Copyright transcription of public domain music? Can I copyright my transcription of, say, a public domain Mozart symphony for brass quintet? I downloaded a public domain PDF of a Mozart symphony. I used the musical content from the PDF and created an arrangement or a transcription for other instruments or voices. It is a transcription of a piece of music in the Public Doman for new, different instruments. I created a new work that evolved from the public domain work. I applied a great deal of creativity in choosing which music to assign to which instrument.
I originally wrote A &quot;transcription&quot; and an &quot;arrangement&quot; are not at all the same thing. But it seems that this was not quite correct. Transcription Merriam-Webste definers the musical sense of &quot;transcription&quot; as: 2 a : an arrangement of a musical composition for some instrument or voice other than the original 2 b : a recording (as on magnetic tape) made especially for use in radio broadcasting Dictionary.com gives: 4 a the arrangement of a composition for a medium other than that for which it was originally written. So it seems that a transcription, in this sense, is a kind of arangement A transcription means writing down in some form of musical notation, or just words, all or some aspect of s musical work. In some cases it means just writing down the lyrics of a song. In some cases it means jut writing down the notes. But it seems that it often mean reworking the music for different instruments, which may mean changing the notes to accommodate the ranges of those instruments. It doesn't matter what tools or technology is used, it is the result that matters. In many cases a transcription does not contain any original content, and so is not able to be protected by copyright in US law. Arrangement Merriam-Webste defines the musical sense of &quot;arrangement&quot; as: 2 b : a piece of music that has been hanged so that it can be performed by particular types of voices or instruments Dictionary.com gives: 6 a the adaptation of a composition to voices or instruments, or to a new purpose. An arrangement is often a different but closely related piece of music. It may be as simple as shifting to another key. It may involve adding or removing sections of the work, adding or removing voices, adding or removing repeats, or altering the lyrics. There are special provisions in US copyright law doe cover versions to be made without the permission of the copyright owner, but these do not always apply. An arrangement may be original enough to get its own copyright. In any case, an arrangement of a PD work does not need permission from anyone, because no one owns the copyright to the original work. Statement from the Question I created a new work that evolved from the public domain work. I applied a great deal of creativity in choosing which music to assign to which instrument. That sounds like an arrangement (not a transcription) that is quite likely protected by its own copyright. Copyright protects an eligible work as soon a it is &quot;fixed in a tangible form&quot; and a computer file or printout counts. Conclusion Whether a work is creative enough to be protected is a very fact-intensive determination, and one that this site cannot make. One might, in such a case, want to consult a lawyer with music copyright expertise. If this happens in the US, one might want to register a copyright in the work.
Interesting that they don't give a source and also don't link to anywhere (such as Wikimedia commons). So I assume that content is google's own. So generally speaking: No, when no license is provided, that means you can't use whatever it is in a project of yours (whether commercially or not), because the &quot;default&quot;, when nothing is specified, is that no license is given. So unless you find a license that grants you a permission on google's own content, these sounds can't be used freely.
I would argue that no, there is no copyright for the restored work. Independent copyright is only possible for any original material added, as previously discussed on this site. In this case, the added work was a technical process rather than a creative process, and technical processes cannot be protected by copyright. Copyright licenses would therefore be ineffective. However, I believe one could still impose a license based on owning the copy as opposed to the copyright (contract might be a better term in this case). However, if a third party managed to obtain a copy through some other avenue, any such contract would not be binding on them and nothing could be enforced against them unlike with copyright laws. Another way a license might be imposed is through patent protections, as technical processes can be protected via patents. However, I'm not as familiar with patent law, and this doesn't appear to be the claim being made.
Someone similar say While it is quite true that no one can have a copyright that excludes all others from preparing their own unique copy of the Bible or other public domain works for copyright protection, our Bibles and other materials are not exactly like any others and are fully protected by copyright laws in all countries So for example, I could theoretically take an ancient public-domain texts and republish it in some modified form. Copyright does not protect the original, but it does protect my modifications. To the extent that Mechon Mamre does include protected material (of their own creation), and Snunit redistributed that material with permission, Mechon Mamre might sue you for copyright infringement. Since they don't say what their creative contribution is, it's hard to evaluate the merits of their claim.
Go to court and find out There is no doubt that humming a tune and recording it (or performing it in public) is a derivative work - a right reserved to the copyright owner. Whether it is fair use depends on the specifics of the case. From the tweet, we simply don’t have enough information, however, at a guess, it is probably not fair use. Fair use in law is Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include: the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. Most people miss “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research,” - if you aren’t doing one of those things then you start behind the 8-ball when yo move to the 4 factor test. Note that the “criticism, comment, news reporting,” etc. must be about the copyrighted work - I can’t use your copyrighted work to, for example, parody a politician unless you are that politician. Many people have completely the wrong idea about what copyright infringement and fair use actually are, in part because the use of music on YouTube is allowed, not because it’s fair use but, because YouTube was smart enough to negotiate and pay for a permissive licence with music producers. For a full explanation, see this video.
You also retain the right to license the work to others. Therefore you can sell similar rights to MusicBook and anyone else, as long as you do not grant an exclusive license (you have already licensed another party to distribute). They do not gain the right to sub-license your work. If you had executed a copyright transfer, you would have no rights to the work whatsoever (leaving out moral rights for jurisdictions that have them and where they are absolute).
No, it isn't. A sound recording of a song has a few different elements that are distinct from one another, but they are each protected by copyright (unless the song is old enough to have passed into the public domain): the lyrics the melody and other aspects of the musical composition the instrumental arrangement the recording itself A sound recording is protected by copyright even if it is a recording of something that isn't protected by copyright. If you use a portion of the recording that has no lyrics, or if you use technical means to suppress the lyrics or filter them out, you still have to contend with the copyright protection of the other elements. But sometimes it is allowed to use copyright-protected material. There is a lot of discussion about &quot;fair use&quot; and other circumstances under which one can use copyright-protected material without permission. The most clear-cut way to use copyright-protected material without violating copyright, however, is to have permission in the form of a license. You can always ask.
Court filings are, in general, matters of public record. This does not automatically put them into the public domain. This will mean that, absent a special order of the court, anyone will be able to read this filing as pert of the court records. Many courts now make all or parts of their records available on the web. But the copyright holders will possibly retain their rights to authorize the making of further copies, and surely retain the right to authorize the making of derivative works, and their other rights that are part of the copyright bundle, such as the rights of public performance. These rights would not be retained if the work had been placed in the public domain.