According to http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm
As of January 1, 2014: All works published prior to 1923 are in the Public Domain. There are special cases, none of which relate to music published before 1900. Works published outside the US by foreign nationals without compliance to US formalities and public domain in their own countries as of 1 January 1996 are in the Public Domain. Solely published abroad, without compliance with US formalities or republication in the US, and not in the public domain in its home country as of 1 January 1996 are in the Public Domain starting 95 years after the publication date. There are special cases which might change the date or status, including lists of countries whose authors/composers have no protection in the US until those countries enter into bilateral or cooperative copyright agreements. In short, the date is now 1923, and without a doubt, no lute music published before, say, 1880, is likely to be copyrighted. Copyrights on recordings are individual and specific: If you make your own recording and the copyright of the score you work from does not specify that performance rights are secured, there should be no problem. Certainly, for any recording made by one of our members working from an original source or facsimile of original source, there should be no issue. The only possible impediment might be if it comes from a library scan obtained from the internet where you have to agree with terms to download the source, and the agreement specifies that you can't perform from it. As for the question of whether a library can hold a copyright on an original work dating before 1923, the courts have no spoken, yet. Most libraries will require you to obtain permission in writing, which amounts to a contract limiting what you can do with the score or any copies you make (including photographic/repro). The information on the pages, though, is uncopyrightable. And further contention arises over commercially-produced facsimiles, but even here, unless significant work has been done to reconstruct obscured portions (and that work is properly copyrighted), it is difficult to support a claim of piracy against a facsimile: the only thing that is allowed to be copyrighted is the work attempting to exactly reproduce the look and feel of the original, and xeroxes of facsimiles aren't likely to be successfully challenged. Transcriptions from heavily-edited facsimilies is such a murky subject that the more expensive lawyer is more likely to determine the outcome than actual judicial decision. One thing to watch out for: the Government sometimes goes on a copyright rant, seeking some quota of court cases to provide precedence with which to imbue their rules with teeth. Usually this happens after a major change in the rules, and involves 10 or 20 organizations or individuals (usually schools and churches), and based on my readings and the summaries of others who have had far more experience in the field, these are generally adjudicated more on whether the complainant can show evil intentions on the part of the violator; being a corporation generally is sufficient proof of evilness. You'll find, on every page that is not .gov, a disclaimer that the above does not constitute forming a confidential lawyer-client relationship, and a whole bunch more legaleseCYA. All I'll say is that this is the results of my research over the last 10 years, and they're as likely to be flawed as I am. YMMV and I hope never to see anyone in court. >> On 21 March 2014 14:13, Duncan Midwinter >> <[3][email protected] >> (mailto:[email protected])> wrote: >> >> Can anyone give me some advice on how to proceed with my YouTube >> video? On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Duncan Midwinter <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks David, > > This was very helpful. > > > On Friday, 21 March 2014 at 14:21, David van Ooijen wrote: > >> Find below my standard answer. Dates/period adapted to specific video, >> and I think 1922 should be adapted by now. I think key words are Public >> Dmain, original score/publication/own arrangement. Usually the >> copyright notice is taken away within hours. Anyway, even if the >> copyright issue remains, your video will stay online. >> This is music in the public domain. Originally it appeared in a 17th >> century manuscript. I play from the original score/I made my own >> arrangement of the original score. >> "Music and lyrics published in 1922 or earlier are in the Public Domain >> in the United States. No one can claim ownership of a song in the >> public domain. Public Domain music and songs may be used by anyone . . >> . without permission, without royalties, and without any limitations >> whatsoever." >> David >> >> ******************************* >> David van Ooijen >> [1][email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) >> [2]www.davidvanooijen.nl (http://www.davidvanooijen.nl) >> ******************************* >> On 21 March 2014 14:13, Duncan Midwinter >> <[3][email protected] >> (mailto:[email protected])> wrote: >> >> Can anyone give me some advice on how to proceed with my YouTube >> video? >> I uploaded a video of myself playing Dowland's `A Fancy' on the >> guitar to YouTube and my video is marked with a copyright notice: >> "Fantasia "a Fancy", musical composition administered by: One or >> more music publishing rights collecting societies >> What can I do? Surely Dowland is all out of copyright! >> Duncan. >> -- >> To get on or off this list see list information at >> [4]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> >> -- >> >> References >> >> 1. mailto:[email protected] >> 2. http://www.davidvanooijen.nl/ >> 3. mailto:[email protected] >> 4. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > >
