint? Some would say it certainly does, while others would point out the unfortunate fact that only a court case can answer the question.
But what WOULD clearly be legal would be any procedure that would allow reading from the legally purchased copies. For example, "2nd tenors sing the soprano line an octave lower; baritones sing the alto line at pitch."
But to answer your specific questions: (a) No, giving credit to the original arranger is NOT the same as obtaining permission from the copyright owner. Not even close! And (b) purchasing sufficient legal copies is necessary, but may not be sufficient. (Althought there is NO provision in the law requiring the purchase of a copy for every singer, just a prohibition against making or performing from illegal copies.) In other words, there is no quick and definite answer possible. But considering the things we should have learned in kindergarten, why not just ask permission? The answer will be either yes or no!!
All the best,
John
on July 21, 2010 3:57am
Joseph-It is definitely a derivative work. Fair use only pertains to occasional small changes and not "many" entire arrangements. Not only is he infringing on the arrangement, but possibly also the original work, depending on who still retains the copyright. I totally agree with John on this-why not just contact the copyright owner for permission? It is really not that big a deal!! What is a big deal is infringement.
on July 21, 2010 4:05am
Here's a case in point: when the men's ensemble CANTUS began performing my piece titled There Is Sweet Music a few years ago (they eventually recorded the work) I was curious about the arrangement because the original (and only published) version was for four-part treble chorus. Turns out that their performances fell under the Fair Use guidelines because they simply sang the SSAA version an octave lower! According to the law that doesn't qualify as a "derivative work" and thus avoids any complications.
Clearly, this is an exceptional situation, but it does serve to illustrate the sort of thing that was likely envisioned by the framers of the original statute.
Dan Gawthrop
on July 21, 2010 7:38am
Just one small footnote, Dan. That provision is not in the law itself, but in the Fair Use Guidelines, an agreement made by the Music Publishers Association during the run-up to the 1976 revision of the law. Basically they agreed not to sue for certain things, thereby making them de facto fair use. What they were really after was deleting the two words, public performance "for profit" out of the law, and they accomplished that, so in return they agreed to a few small concessions. Very few, and very small.
John
on July 21, 2010 5:10am
Can a publisher/arranger sue for singing the wrong notes-misrepresenting - their product?
Just asking.
SIR
on July 21, 2010 7:35am
Hi, Sig. I got a chuckle out of this, and was going to pass over it, but it occurred to me that you might have meant it seriously.
My answer (and I am not a copyright attorney!) is that no, they could not sue for wrong notes. Remember that copyright is actually a bundle of 5 or 6 different rights, each covered differently in the law and each enforced differently. A piece of copyrighted music is covered by a copyright that protects what is on the page from infringement. A performance is not and cannot be copyrighted; otherwise each and every improvised jazz performance would be an infringement on the copyrighted original song! Only a RECORDED performance can be copyrighted, and that was not true until about 1972.
So singing wrong notes is still legal, and you can go right ahead!!!
John
on July 21, 2010 11:21am
John Howell wrote:
> A performance is not and cannot be copyrighted; otherwise each and every improvised jazz performance would be an
> infringement on the copyrighted original song!
This is something that has puzzled me and a group I sing with. I've been saying that it's a breach of copyright to make an arrangement of a copyrighted song, while a member of the group has been saying that that can't be right as any jazz performance involves an ad-hoc arrangement of the original song.
Can anyone square this circle?
--
Steve
on July 21, 2010 2:09pm
Steve and all:
This is a little easier to understand through the history of copyright. Originally it applied ONLY to words on paper (literature, through the Statute of Anne in about 1707). Later it was expanded to cover maps, also on paper (especially important in the New World, of course). Not until 1831 did U.S. law allow the copyrighting of music (but only on paper). And that continued until about 1972, when for the first time recordings were allowed to claim copyright (with p-in-a-circle for "phonorecord" rather than c-in-a-circle).
And not until the 1976 revision of the law took effect on January 1, 1978, was the law rewritten to grant copyright automatically to anything that exists "IN FXED FORM."
A great deal of 20th century new music notation was developed in order to notate new concepts and new ideas (like aleatoric music) that could not be notated in conventional notation. But of equal importance was the fact that for most of the 20th century nothing could be copyrighted unless it was "in fixed form" and on paper.
Therefore, a performance could not be copyrighted (although since 1972 a recording of that performance could be, and since 1978 that became automatic because the recording itself was recognized as a "fixed form."
So while to a musician a jazz performance is indeed an arrangement created in real time, it is fleeting and is not considered copyrightable, and therefore is also not considered an infringement. (I suspect that if publishers COULD claim that, and claim additional payment for such real time arrangments, they would have, but enforcing THAT would be almost impossible. They ARE, however, supposed to be paid the going rate for such performances through ASCAP, BMI or SESAC licenses, but for the use of the basic copyrighted song and not for the improvesed "arrangement."
Lawyers don't think the way musicians do!
(And just for the record, neither song titles nor chord progressions can be copyrighted, either. Isn't this fun?!!!!)
(And to speak to the member of your group, it is specifically NOT legal to make an arrangement, on paper, of a copyrighted song without permission. So if you can do it entirely by ear and learn it by rote, you're OK, but if you perform it you're due to pay performance royalties and if you record it you are due to pay the licensing fee.)
All the best,
John
on July 21, 2010 6:02pm
Not copyright owner but actual author of the work COULD sue you for wrong notes, misrepresenting or misuse under the moral right.
Traditionally, the moral right is not strongly established in the US, like some European or Asian countries. However, since the US joined the Berne Convention, US now has to cover the scope of the Convention which states;
6b
Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation.
Whether the author win the case or not, that is totally up to the court.
on July 21, 2010 8:52pm
Kentaro: To the best of my knowledge, the so-called "moral right" has never appeared in U.S. copyright law, although as you say, it is part of EU law as is protection of page layout.
I'm not up on Berne or it's results, but I would think that if the U.S. were bound by such a provision it would have been written into the law.
All the best,
John
on July 22, 2010 5:47am
Hi, John.
The US position on the moral right is that the current federal, state and common law will cover the scope of the Berne convention, and there is no need to add provision more than what they did. (The Berne Convention Imprementation Act).
Again, the moral right is not recognized traditionally in the US, however it started to be in the written form such as 106A in the copyright law (this clause is basically the moral right in the visual art work. Very specific though). Just because the certain right does not appear in the written form, it does not mean it would not be considered in the court.
In my opinion, the US copyright law and related acts are made very much user-friendly. Like the Constitution Article I, sec 8 states, it is made to promote the progress of science and useful arts, and not to secure the economical rewards of the creators. With that stated, I wish people would appreciate both the creative efforts of the authors, and the social effects of the copyright users. I think this is essential to keep the First Amendment of the Constitution real and alive.
on July 21, 2010 7:16am
Dan is correct about fair use. My men's choir inSpirit routinely uses SATB music by a mere shuffling of the parts. No editing, just an assigning of parts that are appropriate to the voices. Doesn't seem to work well with all pieces, but we have had a fair amount of success by carefully selecting music. We purchase SATB scores for each singer, and they have become accustomed to the routine. It is actually a good exercize, especially for the Baritone section who usually end up reading the Alto line. BTW. It was great to see you (Dan) in Chattanooga last month. Really enjoyed your presentation!!
Gerald Peel
on July 21, 2010 8:54am
Thanks for your note, Gerald. I've only once had to do the same thing in reverse, taking a very nice baroque piece scored TTBB and realizing it for SATB voices.
Speaking as an arranger, the key is that in the "average" choral setting (i.e. about 67% of the time in a straight harmonization), the melody will be in the soprano, the bass will have a tonic bass line, the tenor will have a harmony that lies above the melody if it's transposed by an octave, and the alto fills in the color notes. Very much like barbershop or glee club voicing. Anything that doesn't follow this "standard" voicing can, of course, present problems and really needs to be re-conceived.
All the best,
John
 Community tags: TTBB choirs
|
Help support ChoralNet by buying via these links
|
