Copyrights and Wrongs

[ahinton]

And where would the Moon Landings be without Zarathustra ;-)

And where would the Richard Strauss Estate be without ditto?! (although there's only another 45 days of that benefit to go...)

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

And where would the Richard Strauss Estate be without ditto?! (although there's only another 45 days of that benefit to go...)

This illustrates how ludicrous current copyright laws are. Works composed in the early 1880s are still in copyright in 2019.

[BBMmk2]

This illustrates how ludicrous current copyright laws are. Works composed in the early 1880s are still in copyright in 2019.

Can the Estate make a particular dispensation to this?

[Ein Heldenleben]

Can the Estate make a particular dispensation to this?

Depends whether the estate owns the publishing rights - very often those are owned by a publishing company . I think B and H publish Strauss in the UK . They are not going to waive royalties. When Strauss comes out of copyright then the scores will be open to other publishers to produce editions.

[ahinton]

This illustrates how ludicrous current copyright laws are. Works composed in the early 1880s are still in copyright in 2019.

In the case of Elliott Carter, works written in the early 1920s (if only their scores were still known to exist) will not enter the public domain until 1 January 2083 (although that;s only in territories where the 70 year term applies, which it doesn't in USA and some other places). That said, what term do you think would be approriate, bearing in mind that some works are not even premièred until after the composer's death?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

That said, what term do you think would be approriate, bearing in mind that some works are not even premièred until after the composer's death?

I would suggest (say) 100 years after the work’s composition, though revisions might throw a spanner in the works.

[Ein Heldenleben]

I would suggest (say) 100 years after the work’s composition, though revisions might throw a spanner in the works.

You’ve hit the nail on the head of the problem . A 100 year after composition rule would lead a moribund composer being asked / pressurised to revise bestselling compositions with a view to the republication of a new copyrighted edition .One leading media company already constantly re-edits their output to maintain copyright long after it would normally expire. There is a wider question - why should the estate of a dead artist profit from royalties after death at all?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

There is a wider question - why should the estate of a dead artist profit from royalties after death at all?

Yes - let them starve, the freewheeling parasites ("oh, and sorry for your loss, by the way").

[Ein Heldenleben]

Yes - let them starve, the freewheeling parasites ("oh, and sorry for your loss, by the way").

Yes but that doesn’t answer the question ...

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Yes but that doesn’t answer the question ...

There isn't one. (I'd go for a 25-year postmortem copyright myself. But then what do you do with works published posthumously?)

Of course, with composers increasingly publishing - and selling - their own work without bothering about publishers, the whole topic of "The Music Publisher, 1600-2000" may well become an optional Study Module for Undergraduate Music Students before long!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

If, indeed, "The Undergraduate Music Student" hasn't itself become an optional Study Module for Undergraduate Sociology Students by that time ...

[Ein Heldenleben]

There isn't one. (I'd go for a 25-year postmortem copyright myself. But then what do you do with works published posthumously?)

Of course, with composers increasingly publishing - and selling - their own work without bothering about publishers, the whole topic of "The Music Publisher, 1600-2000" may well become an optional Study Module for Undergraduate Music Students before long!

I agree 25 years is a reasonable compromise . Current copyright law stifles creative innovation - not so much in music because there is so much ‘sampling ‘ , plagiarism and outright ripping off going on anyway. I think the partner or widow of a creative artist is entitled to some sort of royalty - based pension but after that it should be public domain.
Interestingly Strauss’s Also Sprach Zarathustra mentioned above is a good example of copyright problems . Kubrick used the Decca Karajan version on the undertaking that he wouldn’t credit Decca! (According to John Culshaw’s autobiography) When it became a hit Decca had no pressed copies and other companies reaped the reward. After this debacle all film and TV companies were then obliged to tell a record company if their version of a piece of classical music was being used in the title sequence.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I agree 25 years is a reasonable compromise ... I think the partner or widow of a creative artist is entitled to some sort of royalty - based pension but after that it should be public domain. .

Current copyright law stifles creative innovation

Often - but not always: charitable organisations based on income from performances of works still in copyright - such as the RVW Trust - exist with the express purpose of funding creative work of other composers/writers. An essential service, given the general paucity of funds for such creative activities.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Yes and I would include the Britten-Pears foundation in that - I wouldn’t have a problem with royalties propping up genuinely charitable trusts like for example Peter Pan and Great Ormond Street . I was told Britten’s anniversary year bought in over a million pounds in royalties from performances alone for the foundation .
I was thinking more of examples like - the difficulty David Lodge had in using a line from a Gershwin song in the title of his novel ‘The British Museum is Fall8ng Down’ or the copyright issues around Jonny Spielt Auf , or the onerous and anti-creative enforcement of copyright by certain large global media corporations long after they have milked the source dry..but I had better not name them.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]