farrs ..I See what you mean I agree too.... Yes try to Obtain Permission from the Artist to use the Performance.... Explain What its for... Im sure that if the Artist responds it would be in a pOsitive way...I wonder if there is Classical Buyout Music too....

The only reason I've gone down the "gloom and doom" is because Randy's taken the position that a performer of a public domain work doesn't possess the right to assign or not assign the work. That's where the flaw is.

Of course anyone who does a new version of a public domain work or a non-public domain work can assign the rights elsewhere. Rights to a non-PD work have to be carefully assigned, or the artist could end up in trouble.

Here's another great example;
I can create a bust of Shakespeare and sell it. No one can stop me from copyrighting his image as personified in my sculpture. I own that image.
Now you come along and you're a painter. Do you have the right to paint a painting on a plate for instance, of my bust? Certainly. Can you replicate your painting and sell it? Not without my permission.
Could someone snap a photo of my sculpture and sell it? Not with out my permission.
(BTW, this is an exact example from the IP attorney who did the Caveats of Copyright video for VASST)
But anyone who creates anything from Public Domain works has the right, and should have the right to copyright their work.( I guess that makes it more positive, even though it's still argumentative to Randy's point.)

If that was his position then I agree, it's totally wrong.
What I thought was the issue was guitarist playing the PD piece in the church couldn't assign the rights because someone else had made a recording of the work.

I'd just add another point to my original one about getting your own guitarist. Even if you secured the rights to someone elses recording I'd suggest having your own guy playing the music in the church is going to be far more effective. A studio recording is no doubt a fine thing, it just doesn't go with images inside a church. A well done recording inside the self same church is going to capture the acoustics of that building. That way the sound lines up with the images to give a much better overall feel to the production.

OK you could use acoustic mirror but.....

Farss, I was responding to:
"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. "
and
"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."
and
" 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. "
in addition to a few other posts.
In other words, you and I (I think) are in total agreement on this issue. I was responding to the concept that if you didn't write the work you are performing, you have no right to protect your performance. If it's your performance, doesn't matter who wrote it. As long as you credit them, and pay the compulsories, it's yours to copyright as a derivative work. If it truly qualifies as such.

Spot,

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?

Most of these movies are various interpetations and also mixed with many added parts thus making it a rearrangements like "Shakespeare in Love"

"I can create a bust of Shakespeare and sell it. No one can stop me from copyrighting his image as personified in my sculpture. I own that image."

Again you would own this because this would be your interpetaion of Shakespeare himself like an rearrangment.

When I listened to the piece "Romance" and put it to video by Chero I could have played it in fact I know this piece myself. However, Charo (remember the love boat) played the entire piece as is with no Extra Chord changes.

Now if Chero wants to have this on her album and make 4 million fine that is wonderful but she should realize it is not her piece. What I'm saying and the current law disagrees with me is that everything in this world is about the mighty dollar no more is it about Honor. I'm an artist and have wrote over 100 original musical compositions and if someone asked me to play Bach's concerto #5 and I did at a musical hall and it was recorded and later on I'm watching a documentry on A&E about Bach and it is my performance I would be 100% honored and not sue A&E eventhough I could. Not every law in the land is 100% perfect just look at inheritance tax it is stemed by the greed of man.
Now if I played that Bach piece with a whole new addition of chords and new parts then that is a different story.
I'm just bummed I made a 50 hour church video with Mozart, Charo and other artist that played public Domain material and now in order for me to use it for a non profit church DVD I will have to ask for permission...does anyone have their phone numbers.

All performances of Shakespear are copyright, as are any books containing his words. His original words would have been copyrighted as well, all that has happened is with his passing and the passing fo time the copyright has been extinguished. But if I were to publish a volume of his work that contains his words and includes my comments and annotations then they are copyright as are the cover illustrations etc.

In the case of a performer playing a public domain piece his performance is copyright, in fact no matter where the music he is playing came from his performance is still copyright. These are two separate issues, if he wrote the music as well as performed it he could sell the rights to each separately to two different entities.
Two efforts were involved, writing the music and the performance, each of these has copyrights of its own because each involved work, work for which someone is both entitled to recompense and to have control over the use of.

Your theory at first sounds altruistic but it if nothing else its totally unworkable. Assume you made a recording of a copyrighted piece with the creators permission and then you sold it to a record label. Then the composer decides to put his work into the public domain, by your reasoning he just extinguished the copyright on your work.

Considerable expense is involved in the filming of classical PD works and large sums are spent making recordings of works of the great composers. Are you just suggesting because they are long gone, those who perform their works aren't entitled to the just rewards of THEIR work.

If you want to use the work of those masters, your free to do so, you just have to do a bit of work yourself or hire someone to do it for you, where oh where is the injustice in that?

I'm sorry but to me the answers to these questions are so obvious I cannot for the life of me understand why the are gone over and over again. For sure the guy who had a hit by recording the PD work got a bit of a free lunch, he didn't have to pay the composer, that doesn't mean he didn't do anything. It also means your are as free as he was to have a go yourself. There's nothing to stop you picking up the guitar and recording it yourself, might save you a phone call at least.

Lets say you needed some aerial footage of this city. So you hire a chopper, 35mm camera with a Tyler mount and operator ' all up at $6K/hour. On your logic as the city skyline isn'y copyright (well this one isn't) I should be able to use YOUR footage for free?
I mean if you were so kind I'd be eternally grateful, but rest assured I wouldn't be so generous, I still like to eat.

Just some of my thoughts These are just a Collection of working class Mans (ME)Opinions on things I know nothing about but want to comment from my position...( I Would probably feel Different if I was affected... I think if all Opinions are weighed and Averaged You end up with a pretty good idea of the Popular Consensus) Please feel free to disregard... This is the great thing about democracy though... Each and everyone of us can have a voice...

So heres my 2 Cents.. I mean tuppence worth..

I Think the one thing that laws cannot Communicate is COMMON Sense... For example..

If I found a pound in the street and put it in me pocket then thats not theft is it... I would not take the pound down the police station because its just not worth it..Also they would probably be annoyed that they would be tied up with all that Paperwork for no reason...

BUT If I found ten Thousand Pounds then did not report it that is theft The law is always Logical and cannot be applied well enough to the endless Possibilities that are human Traits ...

You see this is the Basis of the Discussion.. I say basis because as randy said and is true there would be Circumstances where the Artist would be happy to have there work aired freely...

BUT You cant ring the Artist up because it wouldent be worth their while to bother with all the requests ect..
Some people have ruined it by going over the top and taking advantage with Obvious unfair uses... The rule of law HAS In Certain instances been used unfairly...And my feeling here is its the Bad Lawyers that take ridiculous Claims to Court in order to make money... Now means we have to be Carefull not to be Criminalised and penalised... Not just in Copyright laws but in every area...

My Answer would be Lets be Carefull and Wary of Lawyers THAT are not fighting for truth and Justice... Make sure Our friends are Trustworthy with Principles... Its easy to be taken in because we all wanna be loved thats our Vulnerability the Fact we care is quite often an exploited weakness...

Want a Frightened Society... Then forget Common Sense Apply rigid laws THAT Have no flexibility.... I bet you can use one law to counter another in the Courtrooms... Its funny how the Lawyers that can use the rules to their Clients Advantage are also the most highly Paid..." Is that justice"... Or has Justice now got a Pricetag... We Already have Moral Guardians they are called Jurors or Jurys lets let them take more of the Decisions instead of rigid upholding of laws....

Mark,
I find it odd that you're trying to take the moral high ground on this. I don't steal other peoples work not out of fear of high priced lawyers but becuase I know it's wrong. I wouldn't steal the work of some bum busker on the street corner anymore than I would Madonna's.

I don't take that position because of the law or any religious conviction, I take it because I know right from wrong. Something about 'do unto others...' does come to mind.

If you despise overly paid lawyers so much, quickest way to do them out of a job would be if we stopped stealing other peoples work, then no one would need to hire them, now would they.

At the end of the day if this is a not for profit work for an NPO you may well find you'll get clearance to use the works anyway. Many of us here have done just that and been granted permission. Your first step is to ASK! You yourself are propably like most decent guys, if someone asked you for something reasonable you'd give it, what'd get you annoyed is if they just took it without asking. It's really that simple, don't obsess about lawyers and laws, this is ethics and morality you're talking about. The lawyesr get to feast on our lack of those qualities.

Bob
I dont despise Lawyers...

Why do you think Im taking the Moral High Ground ?

I agree with everything you have said in Regards Copyright... I just feel a little Common Sense is sometimes needed..

Your Saying always ask... Randy Said well Give him the Phone Number... YOU CANT Always ask... OK then set up an Agency that you can ask... Well there is one which is fine for the Bigger players.. you would end up paying a lotta money..So in the absence of a smaller agency geared for small uses.... Just so the Church could play A song relevant to the Sermon Cmon... Would ya Mind that much if the Church played Your SONG... Hey Play mine... If you want... I will Publicly state that if I ever Make a Song all Churches can freely play them as a Congregation... I would also add any Old Peoples Home or Charity can Too... Any other requests Will be looked into THIS I Promise..

Is that not what most reasonable People would say... This was all I was trying to get across

Hey Guess what... To add to School kids being taken to Court... Add Churchs to that List... There is Only the Old People to Take to task Now...

This was My Point Farrs Common Sense ...

Mark,
if what you need is PD material I'm certain you can get most of what you need in buyout libraries, it may not be the greatest recordings of all time of the work but should be pretty good and the prices are usually pretty reasonable.

Look I take your point about how difficult it can be to find who the heck to ask. That is an issue for sure and one where the wheels have fallen off the process but the way to fix it sure isn't stealing other peoples property.

But there's anothe issues here, not just financial. Every performer has the right not only to compensation for their work but also to decide where and for what purpose it's being performed. You may not see that as significant because you feel its for gods work and therefore why should anyone object to that. But if you take that view then you've got to give up the right to control what was created for the benefit of the church being used for whatever purpose anyone decides.
I'd guess you be rightly miffed to discover your rendition Oh Come All Yee Faithful being used as the backing track for some porno production.
I would agree, things do seem to have gotten a bit out of hand but they got that way by people pushing the envelope if you know what I mean. I'm no friend of the big record labels but no one hirers high priced lawyers without a reason, if they did their shareholders might start asking a few questions.

"kids being taken to court?" First, it didn't happen anymore than the old man who was also on the list of registered illegal downloaders. The name of the child was exempted as was the elderly man once it was known that their name had been misused.

Second, Churches are amongst the biggest offenders of copyright violation in the form of copying sheet music and using music synced to video. I can't enumerate how many times I've been told I should allow my music to be synced to video for Praise. Guess what? That's not my religion. But it IS my choice. And in cases like the Maranatha Collections, I've allowed my music to be used because it's non-denominational. Heck, just recently the Mormon church had to send a SECOND notice to their congregations warning of the consequences of copying sheet music. Apparently they didn't get it the first time just over a year ago. They are exposed to massive lawsuits, and should be.

Third, you ask for a place where you can find the owner and ask permission? It's always been there since 1884. (actually earlier, but before then it wasn't their responsiblity) It's called the Library of Congress. You can search online, you can pay a small fee and have someone manually search it out, you can send a letter. If it's copyrighted, they'll find the owner.
And there is an agency you can ask in lieu of finding the owner, Harry Fox agencies exist in addition to other sync-licensing companies, not to mention the publisher themselves, which can nearly always be found in the CD liner notes.
The question, the one it always comes back to, is "why is it so expensive to obtain sync rights." And the answer to which, is why so many people steal, borrow, or improperly use copyrighted media. Lee Greenwood's publishers just won a lawsuit against a church in Texas for broadcasting his songs without rights, synced to video of their choir. He was castigated for suing a church. He didn't do it. His publisher did on their behalf. They own part of the songs too. And when elderly people start illegally syncing music for broadcast or replication purposes, they'll get sued too.
There is no "divine right" nor "elderly right" nor "charity right" nor "absolute right" when it comes to using the property of others. There is only copyright, and that belongs to the author. As I said before, I'm stupefied that this discourse is even taking place. Again.

Bob I do not need to use others work... I have used Buyout Music and currently Creating/ Composing my own stuff... Have a look... I would greatly appreciate your Opinions... Because I really do respect yours and Filmys and Spots Opinions amongst others.. Even VCs who may be a bit Forward at times... but ALL GOOD STUFF...


http://vegasusers.com/vidshare/textdisp?mark2929-alien_wars_beginning

Spot, you are soo right about the abuse of copyright laws in churches. My brother-in-law does video for a major church in Detriot, they uses movies scenes, commercial music with thier music and sell the combined performances to members and the local communinty,(without the copyright owner permission). Since my brother-in-law works in the county adm.(court system), I'm been amazed that in our arguements the highground he asumes, especially since the church lets him keep most of the money! One moment, their willing to put someone in jail for a parking ticket, but stealing someelse copyright material,(music, software, or video) its ok! I'll not against churches, but stealing for profit is not saintly conduct.

AJP

Great discourse! I have a couple points of clarification for those who may be interested.

Before you go out and record your own version of the Bible, be aware that only the King James Version is public domain. Thus, you must get permission from the translators of any of the other popular Bible translations if you plan on using their versions for anything other than your own reading enjoyment. And, of course, they collect royalties on many forms of usage.

Also, a creation or a derivitave work or performance does NOT need to be registered with the Library of Congress to be protected. In fact, all creative works of any American are automatically copyrighted at the time they are created or performed. No registration is needed to enjoy this right. However, registration is your main, and sometimes only, defense in court were you to ever be challenged as the copyright owner. I bring this up because many people have the misconception that if a composer/performer does not register their work, that they don't care how it is used and are allowing for public domain use. As you can see, this is absolutely not the case.

Just remember, the law always sides with the original creator or interpretor. So, be very careful what works you choose to use for any purpose, and always secure permissions from and pay appropriate royalties to the owners of copyrights. If this upsets you, use royanty free materials exclusively, or go study some form of artistic expression yourself and create your own works or derivitaves of public domain works. In fact, if you choose to do the latter, you just may find your opinion changing about the rights of creators and performers.

Jeremy

Great post. Yeah, I found it ironic that the people that did the WEB edition of the bible have had to rewrite the whole darn thing from the King James version. Imagine, the bible being copyrighted? And then they turned around and registered copyright on the WEB (World Edition Bible) for anyone not using it for web/internet use. So you can't read that on tape either. But heck, if they've taken the time to translate that whole thing...they deserve to own the copyright to their translation.

... Further Points of clarification (or confusion) from TITLE 17 of The United States Code:

§ 411. Registration and infringement actions10
(a) Except for an action brought for a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A(a), and subject to the provisions of subsection (b), no action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title. In any case, however, where the deposit, application, and fee required for registration have been delivered to the Copyright Office in proper form and registration has been refused, the applicant is entitled to institute an action for infringement if notice thereof, with a copy of the complaint, is served on the Register of Copyrights. The Register may, at his or her option, become a party to the action with respect to the issue of registrability of the copyright claim by entering an appearance within sixty days after such service, but the Register's failure to become a party shall not deprive the court of jurisdiction to determine that issue.

(b) In the case of a work consisting of sounds, images, or both, the first fixation of which is made simultaneously with its transmission, the copyright owner may, either before or after such fixation takes place, institute an action for infringement under section 501, fully subject to the remedies provided by sections 502 through 506 and sections 509 and 510, if, in accordance with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation, the copyright owner —

(1) serves notice upon the infringer, not less than 48 hours before such fixation, identifying the work and the specific time and source of its first transmission, and declaring an intention to secure copyright in the work; and

(2) makes registration for the work, if required by subsection (a), within three months after its first transmission.
__________________________________
And this from "Definitions":

To “transmit” a performance or display is to communicate it by any device or process whereby images or sounds are received beyond the place from which they are sent.
__________________________________
Also this from "Definitions":

”Publication” is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.

To perform or display a work “publicly” means —

(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or

(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.
_____________________________________

All of that says to me that I should file for copyright registration within 90 days of recording my work and "transmitting" it to anyone's eyes or ears to ensure my right to file an infringement suit.

Blues

P.S.- I'm not a lawyer and could be wrong... just ask my wife.
(BTW, I stole that joke....)

Actually, while you are correct, newer provisions allow you to continue your copyright while it's in work. You can file an unfinished work if you need to, but even if you don't. so long as it's tangible, you're covered as of 1989, AND you affix the circle C to your work, even without registration. However, claims are indeed much harder without registration. But if it's a work in progress....Amending costs the same as submitting, but it's cheap insurance.
http://www.vasst.com/dvdproducts/caveats_copyright.htm

"Actually, while you are correct, newer provisions allow you to continue your copyright while it's in work. "

Okay, now you've got me curious. I would never knowingly quote an outdated source for information of such import. I suppose I should have included the following in my already long and tedious post (both from circular 92, Copyright Law of the United States of America
and Related Laws Contained in Týtle 17 of the United States Code, June 2003):

"Preface
This volume contains the text of title 17 of the United States Code, including all amendments enacted through the end of the second session of the 107th Congress in 2002. It includes the Copyright Act of 1976 and all subsequent amendments to copyright law; the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act of 1984, as amended; and the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act, as amended."

So if there have been changes to this document since, I would like to know and would stop quoting from http://www.copyright.gov. I do not wish to pass along erroneous information.

Blues

Randy I was thinking.... Perhaps the Church with its networks and other Churches ect...Could get together on this must be enough Musicians to be able to meet up and record Loads Of Out of Copyright Songs and use them Freely... Also the Church could make a little at reduced pricing to the Public... As Buyout Music...I would certainly Buy stuff...I think a lot of people would Buy Music from the Church ..If it was more Mainstream...

Blues,

There is a difference between a work that has been "created" and a work that has been "published". Any work that has been published must be registered with at least two of the best versions of the publication sent to be kept on file with the Library of Congress. You have a brief window of time in which this must occur. (I believe it's 90 days.)

However, a work that is "in progress" or that is in its final form but has not been "published" does not have to be registered to still enjoy copyright protection which is granted automatically at the point the work is created, whether in part or in whole. In such a case, affix the circle C to your work to indicate that you are claiming your copyright. As always, though, your best and possibly only defense in court may be a registration. So it's still a wise idea to register a work even if it is not yet published. Note, however, that you must still register the published work upon its publication so that the Library of Congress maintains the two best versions of the publication on hand. (Only one version is needed to register unpublished works.)

Hope that clears up some things.

Jeremy

Since there appears to be so much interest in this subject, I thought I'd throw out a quick tip to those who may not be aware of it.

If you have multiple creative works to register that have not been published, you may be concerned about the $30 copyright registration fee you would need to pay to register each work. As a prolific songwriter, I was also frustrated by the notion that I would have to pay a separate registration fee for each new song I wrote, until the copyright office informed me of this great alternative:

Pack all the songs you can on a CD or all the videos you can on a DVD and give the compilation a name, such as "My Songs Volume 1". Then copyright the entire compilation for one registration fee as opposed to paying a separate fee for each work. Remember, though, that the works in the compilation must be "unpublished" works. Once a work has been published in any form, you must register it separately. This is a great method, though, for aspiring artists with limited budgets to secure their copyright protection. In fact, even as you begin to enjoy greater success in your craft, you may wish to use this method to copyright works in progress each month or each quarter, for instance.

Anyway, keep creating!

Jeremy