Well,
I know Grey and he is not a person that would put himself before the music. Grey is very sensitve to the music and puts countless hours into the spread of the art form. This is clearly a situation of were laws are not able to take into consideration the situation. 
I don’t know - what’s the saying: ‘all it needs for evil to prosper is a few good men to turn their backs’ or to that effect. It comes down to personal responsibility, doesn’t it - if Grey ‘is not a person who put himeslf before the music’ - then why is he copyrighting ‘arrangements’ of these trad. tunes??? Don’t add up…
Because he arranged and recorded some tunes, and there’s a royalty that goes to the arranger. What’s difficult to understand about that?
The problem isn’t Grey, it’s BMI. They administer copyright, and someone who works there doesn’t understand* that owning an arrangement–Grey’s–isn’t the same as owning the melody.
They asked a pub with a session what tunes get played, and the guy gave them a list of titles. Some junior lawyer typed a few titles into a database, saw a match, and figured it was worth a demand letter. They probably do that many times a day. If someone bites and pays up, it’s free money for BMI. If not, they’ll decide then whether it’s worthsome kind of follow up, or not.
*Or more likely doesn’t care. First comes the demand letter, which puts the ball into the recipient’s court to either pay or show why they don’t have to pay. From BMI’s POV, all the research it can make the recipients finance is research that costs BMI nothing.
BMI is a symptom of the the intellectual copyright system that was never intended for recorded music on the one hand, or traditional music on the other. On the other hand, it is possible to not claim such rights even when they are there to be claimed in law - whether or not you then get published is another question.
Terry, why on earth would you want one group of Irish musicians to claim “primacy.” That lot already do, and they do not wield their power well - they already pulled in a great deal of money from IMRO, much of which was promptly handed over to O’Murchu’s wife for her pet project - even if this were not the case though, the idea of one limited organization collecting money for a group of people a vast number of whom have no connection to it is unconscionable.
I am not part of comhaltas and I have no wish to be either as teacher or performer. If I were to register my tunes with BMI or ASCAP or IMRO, (which I wouldn’t do on principle, believing the tunes to be a common store that, having drawn from, I am glad to contribute to) why on earth would I want funds generated off the back of my tunes to go to comhaltas? (edited to point out that this last question is rhetorical - I wouldn’t, won’t and don’t)
Jaysus.. because I don’t believe he or anyone should be getting royalties for arranging a traditional tune. It’s a fairly simple concept.
By all means make money from CD sales, downloads, books whatever but not from claiming some hypothetical ownership of a piece of trad music.
It’s how people who make records get paid for doing so. With ‘mechanical’ reproduction royalties (part of copyright law) the money is already on the table. It’s already in the pot and someone is going to take it home. If the artist doesn’t file, the record company, retailer, or publisher keeps it. The money does not go away.
I’ve never seen a “partial” copyright, as apparently everything within a publication gets covered by copyright.
Without copyright protection, moreover, an author simply can’t get paid, and, frankly, authors generally are a good thing.
So, I’d say that as long as anybody could feel free to copyright a traditional tune, then there shouldn’t be any problem.
That is, perhaps both you and I could copyright the same traditional tune, to the benefit of each of us.
Perhaps we could both then laugh all the way to the bank.
The tune isn’t copyrighted, only the arrangement.
Anybody can play the tune anyway they please,
in truth. In addition, these aren’t Fat Cats being
greedy, more likely starving artists desperately trying to
continue their work. Or would we rather they
sold insurance?
Flutered, take off the blinders for a moment and check your peripheral vision.
A fundamental question is: Is it legitimate, reasonable, ethical etc. for a performer to make money from the public performance of his or her recordings of traditional music?
If one’s answer is no, then fair enough. The music is a public patrimony that belongs to all, and copyrighting particular arrangements of tunes is an illegitimate enclosure. An artist may recoup the material cost of producing a physical CD by selling them from a suitcase or however. But the creative effort and expense of arranging and recording a trad tune has no economic added value, and should be unrecoverable. Anyone who purchases the recording owns it as they would, say, a kitchen appliance, and can do with it as they please. If an artist doesn’t like that state of affairs, they can write and record their own music instead and hope for authorship revenues, or rely only on paid live performance revenues. That is certainly one possible model.
But if one’s answer is yes, then how do you propose to allow that to happen? As Ben points out, BMI and IMRO and the like were never designed with recorded trad in mind. Yet these are the only available, ill-conceived mechanisms for an artist to recover revenue when their recordings are played on the radio, or jukeboxes, or at political rallies, or as TV adverts, or as the soundtrack to Mel Gibson’s latest cinematic gorefest.
So a performer records a CD and registers his trad “arrangements” to protect his work and CD performance royalties, given that “arrangement” is the only legal pigeon-hole available. The artist is then aghast when organization goons proceed to enforce the registration in a way that the artist never intended. Then he gets flogged by those with an ideological axe to grind, or those whose self-interest wants CD performance to be free of cost, despite the artist’s actively trying to remedy the misguided enforcement.
By all means, work to support and promote the reform of antiquated copyright and IP laws, particularly with regard to trad. But why beat up on particular recording artists for working as best they can within a broken framework? I wonder how many recordings of ITM there would be if performers were entitled to only the cost of the plastic their CDs are made from? Some, certainly, but fewer. And there are those think that a lowered level of commercialism might not be a bad thing.
Flutered, how did you handle this dilemma on your latest commercially available recording of traditional music? I want to know.
You sound fairly happy with the system S1m0n, or at least accepting of it in your recent posts. Would that be true though?
For my part, I believe there to be a fundamental flaw in the intellectual property system of law, which I believe to be strongly imperialist - that is extending itself over domains it was never intended nor fitted for, and an even deeper flaw in the common acceptance of intellectual property law as simply what is.
And I thought, at least with regard to the Larson and pub example in question, that we were discussion performance rights, not mechanical ones - did I get confused? One think this sort of law is, is byzantine, eh?
Not at all. A copyright on arrangement is just that–the arrangement. It doesn’t cover the melody, the lyrics, etc. If those were PD before, they remain that way. If they were part of someone else’s copyright, that doesn’t change, either.
I could arrange the song “Elanor Rigby” for Kazoo and ukelele, record it, and collect the arranger’s share of the mechanical reproduction royalty. My arrangement alters nothing about Michael Jackson (if he still owns the Beatles catalogue)'s claim on the composer/songwriter’s royalty. He collects just as he would if I hadn’t filed.
I was speaking broadly. For instance, suppose a book were written about “How to play ITM” and then included some traditional tunes, as examples.
As it goes, apparently everything within such a publication would be copyright protected, including the traditional tunes.
As I was saying, as long as anybody could copyright a traditional tune, then there shouldn’t be any problem.
Again, I am only speaking of traditional tunes, the ones in the public domain.
Yes, a collection of public domain elements–from tunebooks to phonebooks–can be the subject of a copyright claim.
Hi MT,
of course it is - play a gig and get a cut of the ticket sales, record a CD and get a cut from the distribution company or if you self publish, then your profit is your sales after deducting the expenses in making the CD. Write a tune book, sell and ditto. That’s the way normal commerce works - it’s how I earn my living (nothing related to music btw).
However surely if a musician is using Traditional tunes in their performances, CD’s, books - they shouldn’t expect an additional (albeit small) stream of revenue because they hold some form of copyright over those tunes.
My understanding of copyright and intellectual property etc., is that for something to be copyrightable it HAS TO BE ORIGINAL. That’s the basic test in Ireland/ UK to the best of my knowledge.
I can’t see how any version of a traditional tune can be argued to be original - variation and ornamentation are part of the game and it’s extremely unlikely that someones’ way of playing (arranging) a tune hasn’t been done before.
Take the wheel - which fortunately for us, was ‘invented’ before the concept of intellectual property. The wheel comes in many shapes and forms, many arrangement of form but I don’t think you’ll get very far trying to patent a wheel, because your idea is nor original.
So why can’t musicians just use traditional tunes and earn money from them as performers - but leave claims to legal ownership out of it??
Perhaps Comhaltas should, with the support of the Irish Government, seek to be recognised internationally as the copyright owner for traditional Irish tunes, so that any monies collected could at least be directed to a sympathetic cause. That wouldn’t prevent the Ed Reavy’s of the world registering their copyright, nor others their arrangements.
They tried that, going in cahoots with IMRO and pretending to act on behalf of all musicians of Ireland. It justly caused uproar.
I wonder how many recordings of ITM there would be if performers were entitled to only the cost of the plastic their CDs are made from?
That’s the reality of it isn’t it? You make your CD, you sell it and anything over cost is what you’re left with.
Personally, I see both sides of the argument, so I’m a bit conflicted on this topic. One thing I’m certain of, however, is that I have great distaste for seeing a moderator of this board wade in with a big ol’ opinion and take a cheap shot at a mere mortal, as in the last line there. Bad form.
Rob
oh Rob, all of the moderators were members first and remain members, after becoming moderators.
I think that they should be allowed to continue to speak in their own voice as much is possible after taking on the roll of moderator
Dale breaks many of his own rules almost as soon as he comes up with them. Part of the charm of the place, it is.
Still don’t like it.
If it was a cheap shot .. it passed me by, unnoticed!!
Well, MT’s last line may have been a bit pointed, but it doesn’t seem all that strong to me - Better maybe to have asked how flutered would have managed the situation himself (without bolding?). As to MT’s opinion being big ol’ - why ever not? He has good, interesting and well thought out ones almost always, and for my part I’d rather read them than have him as a moderator - so long as he doesn’t start saying “agree with me or i’ll ban you” and such, what is the difference?
As it happens 
I don’t agree with him in this respect one iota (sorry John 
) , and am entirely with flutered. As far as I am concerned, copyright should be held on the actual sound performance of an arrangement - that is, if someone broadcasts (or plays in a pub) my recording of something, then I wouldn’t mind a wee cut of whatever money they are making - current copyright law is unable to cope with this of course, being entirely based around written understanding of music, having been established before sound recording (or at least widespread sound recording - French soot paper notwithstanding). As to the way I understand ownership of the tunes, anyone can use, record, teach, play, write down etc. any tune that I have written down, broadcast, taught etc. including any tunes I have written (original if you will, though given how I learned to write those tunes, I’m not sure original is really the word). I firmly believe this, because of all the tunes I play, (many more, I would hazard, than the majority on this board) almost all of them are from the common repertoire - tunes given me for free (or for the trouble of learning them) without caveat (other than I should try to play them as best I can) or restriction, and what few tunes I may write, I give in return to that common corps of tunes from which we all may draw. Fair, as they say, is fair. I’ll try to make my money otherwise (struggle as it is) and not be coopted by the music industry to act as they do with Western art and pop musics, as though that is the only understanding of music or of intellectual property that is possible.
What would I do with mine?
I think I only put one of my tunes on my CD, but anyone may have it to use as they will (if they like it), with the exception that they do not claim it to be theirs. They need not declare it to be mine, though, unless they wish to. (I do tend to do this with other people’s tunes when I know the provenance, for my part).