original music for non-PD text

[Benjamin Shute]

I'd like to post a score of new music written to a certain readily-accessible but non-PD text. Does anyone know whether it is legally acceptable to indicate which poem the music sets and then, without including the copyrighted words, simply give an asterisk for each syllable change?

[Carolus]

Can't post here without the text copyright owner's permission. In the USA, you cannot even set the text to music without permission in writing. Other countries are more lenient about the creation of such new works. Since posting at IMSLP meets the definition of "publication" in most places, they cannot be posted here even if you're in a country where no permission is required to set the text to music.

[pml]

In the past composers who failed to get permission for the setting of a particular text usually got around it by setting a different text: some poets are happy to supply verses designed to fit a particular metre and rhyming scheme to help a composer “rescue” such a piece of music. Your piece should make no explicit indication of the alternative, proscribed text. I am inclined to think indicating the original poem, and “changes” by means of asterisks would be too close to actual infringement.

Cheers, Philip

[steltz]

On a related note, Frank Zintl's Das einsame Schlossgespenst does, in fact, make mention of the text that he explicitly states he doesn't have permission to use.

Should we remove the reference, remove the piece, or contact him?

[Edit] The PDF file mentions the author of the text specifically, so the file itself would need to be removed.

[pml]

I didn’t realise, but Frank Zintl goes under the name of Odin when he posts here on the forums and on the main Wiki.

It doesn’t appear the original author of the text is particularly notable one way or the other, and the lack of permission may simply be to suppress rival musical settings to his own. I suggest asking Odin to resubmit the file under a non-descript title and remove the reference to the lyricist.

Cheers, Philip

[steltz]

I'm not a copyright reviewer, so I don't have permission to block the file, though I can delete the page (not preferable since he will have to re-create it).

Could one of the CR's please block the file, and I will contact him to re-load. Thanks.

[Edit] Never mind, I just found the image delete function, so I've deleted the image. The following mail has been sent to him.

**************
Dear Frank:

Unfortunately, this work will have to be blocked, for reasons discussed in the following forum:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4678

The bottom line is that advertising which copyrighted words are to be used encourages people to go find those words and use them without honouring the copyright on those words.

You may re-load the file, but the reference in the PDF to the author of the words needs to be removed, and the comments on the page detailing which copyrighted words are to be used will also have to be removed.

Thank you for your assistance.

[KGill]

Wait a second...does that really make any sense? How can we claim that citing the author of the text (not the text itself) "encourages people to go find those words and use them without honouring the copyright on those words"? If the text is not actually included, then there's no copyright violation, right? This would have far-reaching implications - for instance, we would have to take down our page for Porgy and Bess, even though it includes no text by Ira Gershwin, because it has scores of piano arrangements of the melodies that text was set to. If this is correct, then we would have to take down a fair amount of things currently online...

[pml]

There’s no indication that the piano arrangements ever raised the ire of Ira, or were done without receiving permission to do so. The premise here is hosting an arrangement which is designed to infringe a copyright and the author explicitly says he or she hasn’t obtained the appropriate permission, or is unable to obtain an exemption for his/her music.

I think this case – a 35 year old, single page composition based on an apparently non-notable songwriter’s work – is probably at the extreme low end of seriousness, but the original question has some significant implications, e.g. the hullabaloo over “Happy Birthday” rather than the original text of “Good morning to all”...

[Carolus]

KGill is correct. As long as there is no quotation of the copyrighted material - the lyrics of Frank Zintl's former friend in this case - there is no actual copyright infringement. The issue of whether Frank is advertising or advocating that users locate the original (copyrighted) text and use the it with Frank's melody is another matter, as it could be construed as encouraging people to violate a copyright (although that is really grasping at straws, IMO). Nevertheless, I think the file should be replaced just to be extra safe. If there was a URL or a direct link to the offending text, it would be even more of an issue.

[Odin]

Hello

I am very disappointed the the administrators removed my little melody from
my composer's page on the single reason that I quoted three words (the title)
of the lyrics written by a former friend.

Quoting only the title, but not the complete lyrics, should be innocent since
everybody can invent a song title consisting of only three words.

The title was: Das einsame Schlossgespenst (The lonely Castle Ghost)

Right now I am trying to get in contact with my former friend in order to
obtain his formal permission, but so far I got no reply from him. Some people
seem to be angry still after 35 years.

I would like to ask the administrators to put my melody back on my page.

Best regards

Frank Zintl (Odin)

[steltz]

You would have to re-load the image yourself, but without reference to the words or author of it. Please see this topic:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5833&p=30740&hilit= ... ics#p30740

The post referred to a different piece of music, but to quote the relevant part of it for this piece:

". . . if you are publishing an accompaniment (without words) that clearly is intended to be used with the words that a singer is supposed to source elsewhere, then your intent is that the words get used, in which case your intent is to circumvent copyright, which will be deemed illegal."

This stance was confirmed by Carolus, especially as interpreted in US law.

If I remember correctly (and I can't check it now with the image gone), the text at the top of your piece indicated pretty clearly that the tune was to be sung to the words of the poem that you didn't have permission for. This puts it in the category discussed under intent.

Therefore, the image you are asking us to restore cannot be posted, but your tune on its own certainly could be, if you would be so kind as to remove the reference to text/author (unless of course, your former friend relents and sends you permission).

[Odin]

Hello

I will not re-load anything. I did not remove the score, so I feel no
responsibility to put it back in place. I feel sad and disappointed.

Furthermore I am sure that a string of three simple common words
not is subject to any copyright legislation.

Additionally I am a confessing member of the Pirate Party which
claims substantial changes in the international copyright laws in
favour to usual commoners like you and me.

Odin

[Odin]

Hello

My reply is a serious complaint at the same time !!

Frank Zintl (Odin)

[steltz]

Because you are registering this as a serious complaint, let me address the two pertinent issues:

Furthermore I am sure that a string of three simple common words
not is subject to any copyright legislation.

Additionally I am a confessing member of the Pirate Party which
claims substantial changes in the international copyright laws in
favour to usual commoners like you and me.

Odin

The problem is that if those three common words indicate intent to circumvent copyright, then IMSLP can be held liable, which is something that cannot be allowed to happen. In the case of this work, the words on their own might not arouse any suspicion of intent, but you actually mentioned the author of the poem in your PDF, which would make the connection absolutely clear.

As I said in a previous post, "If I remember correctly (and I can't check it now with the image gone), the text at the top of your piece indicated pretty clearly that the tune was to be sung to the words of the poem that you didn't have permission for. This puts it in the category discussed under intent.

As to the Pirate Party claiming substantial changes to international copyright laws, this stance on its own cannot alter a copyright review process. The fact is that unless and until those laws are formally changed, IMSLP can be prosecuted under them. Just because someone feels strongly that the law should allow something doesn't mean that it does.

The tune itself can definitely be posted, but not with an instruction to sing words to it that are still under copyright and that you do not have permission to use.

[Odin]

Hello Steltz

I am so tired from all formalistic and constructed arguments
concerning the corrupt copyright legislation of today. This
legislation is a product of several decades of one-sided
lobbying by the content industry. It is not fair at all to normal
commoners and it is not in agreement with common interests
and the political will of the majority. Therefore it is perhaps
legal, but deeply immoral itself.

I do not encourage to any ... which expression did you use ... ?

The probability that my quotation of three words should cause
any copyright infringement by other people is simply non-existing.

If things like that might happen - let the people contact me.
I would really like to take this responsibility, knowing the whole
Pirate Party supporting me from behind.

A substantial reform of the whole copyright legislation is
necessary:

- Less rights to the copyright owners, more rights to common people!

Especially the protection times should be radically shortened, to the
same extent as the ones which apply to inventions according to the
patent legislation. Artist do not deserve longer protection times for their
artistic work than inventors do for their technical innovations. Both
groups are creative workers, and therefore they deserve the same
type of legal protection.

I do not accept your having-removed my little melody from the site.
I expect that the same person who removed it also will put it back.

If there will be any complaints from my former friend - I will give him
a personal lesson how to behave. He is a christian and a priest - he
should live in a spirit of mercy and forgiving.

Frank Zintl