IMSLP Forums

If you write the actual music of a copywrited work by hand, does it still count as copywrite infringement? Just wondering.....

It depends on what you do with it. To republish it or redistribute it would be.

That would depend on how you define "write". If you're referring to hand-copying a work that was previously published (and engraved or typeset), then that would most likely represent an infringement. If you transcribed a piece from a recording or performance, it may not be an issue.

If the recording is of a non-PD work, that would be an arrangement.
Put it this way: If Allegri's Miserere were copyright in Mozart's time, he would have been infringing under modern law.

As perlnerd666 and Daphnis have mentioned, the method of copying is irrelevant. So, even if you write out a piece of copyrighted music by hand, you are in fact violating the copyright law - at least in the USA.

Hi experts

so if I handwrite or typeset a score which is in copyright, it's is still in copyright.
(or better say I'm even not allowed to do so).
If I do that from an recording then the score is out of copyright.
But where is the border?
If I could notate a song from a recording with the exact notes as
the original copyright work, what then?
With other words, how much modifications from an original copyright work are
needed, that it is regarded as an transcription?
I suppose this would a case by case decision by the court, or?
(question 1)


My second question the other way around,
Just printing the "Scenes from Bavarian Highlands" from Elgar :
http://www2.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Elgar.
Here the score seems to be out copyright (older than 75 years).
The typesetter wrote on his work:
"Copyright 2004 Stuart McIntosh
The edition for distribution in the USA only"

If it is an transcription (again referring to question 1)
he can of course do what he/she wants.

But if is is an 1:1 typesetting of the original work?
(as it seems to be in this case)

Here I have several questions:

- If a score is out of copyright, can a typesetter claim copyright on his exactly retyped work?
(I fear he could)
(question 2a)
- If yes, can the typesetter then claim copyright restrictions based an countries
even in the case the original score does not have such restriction?
(question 2b)

- Since it's not a label, does the typesetter to have to put an email-address on the score ?
(how to contact him otherwise?)
(question 3)


I hope these questions have not been asked before, my fast scanning did not find such questions.
Any help here is really appreciated!

Didi

The border is quite clear: If you take a written document in copyright and either copy or re-write it, that is a violation. If you take a recording and create your INTERPRETATION of a written document, that is a different story.

For the second part, I have not examined the score you mention, but if this person has done a typeset of the edition in the public domain, it would still be in public domain. Someone may CLAIM copy protection, but that doesn't necessarily make it so.
So the answers to 2a and 2b are 'no'.

Re. #3, what does a "label" mean in this case? Regardless, you're not required to put anything on the document other than a copyright symbol and the date it was registered (or claimed).

Daphnis

BIG thanks for the quick answer!

so whatever the rights of the individual score had been
an exact typesetting does not change those.
Good - one problem solved (the main one).

Still back to question 1 - if I would retype a score in copyright with small modifications
(and of course would use a different score layout as the original score), then what?
When does the INTERPRETATION starts?
How to prove that I used the original written score for my INTERPRETATION and not a recording?

A very simple example - I take an easy waltz- but now on the left
hand I put the first note on each bar on octaves where else the original has no octaves, just simple notes.
Is this now an interpretation?
Where is the border, from where a court would accept this now as an Interpretaion?
(as the above example, I would NOT do so).
Do we have fixed rules here?

Again big thanks for the very fast reply !!!

Didi (Germany)

Let me put it this way: If you have a written document that is protected and you use that as a basis for any transformations, you are committing a copyright violation unless you have written permission from the copyright holder(s). What you describe is not an interpretation, it is a re-working. To take a blueprint or schematic of something and alter it, in whatever way, is not the same thing as taking an execution or interpretation of that blueprint and going in the reverse direction.

Daphis

muchas gracias

I understand what you say.
I also have a quite good feeling of what is an modified/extended reprint as you mention here..
But judges in a court hearing won't have it (normally).
So they have to rely on expert on what is an transcription/enhancement.

Do we have FIXED rules by law in this question?
General ones/per country perhaps?
Written down .. do we?

Sorry to bother you again and again with this question,
which I see - from judiciary point of view - is not identically solved

Thanks!

Didi (Germany)

We have general rules as laid down by copyright law, which must be interpreted for legal validity. But that said, the scenario which you supplied above needs no judge to interpret--it is clearly in violation.

Didi, I think you are missing the main point -- if a work is under copyright, you have no right whatsoever to modify it or interpret it in any way without the express permission of the composer. You simply can't get around copyright by making small modifications. You have no right to do that. It IS illegal.

You haven't said why you want to do this, or what copyright work you are wanting to copy, but please also be aware that copying it out by hand might be a convenient way to avoid paying to purchase a copy, but that is also illegal.