Spot, am I correct in assuming that if a church:

a) Gets the rights to record a popular Christian or secular song
b) Gets the rights to perform the song using it's own musicians
c) Gets the rights to sell CDs with the songs, and pays the royalty

... that it still DOESN'T grant any sync rights to create a music video using that music? That you would still have to go back to the artist/publisher and say "Hey, we cleared everything to make audio CDs of your song using our own musicians, but now we want to make a music video"?

You are correct.
Because video is a sync license in addition to the audio master and mechanical.
Always consult an attorney....don't trust me. :-)

Being it's a christian singer & a for a church, they might grant you the rights if you ask. However, if the song was modified inany awy, then you need permission to use the song too, not just him playing. :)

then again... it might be better to find someone else to play the song for you...

It seems to me that if the performer did not record and submit his/her performance of a song in the public domain to the Copyright office for Circle-P protection then there is no infringement.... but this is what lawyers get paid to sort out... please don't act on my word.

Blues

I personally think this is crazy!
If I was to perform Mozart's 6 prelude then I should be honored first to play it and second deeply honored if any one used its performance. They DO NOTt own Mozart's song. Now if Ithey wrote the song then yes. I think that anyone then that plays a 200 year old song should learn how to write their own songs if they want to benefit off of others creativity. Mozart I'm sure would think the same.

Randini

I just spent a little time at the U.S. Copyright Office's web site and it turns out that the performance in question would not be eligible for Circle-P protection as registered with Form SR.

The only other form for copyright protection is Form PA which would register the underlying composition/song with Circle-C which he/she cannot do since it's already in the public domain UNLESS he/she modified it in such a way (e.g., wrote a new verse) as to claim it a derivative work of the original.

HOWEVER, there is a very interesting "note" on this page regarding "audiovisual work":

"NOTE: Sounds accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work should not be registered on Form SR. The copyright law does not define these sounds as "sound recordings" but as an integral part of the motion picture or audiovisual work in which they are incorporated. These sounds are classified as works of the performing arts and should be registered on Form PA."

The full page is here:
http://www.copyright.gov/register/sr-choose.html

Hey Sony, how about putting a good lawyer on staff for us??? ;)

Blues

Actually the original question is a bit unclear. If the composition is no longer under copyright then only the performance is subject to copyright. If the performance was played in the church then surely the only clearance needed is that of the performer unless he was playing some new arrangement.
Of course if the performance was a recording and / or he'd sold his rights to a 3rd party then things would be messy. From memory SPOT had put up one of his performances of an old composition for anyone to use. The copyright on the composition has long expired and he's donated his performance to the public domain so in that case it's OK to use it.
Not trying to give a legal opinion here, just trying to be clear on what the circumstances were.

Is crazy... but then you could collect royalities on your performance (and if you happen to be much better then someone else... well, you'll get moer $$$).

:)

Exactly. I did a derivative work of a public domain song, and put it up for others to freely use. However, that was MY choice to do. That doesn't meant that someone else could have made that choice for me. Were I to spend a month setting the scores for a Bach piece, arranging the instruments the way I'd like them...I'd be pretty intense about someone taking that arrangement or recording and freely using or distributing it.

I did some work for a church and used royalty free music. The pastor of the church said he had picked his own music for the video but when I found out it was copywritten by someone else I politley refused to use it. There is some really excellent royalty free music out there. You can also make your own with acid or hook up with someone who puts together loops and they will probably be happy to get the exposure of their music with trade for credit on the video.

What if you spent $$$ to redo an old film and then someone used part of your film for free without your permission? Royalty free music is the way to go.

I would also check with someone like the CCLI which licenses christian music for performance in churches. They may be able to answer this or at least tell you who to talk to. Their web site is:
http://www.ccli.com/
Steve

Thank you everyone for the wonderful information. I would have to disagree about if one put tons of arrangment and time into a piece they should get paid for their performance. Now if they rearranged the song with new verses and any other changes then yes however, if they are just performing the song as writen by a Bach or Mozart then they should understand that there creative juices were not used and that they should be honored i someone used it.
I spent over 50 hours on a 12 minute video for churc which features to of my original compositions and I used "Romance" a classical piece which was written over 200 years ago knowing it was public domain however it just happened to be writen by Chero which I purchased.

Truth be known, Mozart was a supporter of protecting musical works and sued more than once to protect his work. In fact, in his name and honor, his wife sued a patron for misrepresenting the works as his own, thus securing the copyright in the name of Mozart forever. Mozart went on record at least three times chastizing kings and chancellors for allowing others to perform his works without his permission. It's fairly well documented. The Statute of Anne was passed in 1710, and the issue was fairly inflammatory at the time of Mozart's life. At the time of his death, several bills of protection had been filed throughout Europe, as it was a period artistic reawakening.
I for one, enjoy playing old works. But I also have value as a musician, as does anyone else who's mastered a craft to the point of the public being pleased by it. And if that is their living, and they invest time in learning, perfecting, and performing the piece, then they should be paid for it.
James Earl Jones often says that it's the personification of a work, not the work itself. In other words, you or I could probably read the bible just as well as he can. But our voices most likely couldn't possibly bring the majesty and power of those words like he could. That's what talent does for words on a piece of paper, no?

I am a songwriter/composer/musician and if I do a "work for hire" then the rights I have will be outlined in detail in that contract. If I create a work or interpret (arrange, perform, etc.) a piece of music in the public domain and take no steps to register my work then I can only blame myself if someone uses it inferring that I don't care. I have to take responsibility for doing what I can to protect my work.

We have to be pro-active. Even holding a copyright registration is not the last word in ownership of a work as far as the law is concerned. A lawsuit is filed and may ultimately go to a jury for decision. Holding a copyright can go a long way towards proving ownership... certainly much further than the sworn statements of friends and family.

There is no reason for anyone who cares about his/her creative work not to register it. Heck, even a kid with a paper route can afford the $30 registration fee.

Blues

>James Earl Jones often says that it's the personification of a work, not the work itself.

Just a quibble, but clearly it is both.

There are, no doubt, lots of justifiably forgotten composers from way back. Some like J.S. Bach still hold up today and move people after all these years. The work certainly holds its own amazing power. However, if I (no musical skills) were to record a piece by Bach, this discussion would not come up because no one would want to use it. Same applies with a great performance artist and a crap piece -- see much of Hollywood today (except, for Hollywood, often both are bad).

There are some strange recent anomalies with "reality" or "talent" shows, but I think this has happened before. Remember Tiny Tim?

SPOT,
I think you're agreeing with what I was saying.
If you played that same piece in a chuch and I videotaped your performance then before I can use that I need your permission. You are the only one I have to deal with UNLESS perhaps you'd sold the rights to similar performance of the same piece to a 3rd party.
Even if others had done their own arrangements for an orchestra so long as you weren't playing their arrangements you and I are in the clear.
Of course it's your right to also refuse me permission or ask for whatever compensation and if nothing else I'd be wise to ask your permission before I hit record. All that I take as so obvious it didn't raise a mention.

Bob.

Intersting about James Earl Jones comment about the bible words. Yes I agree 100% but I do not think bible words are the same in performing a musical piece note for note excluding rearrangemnt. Yes Mozart fought for his rights of HIS music but here is a question:

Did Mozart ever fight for his rights on somoene elses music?

Never!

He wrote his OWN. I believe despite the law as soon as you play SOMEONE's music then as long as you do not rearrange that piece you have no right or claim to it. Only the original composer would. in other words either write your own music or just sit down and give 100% credit to its creator.

Note: There is a big difference in performing a peice as is or rearranging a piece like Jose Feliciano does.

So what about the Musicians that record the Music They have to be paid.. OR these great works would never get Re recorded.. No One would want to work for Nothing....

Perhaps $1000 Per Musician With Possible 80 Musicians... Then the Conducter and the people that make the CDs Artwork ect... So perhaps 150,000 dollars then the shops will double that 300,000 Dollars then Its perhaps an Exaggerated amount But Their Costs do need to be met....

I don't know if Mozart ever fought for his right to re-arrange, use, have access to anyone else' music. I DO know he sued on more than one occasion, to prevent others from performing his music, because of the lack of quality of the performers, and to also keep his music from being bastardized. Mozart is definitely not the champion you'd want to be selecting to demonstrate other's rights with relationships to music.
Look, if I play a Mozart piece and Yo Yo Ma performs the same piece, you'll have two VERY different performances of the same piece of music. Just like if James Earl Jones reads the bible in a recording, or Charleton Heston, or PeeWee Herman. All are VERY different readings, vocal inflections, emphasis on words, and cadence. And all of those things will have tremendous impact on the value of the spoken word or played musical note. Without interpretation, it's just a collection of black squiggles on a piece of paper that anyone can read. That's all there is to it. As a GREAT example, you have Danny DeVito and Joan Cusack doing readings of the Direct TV contract as a television advertisement. They make it dramatic. When you read a contract, does it sound as it does coming from them? Does it carry the same import and emotional elicitation?

Whether you agree or not, new or derivative performances of other's works are copyrightable, and should be. Because it's their talent that went into making that piece of work a further work of art that it otherwise would be. It's their name and talent that lends credibility to the work. "Yesterday" from the Beatles is the most recorded song in the world. And it's got over 275 copyrights assigned to it from various people who have recorded it. Pat Boone's version is different than Slime's version of it. Should neither of them enjoy protections for their versions? Paul McCartney makes the same amount of money whether they're protected or not, so where's the harm to the listener or owner of the song? Artists ENCOURAGE derivative works whether you agree or not. Dolly Parton made a BOATLOAD more money on "I Will Always Love You" in the Whitney Houston version than she did in her own version. Far and away more. I believe her take on Houston's version was in the 12 mil+, while she made less than 2 mil on her own version prior to. If art didn't encourage others to remake old songs, not only would fewer people be employed, but the world would be unable to foster new versions of old greats. Personally, I love hearing many new versions of old songs. But if there were no incentive to artists to re-make old songs, then they simply wouldn't do it. You would argue that Jimi Hendrix isn't due anything for his version of the Star Spangled Banner? That the emotion he wrenched from within, coupled with his talent are apparently worthless?

Personally, I find it ironic and stupifiying that a debate over copyright issues is taking place relating to a religious institution in the first place. Half the copyright laws we enjoy and endure are the direct result of religion, its demands and abuses of copyright law, and the moral nature of copying the works of others without paying for them.

>>>There is a big difference in performing a peice as is or rearranging a piece like Jose Feliciano does.<<<

yes there is but now even that is risky. Actually as I was reading this something popped into my head - Rachel Sweet sued Neil Geraldo/Pat Benatar and won because she was not given credit on a song of hers. If I remember correctly Neil claimed something like he had added words and changed some of the music around. Ironicly Rachel Sweet did not write the music, a guy by the name of D.L. Byron did, she added lyrics and recorded it...but even so Neil lost, Rachel won.

Now in the days of sampling the whole "rearrange" concept is very iffy. Tone Loc used Eddie Van Halens guitar riff from Jamies Crying in a song. Jessica Simpson had a hit with a song that used the main guitar riff and strumming pattern of the John Cougar..er Melancamp song "Jack and Diane". Sean/puff daddy/P.Diddy combs seems have made an entire "life" out of taking other peoples music and "rearanging" it. I think there is a real fine line between doing a cover, rearanged or not, and doing an "original" based on someones elses music. SInce we are talking about classical - take a look at the whole neo-classical metal genre. Yngwie is still out there touring and he most certianly has rearanged pieces and called them his own.

Obviously he own the copyright to him reading the Bible. Period, end of story. But that doesn't stop anyone else making a recording of THEM reading the bible does it?
Just because someone makes a derivative work doesn't affect anyone else making a derivative work so long as it's not based on their work?
This was at the core of the original question, one that still remians unanswered.
A lone guitarist plays a work that is in the public domain. Someone else has also made a significant recording of the same squiggles on a piece of paper, no doubt they may have spent considerable time and money making it. No question they own the rights to their work. The question here though is have they somehow acquired any rights over the work (the composition) that was in the public domain?
Their recording of that work wasn't the issue, it's how what they have done affects others rights, ones that they would seem to very clearly have. If they have managed to hijack the rights to the original composition then the Vatican is in deep trouble with James Earl Jones.

Of course it doesn't mean no one else can read the bible aloud pr record it if they wish to. But James Earl Jones DOES own the copyright to HIS recording master of him reading the bible, and the subsequent rights to it as heard on DVD. Anyone can listen, and anyone can imitate. But they cannot copy.
Randvild's comment is that if you are imitating someone else' work then you have no right to copyright your performance. I submit (as does the law and common sense) if it's a performance of a work, regardless of who wrote the work, then the actor/singer/performer is allowed to reserve the rights to their particular interpretation of that work. The person who did the remake of Charlies Angels reserves the rights to their version of the popular show. Same with Batman, Spiderman, and everything similar. Marvel Comics owns the copyright and trademark of Spiderman. Sony owns the copyright to their film version of Spiderman, even if it's the same story as a comic book issue or issues. Because it's their interpretation of a derivative work.
Would you submit that all the various film and stage versions of "Romeo and Juliet" cannot be copyrighted because they are derivative works of Shakespeare?
What about Two Live Crew and Acuff-Rose, which is the landmark case in this particular matter?
No one can affect the original rights of the work. And in fact, in most cases, there are compulsories that take effect on a derivative work where both people make money. When Sony licenses a theater to show Spiderman, the money doesn't just go to Sony. A portion goes to Marvel and any other partners as well.
It's absurd to suggest that because James Earl Jones and Charleton Heston read the bible on DVD that no one can read the bible. That's not part nor related to this thread at all.

A closer version of this would be that ACID loops are copyrighted to their respective authors. You can use those ACID loops in any composition you wish. You can use a single loop as an underscore to any film you create. You can mix those loops together and create new loops, and therefore create a new copyright based on the derivative you generated by using those ACID loops. What you cannot do, is sell the original loop by itself, coupled with any other copyrighted works as a collection, anthology, or other non-creative work that embodies the original copyrighted work in no altered form. Sony and their artists have control only over the ORIGINAL work, the packaging of that work, and the artistic embodiment of that work. But you are given the right specifically, to create derivatives of the work in any way you see fit. Same situation with the bible reading. The book is public domain. Do with it what you wish. You can copyright any altered portion of the bible you wish to. You simply cannot copyright the original, because the copyright belongs to the people.