Distributing free, performing etc not

[Josef]

Hello,

I'm a german composer, working professionally (that also means earning part of my life expense), member of GEMA (like ASCAP in the US) and looking for a serious platform to distribute my sheet music by the internet.
After I read the licenses page I'm still uncertain of what is possible or not.

What I would like to do is to provide my scores for free, so that everyone interested can download it, study and share. I named it NON-COMMERCIAL COPYING WELCOME. All the other utilisation rights (like performing, broadcasting, recording, etc) are holded by GEMA, so they are not free.

I am under the impression that the term PERSONAL was covering this and that I just have to explain what is free and what not.
Am I right?

In case I'm not or anyway, wouldn't it be appropriate to establish such a license? I'm sure I'm not the only pro who is considering quitting to depend on a certain publisher since the internet can do the same job more effective.

Thanks for your help.
Josef

[imslp]

You can get what you want by dual licensing your scores, sort of like some GPL dual licensing. Basically it works like this: you license it under a non-commercial free license (ex. Creative Commons ShareAlike Non-commercial), and then request that people get another license (of your choosing) if they want to use the work commercially; or you can transfer this license to someone else (like the GEMA).

In this way, you can submit the scores to IMSLP under either CC-SA-NC or Personal. If you choose not to use CC-SA-NC but Personal instead, please state clearly in the score that this is the case (like the "Non-commercial copying welcome") notice you suggested. Though, CC-SA-NC is suggested just because it is a real fully reviewed license, so it may be easier for you

Hope this helps

[Josef]

Thanks for your suggestion.

I've studied the CC licenses now but can't find a fitting one. The problem lies in the "non-commercial use" and in me being a GEMA member respectively.
The "non-commercial use" would also include benefit performances for example, that are, following GEMA rules, as obliged to pay royalties as any other performance (less perhaps but still).

Thus, I guess I just don't have a choice but using the PERSONAL way and explaining as clearly and short as possible what is free and what not. Unless I leave the GEMA ...

Well, I will just give it a try, upload a score and then request your review to make sure, it follows this site's policy.

So long

[Josef]

Ok, it's done.
http://www.imslp.org/wiki/Category:Irgmaier%2C_Josef

I hope everything is in order.

[imslp]

I've also updated the "personal" criteria:

http://www.imslp.org/wiki/IMSLP:Free_content_licenses

You may want to specify that all performance (whether non-commercial or not) is prohibited without permission somewhere in the file or the file entry on the wiki

[Josef]

Thank you very much for your help and all that work.

I've updated my file submission entry:
http://imslp.org/wiki/Concertino_%28Irg ... C_Josef%29

Ok?

[Josef]

Dear administrators,

I've read the new policy.
http://imslp.org/wiki/CC-SA_or_similar

For cc licenses are the only option I cannot stay. Unfortunately, there is no cc license that meets my situation (GEMA).
I wonder why. It shouldn't be a great problem to create a license that allows copying and distributing sheet music but not the performing. I'll ask the cc.

Meanwhile please remove my complete page (composer plus works).
http://imslp.org/wiki/Category:Irgmaier%2C_Josef

Thank you for your worthwile work. Wish you all the best. This site could become a valuable source of information not only for amateurs but musicologists and professional musicians too.

Josef

[Carolus]

Josef,

I'm a bit late to this debate, but I fail to see what the big deal is, at least as far as US law in concerned. If your work is protected by copyright (which it is unless you explicity declare in writing that it is public domain), no one has the right to perform the work in public - apart from very limited circumstances - without having the blanket license from ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC (who operate under reciprocal agreements with GEMA).

Moreover, if you place a copyright notice on your scores and simply include a line such as: "Non-commercial distribution permitted. All other rights, including rights of public performance, are strictly reserved", you would have ample grounds to bring suit in US courts if someone actually performed the work without a license from ASCAP, et al.

I think if you used either the "Personal" or "CC-NC-ND" notice, you would be covered as far as any obligations to GEMA. "Benefit" performances do not qualify as non-profit under US law. If anyone - either a performer, a promoter, or a marketiing agency is paid, it automatically disqualifies the performance as "non-profit." About the only exemptions allowed in the US are 1) performances given in the course of an avtual religious service (not a concert given in a church); 2) performances given in the course of an actual class at a school or university (not simply performances taking place at a school by a school band or ensemble).

[imslp]

Hi Josef!

For cc licenses are the only option I cannot stay. Unfortunately, there is no cc license that meets my situation (GEMA).
I wonder why. It shouldn't be a great problem to create a license that allows copying and distributing sheet music but not the performing. I'll ask the cc.

I don't know if you read the note I left on your talk page, but the Creative Commons BY-NC-ND license forbids any kind of performance without permission (it disallows derivative works, which includes performances), which unless I'm mistaken, is what you are looking for. Please confirm that you have checked BY-NC-ND and still want your pieces removed. Though, like Carolus mentioned, even BY-NC would forbid everything except the most free performance (as in, absolutely no one gets paid).

This move to a purely Creative Commons licensing scheme is to prevent possible legal issues on both the part of the submitter and the user. Since these licenses are full fledged licenses, they are much clearer, and should hopefully prevent any misunderstandings by either the submitter or the user. Also, I see that the spectrum of Creative Commons licenses are enough to encompass everything that should be required for the submission of an original work to IMSLP, rendering "personal" licenses pointless. Of course, this includes your situation, and the situation of every composer who is a part of a composer/publisher organization like the ASCAP.

[Josef]

Dear Carolus and imslp,
thank you for your aid.

In the meantime I've been on the german cc website. In the FAQ I've found a note that GEMA members did not have even the right to put their works under a cc license.
Another news site stated that there are discussions going on this matter between cc and GEMA. As http://www.gema.de/engl/press/letter/is ... f-os.shtml shows there won't be a solution soon.

This copyright issue has become a big deal indeed. Or let's say a bloated one. At least for german composers.

There's no choice. Please remove my page and works. And let's wait for a better situation coming up.

For this site the current copyright solution seems really the best.
Good luck!

[imslp]

Aside from the fact that they apparently are completely ignorant of how CC licenses really are, I have a feeling that the only "valid" argument they have against CC is the name (guess they don't like the word "Commons") And so, I'm going to propose that we have an IMSLP license, which is similar, but is not a CC license, and does not step on GEMA's toes (err.. I mean rights). To a certain extent your current license is similar (but of course its not a fully fledged license).

If you are ok with this, I'll contact CC about this, and notify them. The reason I'm doing so much for this situation is because I think this situation is of great interest to both new composers and IMSLP. I will refrain from removing your file from IMSLP for the time being because it is still under the "personal" license, and thus is legal for the time being

By the way, what exactly is the extent of GEMA's rights? Performance/broadcasting/recording? Or does it include publication?

[Josef]

Well, I'm surprised but glad that you are going so far into this.
It has already started gnawing at my conscience to occupy you guys (and me) with this vexatious matter for such a long time, keeping us away from some meaningful work.

It seems that the cc generic licenses (3.0) are the solution.
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7249
Although they are not yet available for the german jurisdiction.

But however, GEMA says clearly that its members are not allowed to use cc.

As you have already assumed GEMA holds the rights of performance, recording, broadcasting, derivating ... It does not hold the right of publication. So I can allow the distribution of my sheet music without exceeding my authority.

An IMSLP license could be the right alternative.
May the german version of the cc 3.0 licenses be launched soon, maybe this will spike the spook.

Since it's not illegal, I guess it's ok to stay.
Thank you again.

[imslp]

Well, I'm surprised but glad that you are going so far into this.
It has already started gnawing at my conscience to occupy you guys (and me) with this vexatious matter for such a long time, keeping us away from some meaningful work.

Hehe... well, this is very meaningful and potentially very influential work if we get it done right

It seems that the cc generic licenses (3.0) are the solution.
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7249
Although they are not yet available for the german jurisdiction.

I'm assuming you mean "ported" or "internationalized"...

But however, GEMA says clearly that its members are not allowed to use cc.

As you have already assumed GEMA holds the rights of performance, recording, broadcasting, derivating ... It does not hold the right of publication. So I can allow the distribution of my sheet music without exceeding my authority.

An IMSLP license could be the right alternative.

Would you be willing to license the work under an IMSLP license which is similar to the BY-NC-ND (i.e. no performance, derivaties, or commercial usage)? If so, I can work something out

May the german version of the cc 3.0 licenses be launched soon, maybe this will spike the spook.

Hmm... I'm slightly afraid of the complexity in the licenses once the internationalized versions are used. I'd rather use an "IMSLP" license be used, unless there are significant differences between the ported and unported licenses. Though, I would permit the ported versions should need arise; though it is unfortunate that a German version does not exist yet...

Since it's not illegal, I guess it's ok to stay.

Well... it is fine to stay for now, but I do want to move it to an CC (or IMSLP) license... it would be a great example in any case Plus, I'm thinking of forcing conversion from the "personal" license (or face removal), just so that everything can be sorted out and it won't come back to bite IMSLP or the users

[imslp]

Ok... I admit I screwed up big when reading the legal code; it is the alternation of performances that is not allowed, but the verbatim performance of it is allowed.

Back to the drawing board I may just add a restriction to the four given by Creative Commons, and create a series of new licenses based on that. But I want to think thoroughly about it first Give me a few days...

[imslp]

Actually, I just decided to create a license anyway. See here:

http://imslp.org/wiki/Performance_Restr ... atives_1.0