There is a special problem with regard to copyrights of traditional music. Since copyright is based on WRITTEN or recorded works, there is no understanding of music preserved orally. So, if I hear a traditional singer sing a song and I transcribe it then (according to UK law, at least) it becomes my copyright. Also, if I sing that song but do not claim copyright in it for ethical reasons then if someone records it they can claim copyright (that happened with Ewan MacColl who recorded his mother's Lord Randall, didn't claim copyright, but someone else did). So the songs in Hugill's book are his copyright (or his estate's, since he is dead). People in the industry get round this by the "new words and music by" or "arrangement by" scams. Clearly ABC, like all notation systems, is a very blunt instrument for folk music, and it could well be maintained that an ABC transcription was a new arrangement. Back in the Sixties, as I recall, Stephen Sedley (now a High Court judge but then a left-wing folkie) produced a long study of the legal situation as regards folk music, which was published in their journal by the National Book League. At much the same time, I got the late Norman Buchan MP, then Labour minister for the arts and himself one of the pioneers of the Scottish folk revival, to convene some meetings at the House of Commons to discuss the possibility of setting up a special fund for traditional music, to which royalties on all music claiming a traditional origin would be paid. This was scuppered, primarily by Novello, whose rights in a lot of the music collected in the early 20th Century they were guarding jealously. Of course, a lot of those old copyrights are now expiring. As an interesting sidelight, I use ABC primarily as a composition tool on my Palm-compatible Treo PDA. If I were to distribute my tunes in ABC format, anyone transcribing them into conventional staff notation might well have a right in law to claim copyright. So I better not!
------------------------------ Karl Dallas Please note: This is a personal communication, representing my own personal views, and does not necessarily represent the views of any organisation with which I may be connected, locally, nationally, or internationally. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Phil Taylor Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 10:41 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [abcusers] music copyrights Travis Glaab wrote: >on 12/18/02 7:20 PM, Phil Taylor at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> It's a bit more complicated than that. >> >> Try here: >> >> http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm > > >O.K. That applies to original work, correct? > >What about traditional or folk songs that are first collected and then >published, for example Stan Hugill's collections of Sea Shanties? > >Would it be legal to exchange individual tunes transcribed from a text, with >bibliographical info included with the tune? > >The entire collection of tunes from a specific text transcribed and put into >a single abc file would be a violation. > >The book or collection is the protected work, the tunes themselves are >public domain? IANAL, but I'd guess that's true. "Fair Use" permits you to reproduce a part of a copyrighted work for academic or other non-profit purposes, provided this has no negative impact on sales of the original work, but reproducing the whole collection is always likely to get you into trouble. How big a part you can reproduce is left open, and would probably take a court case to decide. It's always safest to seek permission from the copyright holder. Phil Taylor To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
