Another point relating to my last post, but elements of my teaching cover helping students to play certain pieces of music, which are obviously copyright. Take for example the music used in ABRSM Grade material. In a normal 1-on-1 lesson the student buys the book and we work through it together. Simple.
What happens with the above when it's an online lesson where I'm putting video learning material together that the student may purchase from me?
Obviously to teach someone how to play a particular piece of music I need to play and record elements of it. Indeed I may need to perform the whole piece so they can hear what it should sound like. If I perform a copyright piece of music can I record it and sell it to someone? What if I just perform a section of it?
Thanks again!
Andy
Reproducing works for teaching purposes
Sorry, and one more point on this one. The materials would only be available to those buying the e-lessons from me. It wouldn't be publicly accessible as such, although obviously anyone could buy them. It may even require membership to my web site before you could even get access to buy them. I'm not sure how 'public' is generally defined though.
Hi Andy,
I will assume that you have already seen my reply to your question in the other forum.
As I think you have understood, when you buy sheet music for personal use (or for one-to-one teaching) there is no problem over the copyright, when you or the student perform the music. But if you wish to perform the music in public or issue copies of recordings of your performance to the public (and the music is still in copyright because the composer is alive or only died within the last 69 years*) then you need a licence to do this. The actual procedure for obtaining a licence varies according to the various music publishers, so you should either contact the publisher, or PRS for Music who are a copyright collecting society like the one I mentioned in the other forum. The licence you obtain is called a performing right licence. This should not be confused with the right that you as a performer then have to determine how your performance may be exploited, for instance through a recording of it; the latter is known as the performer's right.
If you record yourself for the purposes of the instructional material then you will be the owner of the copyright in that recording (as you are the producer). As mentioned in the other thread, you should mark all materials with a copyright notice (© plus your name and year of publication). However for a recording of a musical performance it is better to use a ℗ symbol (standing for phonogram) as this is the standard used in the USA for such recordings. So if you produce an instructional video the sound track including any music you play will constitute a sound recording, and the visual element will be treated as a film (motion picture) for copyright purposes. If you need to display the musical notation on screen or in any written support materials, I suggest you write out again or if you have the correct software, retype the notation, rather just use the printed music you have obtained, because that way you do not run the risk of infringing yet another copyright, namely the typographical layout of the published sheet music which will belong to the music publisher. It doesn't matter if your version looks virtually identical to the sheet music, so long as you can show you carried out this re-drafting step.
Next you asked what was meant by the 'public'. It is not defined in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act but usually it means people who are not part of the domestic or family circle, which might in certain circumstances include close friends. For example it is permissible to record a TV programme to be watched at a later time, for private and domestic purposes, and this would not exclude having a few friends round to watch the recording, but it would be unlawful to open up your living room to strangers (ie communicated to the public) for this purpose. Communication to the public is a separate phrase which occurs in the Act and generally refers communication by electronic means such as a TV or radio broadcast, simulcasts, webcasts and IPTV, and video on demand, podcasts, streaming or downloads etc.
Just as a final word on this, certain activities done for the purposes of instruction or examination are allowed limited permission to use copyright works without infringing, (see more details here: CDPA - Education), but because you will be offering your instruction in exchange for a fee, you cannot take advantage of these exemptions as yours will be a commercial purpose.
* If you can achieve the same aim by using music which is out of copyright (because the composer died before 1943), then you don't need any licences to perform or record the music. You should however still avoid making video shots or photocopies/scans of any sheet music in your material as this may still be in copyright as a typographical arrangement of a published edition, as already referred to.
I will assume that you have already seen my reply to your question in the other forum.
As I think you have understood, when you buy sheet music for personal use (or for one-to-one teaching) there is no problem over the copyright, when you or the student perform the music. But if you wish to perform the music in public or issue copies of recordings of your performance to the public (and the music is still in copyright because the composer is alive or only died within the last 69 years*) then you need a licence to do this. The actual procedure for obtaining a licence varies according to the various music publishers, so you should either contact the publisher, or PRS for Music who are a copyright collecting society like the one I mentioned in the other forum. The licence you obtain is called a performing right licence. This should not be confused with the right that you as a performer then have to determine how your performance may be exploited, for instance through a recording of it; the latter is known as the performer's right.
If you record yourself for the purposes of the instructional material then you will be the owner of the copyright in that recording (as you are the producer). As mentioned in the other thread, you should mark all materials with a copyright notice (© plus your name and year of publication). However for a recording of a musical performance it is better to use a ℗ symbol (standing for phonogram) as this is the standard used in the USA for such recordings. So if you produce an instructional video the sound track including any music you play will constitute a sound recording, and the visual element will be treated as a film (motion picture) for copyright purposes. If you need to display the musical notation on screen or in any written support materials, I suggest you write out again or if you have the correct software, retype the notation, rather just use the printed music you have obtained, because that way you do not run the risk of infringing yet another copyright, namely the typographical layout of the published sheet music which will belong to the music publisher. It doesn't matter if your version looks virtually identical to the sheet music, so long as you can show you carried out this re-drafting step.
Next you asked what was meant by the 'public'. It is not defined in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act but usually it means people who are not part of the domestic or family circle, which might in certain circumstances include close friends. For example it is permissible to record a TV programme to be watched at a later time, for private and domestic purposes, and this would not exclude having a few friends round to watch the recording, but it would be unlawful to open up your living room to strangers (ie communicated to the public) for this purpose. Communication to the public is a separate phrase which occurs in the Act and generally refers communication by electronic means such as a TV or radio broadcast, simulcasts, webcasts and IPTV, and video on demand, podcasts, streaming or downloads etc.
Just as a final word on this, certain activities done for the purposes of instruction or examination are allowed limited permission to use copyright works without infringing, (see more details here: CDPA - Education), but because you will be offering your instruction in exchange for a fee, you cannot take advantage of these exemptions as yours will be a commercial purpose.
* If you can achieve the same aim by using music which is out of copyright (because the composer died before 1943), then you don't need any licences to perform or record the music. You should however still avoid making video shots or photocopies/scans of any sheet music in your material as this may still be in copyright as a typographical arrangement of a published edition, as already referred to.
Advice or comment provided here is not and does not purport to be legal advice as defined by s.12 of Legal Services Act 2007
Thanks again for the detailed response - very helpful! I got in touch with PRS and they seem to think the Limited Online Music License (LOML) will be right up my street, allowing me to 'publicly perform' copyright works for the purposes of creating tuition videos to sell online.
Your comment about displaying the music notation on screen is an interesting one. I'd resigned myself to not including any notation unless I'd created it myself and basically just saying "Refer to page 4 in the book, second line" etc. So the re-drafting step is OK even if it's pretty much identical to what's in the book? If so that's a big plus.
Andy
Your comment about displaying the music notation on screen is an interesting one. I'd resigned myself to not including any notation unless I'd created it myself and basically just saying "Refer to page 4 in the book, second line" etc. So the re-drafting step is OK even if it's pretty much identical to what's in the book? If so that's a big plus.
Andy
The re-drafting method will avoid any infringement of the copyright which is owned by the music publisher in the typographical arrangement of their printed edition. It is not a solution if the underlying score itself is still in copyright, because the composer is still alive or died within the last 69 years. That is because the score is the primary means whereby the composer expresses his idea (the actual music) and so it represents the embodiment of the copyright.
The same would apply to a literary work. Say Penguin produced an edition of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. The underlying work is out of copyright, but the Penguin edition will probably have a 25 year (from the date of publication) copyright in the typographical arrangement. So if someone re-types and re-arranges the text, that will not infringe Penguin's rights and will be perfectly legal, assuming that no additional original details such as notes or commentary which the publisher has added, are also included in the re-drafting.
The same would apply to a literary work. Say Penguin produced an edition of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. The underlying work is out of copyright, but the Penguin edition will probably have a 25 year (from the date of publication) copyright in the typographical arrangement. So if someone re-types and re-arranges the text, that will not infringe Penguin's rights and will be perfectly legal, assuming that no additional original details such as notes or commentary which the publisher has added, are also included in the re-drafting.
Advice or comment provided here is not and does not purport to be legal advice as defined by s.12 of Legal Services Act 2007
performing rights license
HI
I am working on a guitar tutorial website and was trying to get some info on the copyright subject.
I have e mailed P.R.Society a few times but am not convinced by their response.
The question is;
If you have paid members uploading tunes that they have reproduced ;say from the beatles or whoever ,on the guitar and not pre selected tunes but any random piece of music does this performing rights license cover you from any infringement.
Seems 2 good 2 b true.
thnx
jeff [/b]
I am working on a guitar tutorial website and was trying to get some info on the copyright subject.
I have e mailed P.R.Society a few times but am not convinced by their response.
The question is;
If you have paid members uploading tunes that they have reproduced ;say from the beatles or whoever ,on the guitar and not pre selected tunes but any random piece of music does this performing rights license cover you from any infringement.
Seems 2 good 2 b true.
thnx
jeff [/b]
Hi Jeff,
If I have this straight your website merely hosts material which generally consists of other people's performances of (mainly) copyright protected music.
If that is right, and you are not performing the music, then your liability lies in the fact that you are publishing these performances, or in the jargon, 'making them available to the public at a time of their choosing' aka streaming. In theory if you haven't sought out these pieces of music and your members don't need you to conduct editorial control before they can post their content, you are protected by the so-called safe harbour provisions of both EU and US copyright law, but only while you have no knowledge that it is infringing material. Once you are made aware of any infringing content, or if the site is designed in such a way that it is obvious that all the content will fall into this category, then you become liable for any copies of the music held on your servers.
Therefore, assuming you are based in the UK, you will need one of the PRSforMusic's licences designed for this purpose, most likely the Limited Online Music Licence (LOML). If PRS have already advised you what you need I would go with their suggestion.
Without a licence you face possible infringement action, and at the very least lots of take-down notices in accordance with either the DMCA or the EU eCommerce Directive.
If I have this straight your website merely hosts material which generally consists of other people's performances of (mainly) copyright protected music.
If that is right, and you are not performing the music, then your liability lies in the fact that you are publishing these performances, or in the jargon, 'making them available to the public at a time of their choosing' aka streaming. In theory if you haven't sought out these pieces of music and your members don't need you to conduct editorial control before they can post their content, you are protected by the so-called safe harbour provisions of both EU and US copyright law, but only while you have no knowledge that it is infringing material. Once you are made aware of any infringing content, or if the site is designed in such a way that it is obvious that all the content will fall into this category, then you become liable for any copies of the music held on your servers.
Therefore, assuming you are based in the UK, you will need one of the PRSforMusic's licences designed for this purpose, most likely the Limited Online Music Licence (LOML). If PRS have already advised you what you need I would go with their suggestion.
Without a licence you face possible infringement action, and at the very least lots of take-down notices in accordance with either the DMCA or the EU eCommerce Directive.
Last edited by AndyJ on Mon Feb 22, 2016 6:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Advice or comment provided here is not and does not purport to be legal advice as defined by s.12 of Legal Services Act 2007
performing rights license
hi Andy
Thanx for that info .
The lady from p.r.s suggested the same thing but also that i would need a production music license(wotever that is!) along with the P.R online one .
But thats good news im just pleased its possible without too much hassle.
So ,on a similar note ,these guys on youtube that are doing the guitar tutorials ,would they be using a similar license?
thnx
jeff
Thanx for that info .
The lady from p.r.s suggested the same thing but also that i would need a production music license(wotever that is!) along with the P.R online one .
But thats good news im just pleased its possible without too much hassle.
So ,on a similar note ,these guys on youtube that are doing the guitar tutorials ,would they be using a similar license?
thnx
jeff
Hi jeff,
Based on what you have told us I can't see why a production licence would be necessary.
As for the large content-hosting sites such as YouTube, they don't tend to deal with the copyright collecting societies like PRS, preferring to set up a number of bi-lateral agreements directly with the record labels (see here for instance).
Based on what you have told us I can't see why a production licence would be necessary.
As for the large content-hosting sites such as YouTube, they don't tend to deal with the copyright collecting societies like PRS, preferring to set up a number of bi-lateral agreements directly with the record labels (see here for instance).
Advice or comment provided here is not and does not purport to be legal advice as defined by s.12 of Legal Services Act 2007