IMSLP Forums

I'm interested in knowing why Clarence Ashley has been designated as the "arranger" of this submission. As far as I know, it has never been officially notated in any form. I've had no contact with Ashley whatsoever. Why shouldn't I be able to claim to be the arranger of my submission? Many other authors have published their arrangements of this piece based on the same YouTube videos.

I think I could answer this question. You said that you has "Based on the playing of Clarence Ashley" right? Then how do you know if Ashley has NOT arranged the work in his performance? Notated or not is not the criteria for that. Since you said "Based on" someone's performance, we assumed that you are not the arranger, but the editor or engraver as you would just say you ARRANGED the work as well. It doesn't show your name as arranger at the score you uploaded as well LOL

You can claim to be an arranger/transcriber, but if Ashley improvised or devised his version of the song, then he is one too, and this is relevant for copyright purposes.

I'm not doubting that Ashley was an arranger of the song but I guess I should have claimed that too. If I were to revise the score with that claim, would the copyright status change?

rdtennent wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2023 12:42 pm I'm not doubting that Ashley was an arranger of the song but I guess I should have claimed that too. If I were to revise the score with that claim, would the copyright status change?

No, it's the same either way

I'm baffled. I can point to any number of publications of arrangements "based on" performances of folk musicians; are these publications violating the copyrights of the performers? What if I *hadn't* specified that my arrangement was based on the playing of Clarence Ashley. How would anyone know? I thought only "tangible" works could be copyrighted.

rdtennent wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2023 10:02 pm I'm baffled. I can point to any number of publications of arrangements "based on" performances of folk musicians; are these publications violating the copyrights of the performers?

Maybe? The performers could also have their works be naturally in the public domain (as is the case for Ashley in Canada). Or the performer may have authorized the edition. Or the performer's contribution may have been creatively insubstantial. Or some of those may in fact be copyright infringements on the performer's original work (sometimes). It's somewhat complex and I can't really give a generalized answer.

What if I *hadn't* specified that my arrangement was based on the playing of Clarence Ashley. How would anyone know?

Well, It's not really relevant whether or not the reader happens to figure it out. The question is whether or not the edition contains anything which is particular enough to what Ashley chooses to do as to be copyrightable (which will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction).

I thought only "tangible" works could be copyrighted.

Yes, but any form of recording (including audio or video recording) puts the work in a "fixed form" (which makes it copyrightable). In Canada (and many other countries), performers also must agree in order for the work to be put in a fixed form to begin with (whether by recording or transcription).

What details did you take from Ashley specifically? Fingerings in the tablature?

From his recorded performances (available on YouTube), I notated what he was playing on the banjo and singing, and added the corresponding tablature. It was essential that I knew how his banjo was tuned and the "clawhammer" technique he was using.

Then it would fall into the "fixed form" scenario as you used his recording with his "creative" interpretation, which makes it copyrightable with the performer virtually everywhere (albeit in this case the copyright is expired in Canada).