A friend of mine was wondering about something I once wondered myself, but never really got a straight answer to. Who gets the benefits/royalties/copyright ownership to pieces of classical music and/or literature? In some instances, there are no traceable descendants to famous composers like Mozart or Beethoven. I recall in my studies of music history and theory that when it comes to music that goes back further than our copyright laws, the music belongs to whatever entity produces and publishes it. Therefore, if an orchestra performs a piece by a classical (Romantic, Baroque, Rococo, etc. – take your pick of any periods prior to our modern music industry), then that orchestra owns the rights to their own performance. Every orchestra will inevitably perform the same piece a little differently, so I can accept this as being true … but who actually owns the rights to the notations and orchestrations as they were written, especially if there are no direct descendants? If there are descendants, do they retain the rights to the original property? There were no recording industries in those times, and copyright laws certainly didn’t work the same way …
I’ve looked high and low for info on this, yet I haven’t found anything genuinely informative yet.
The current requirements for a valid copyright are
an original expression;
fixed in tangible form.
Beethoven’s “Moonlight Sonata” would be copyrightable, except it has passed into the public domain.
But even though the piece itself has passed into the public domain, it is still possible to create copyrighted works derived from the original Beethoven piece.
Say we run a music publisher, SDMB Music Publishing. We could publish a new version of the score of Moonlight Sonata that was easy to read, had suggested fingerings, etc. This would be a copyrightable, derivative work. BUT our rights would only extend to those aspects of the derivative work that were original to our version of the score. Say another music publisher creates its own version of the score to Moonlight Sonata. We cannot complain, because we have no more right than anybody else to Moonlight Sonata, because the piece is in the public domain. BUT, if someone started photocopying our score, and selling it, then we would have a legal remedy against them. Because they would be copying our original work: our particular version of the score to Moonlight Sonata.
Now say you are a pianist. You record a version of Moonlight Sonata. Again, the sound recording is a derivative work. (Tangent: copyrights of sound recordings are relatively recent. In the early part of the twentieth century, you could not copyright a sound recording. There were other ways to protect your legal rights, but you couldn’t get a copyright on the recording.) You don’t hold a copyright in the piece Moonlight Sonata–nobody does because its in the public domain–so you have no legal right to prevent anyone else from making his or her own recording of Moonlight Sonata. But you have a copyright in the recording of your performance. So if someone tapes it and starts selling tapes, you would have a legal remedy against that person.
Copyright doesn’t last forever. Depending on the law of the particular country, it usually lasts for the lifetime of the composer, plus a certain period of years after the composer’s death (e.g. 50 years). During that period, the composer’s heirs have control over it and can profit from it, but once that period expires, all works by that composer enter the public domain, as chorpler states. From that point on, anyone can use the original work without paying copyright. So, it’s irrelevant at this point if someone can trace their ancestry back to Bach or Beethoven; their works are now in the public domain.
Hah! Nothing produced after about 1928 has ever passed into the public domain and I predict it never will. Congress simply extends the copyright period whenever there is any chance of it. The original copyright was for 7 years, renewable once, in accordance with the US constitution’s authorization that congress can protect original works for a limited period. Since that is undefined, it is up to SCOTUS and they have consistently ruled that there is no upper bound as long as it is unlimited. Notice that this protection is automatic. I once wanted to use as a text a book that had been published around 1928 and both the author and his wife had long since dematerialized. Sure there were heirs, but how do you trace them? Finally, I gave up, even though there is no evidence that anyone would have objected. At the very least they could change the law so these extensions were not automatic.
Quite false. By the way, the year you are look for is items published from 1923 forward, not 1928.
Any work originally published in the U.S. before March 1, 1989 without a proper copyright notice affixed at the time of publication (and the lack of notice was not remedied within 5 years of publication) is now out of copyright and in the public domain.
Any work originally published in the U.S. between Jan. 1, 1923 and Dec. 31, 1963 whose copyright was not renewed at the expiration of its first 28-year term is now out of copyright and in the public domain. There are entire catalogs of motion pictures and television shows for sale whose copyright owners failed to renew their copyrights and so which are now in the public domain.
Any work originally publshed in the U.S. before 1923 is now out of copyright and in the public domain.
The first U.S. copyright law (1790) granted American authors the right to print, re-print, or publish their work for a period of 14 years and the option to renew for another 14. In 1831, this was changed to a 28-year initial period, with an optional 14-year extension. In 1909, copyright law changed the optional renewal period to 28 years.
I guess I got the 14 years of initial copyright mixed up with the original 14 year total. The work I was talking about was published in 1928 and renewed in 1956. I expected it to go out of copyright in 1984, but it was extended and I predict will never go into the public domain.
While thats all well and good hari, it dosent really relate to the OP. If you want to make a post in great debates about it though, it would be very interesting.