By the way, is there a recording of Brun's string quartet in G (which was published by Hug in 1923- which makes it PD-US* as of this year)?
*short-hand, possibly specific to IMSLP and long-time volunteers there like me, for P[ublic] D[omain] in the USA (PD-EU for PD in the European Union, PD-CA for Canada, likewise used...) It's almost certainly PD-CA given the 50-year rule but won't be PD-EU for 11 years yet - assuming treaty negotiations that may be in progress don't change everything- who knows, that is hypothetical anyways...
eschiss1, you still don't seem to understand copright rules. A musical work becomes public domain only 70 years after the composer's death, not after the publishing of a score. Brun died in 1959, so calculate.
Brun's Quartet (No. 2, in G ) was never recorded. There are Radio tapes of No. 1 and 4 - and, of course that Kulturszene Schweiz CD of quartet No. 3.
50 years may be applying for most sound recordings.
this death+71 is true in the EU, yes, as noted. The 1923 rule I gave is approximately accurate for the US.
Quote from: eschiss1 on Saturday 13 April 2019, 23:44
this death+71 is true in the EU, yes, as noted. The 1923 rule I gave is approximately accurate for the US.
Actually it's the US it's 95 years post-publication, which means FINALLY this year the US got some new PD stuff.
And it's 50+ years post-death in Canada, Japan and some other places.
right. basically, it was "PD if published before 1923;
-if- 1978>pdate>=1923 and properly renewed and etc., then 95 years post-publication ..." - there's a summary at: IMSLP:Public Domain (https://imslp.org/wiki/Public_domain). (So this was the first year that in practice that 1923 got stepped to 1924... but a work not properly renewed and not notice-of-intent-to-enforce etc. can be public domain in the US even if published with proper dated copyright between 1924 and 1962*)
*(See this footnote at the linked page: "(US:Proof of non-renewal and NIE status applies mainly to works published 1924-1963. All works published 1964-1977 (emphasis mine- ELS) have been renewed automatically and enjoy a full term of 95 years after first publication provided notice and eligibility requirements were met. Works published 1978 and later are under copyright for life-plus-70, though notice and eligibility requirements remained in limited form until 1989.)"
(This applies to published works whose authors are known. Manuscript but never-published works and published works about whose authorship there is uncertainty : other rules apply, some of which are also summarized on the linked page...) Apologies, as I realize that if anything deserves a thread of its own arguably it's probably this!...
"Copyright" property of a score (in this case "publishing copyright") means that it can be reprinted by another publisher. This has nothing to do with performing rights of the published work.
A similar case is that of an old sound recording, which can be copied and re-issued by another recording company (generally after 50 years of its production) - which does not mean that the composer's copyright of the recorded piece is being erased!
You must consider that this Quartet by Brun was not published in the USA, but in Switzerland, and there are different publishing laws. Many printed scores have copyright renewals, which means that it can go on and on eternally - and each new edition by another publisher must be arranged through new contracts.
Again, this has nothing to do with the performance fee of a copyrighted work - whose laws are worldwide:
70, 75 or 95 years after the composer's death, depending on different special cases.
There is the talk in Europe to even go up to 100 years.
See US Law here:
https://www.pdinfo.com/copyright-law/music-copyright-law.php
Most English/US people do not realize that the term of "copyright" refer to two different domains. In German regions we have a clear term for "Urheberrecht" (owner's right) and "Verlagsrecht" (publisher's right). An "owner" is, of course the "creator" of the work. So there are different laws for each and there are also different state companies administrating these. In some cases, an "owner" may cede all his rights to a publisher, but this is generally not happening with musical works.
---
But let me ask you, eschiss1 : what is the problem you have with this score? Do you want to republish it or upload it to IMSLP - or to have it performed?? In this thread you ask if there was a recording. I said no. Be sure, this work is performance copyrighted until 2029, no matter in which form the score has been published.
I'm pretty sure Eric will be wanting to upload to IMSLP...
... what I presume too. And in this case, IMSLP may be confronted with a fat penalty fee. But they are not as naive as that.
Performing rights are another matter entirely. I refer in all cases to rights of physical print/digital reproduction of books and musical scores, the rules regarding which have been regularized within the European Union, take a certain form in the United States, and a third form in Canada. If the work was published very recently (since 1977), life+90 applies, but certain other rules apply for older works (and even then sometimes only if they have been regularly and properly renewed with relevant copyright-granting offices- one reason Brian's symphony no.1 in print form (score, original edition and unaltered reprints) is out of copyright in the US is that its original 1932 publisher (August Cranz) failed to renew it with the LoC here around 1960 as required, iirc.
As to Brun's quartet, since it was first published in 1923 and is out of copyright in the US and in Canada, and IMSLP is successfully hosting many works out of copyright in the US and Canada that are still in copyright in Europe as Brun's quartet is, why would hosting Brun's quartet specifically, which is not in copyright in Canada (where IMSLP is hosted) or in the US (where I would be uploading it) cause a penalty fee?
(If it's because Brun's quartet would be in principle downloadable in Europe, actually, IMSLP went through this with Universal Edition about a decade ago, and the safeguards the site put in place then - after going offline for two years - were deemed adequate. I assumed people were aware of that...)
Well, eschiss1, just try and good luck :-) I see that IMSL has no other Brun scores uploads previous to 1923, and this may be a good precaution.
Anyway, will contact our main copyright responsible over here tomorrow. He is also an expert of international copyright.
I may, if I ever obtain a copy of the score or parts. I'm guessing the answer is No to my original question
(which if anyone bothered to read it, was whether or not it had ever been _recorded_.)
By the way, I'm surprised I didn't catch this about 20 entries ago, but Brilliant is misspelled in the Subject line... (indeed with a bit of transposition from "lli" to "ill" it could almost look French)
eschiss1
1) I answered your question about a recording - and said no, which means that there is none
2) I could provide with a copy of score and parts, but this not before I have cleared the publishing copyright question. Over here no one is allowed to copy score and parts - unless for private use - but you are looking forward to a public use
3) As far as this thread's title correct spelling of "Brilliant" Classic is concerned: this was an innocent typing mistake of mine - which Alan will surely correct (with my thanks). I am deeply sorry for this, but nobody is perfect...
Quote from: hadrianus on Sunday 14 April 2019, 11:24
2) I could provide with a copy of score and parts, but this not before I have cleared the publishing copyright question. Overe here no one is allowed to copy score and parts - unless for private use - but you are looking forward to a public use
But the way copyright works, even if "over there" (I assume you're in Italy?) one can't, one in Canada could given Brun died in 1959. And in the US, as long as it was published over 95 years ago (meaning 1923 or possibly 24 now....not sure which counts) this is also true.
(3) was my failed attempt to lighten the mood before I caught up on much-needed sleep :) (Pas brillantement accompli, Éric.)
"Over here" is Switzerland, Brun's native country. Sorry, but I can't understand your sentence, TerraEpon. What do you exactly mean? Also some of eschiss1's sentences are quite difficult to understand. But I speak and read English very well.
QuoteAs far as this thread's title correct spelling of "Brilliant" Classic is concerned: this was an innocent typing mistake of mine - which Alan will surely correct (with my thanks). I am deeply sorry for this, but nobody is perfect...
I hadn't even noticed. Tippfehler ausgebessert. Besser ein perfekter Dirigent als eine perfekte Schreibkraft!
As friends will have spotted, we now have two separate threads. Eric: please take note >:(
Quote from: hadrianus on Sunday 14 April 2019, 14:47
"Over here" is Switzerland, Brun's native country. Sorry, but I can't understand your sentence, TerraEpon. What do you exactly mean? Also some of eschiss1's sentences are quite difficult to understand. But I speak and read English very well.
Basically, while you need to follow the laws of the country you live in, they don't have bearing on the laws of the country others are in. Those in Canada are free to distribute any Brun music published over 25 years ago (I believe that's the way it works) because his music, in general, is in the public domain there. Those in the US are free to distribute any Brun music published in 1923 or before.
Still, there are weird exceptions. A friend just published a thesis that contained unpublished work by Arthur Conan Doyle – still under copyright apparently. And museums and archives still exert copyright on work in their collection. However, in the EU this is going to be heavily curtailed beginning on January 1st, 2020.
Well, _yes_. In fact, I posted a link (Public domain (https://imslp.org/wiki/Public_domain)) just recently, that separated the matter into, among other things, published and unpublished works... so I'll just repost it here in case anyone might want to pay attention to it this time.
... and I still wait for an answer from that SUISA responsible I have written to...
(thanks, Alan, for tranferring this to a new thread)
Just recently a certain "Johann Rufinatscha" has posted my recording of the complete Cello Concerto by Fritz Brun on YouTube. Eventhough he writes that he is not taking any commercial advantage by doing this, he does not seem to realize that he has illegally copied a recording with music of a still copyrighted composer. This music can now be downloaded free of charge by anyone.
It's also an infringement against artists' copyright (my own) and label copyrights (Brilliant Classics).
I am just asking myself what goes on in the heads of certain people as far respecting artistic achievements are concerned. Why eaxctly they copy and make a commercially protected recording available for free to anyone? Is it a revenge against the artists who are still in right to be paid for their playing? Does the uploader get a personal satisfaction to ruin the music busines that way? I see no real sense of doing this just for the joy music love, since it's an illicit joy.
Uploading a short excerpt for commercial purposes would be understandeable - but only if this is done by the sound carrier owners.
Two weeks ago there was also a complete upload of Bruns 1st Symphony...
And this very morning I discover an upload of the very complete set of 10 CDs conducted by myself on Youtube (by a certain "Kontor Media")!
Most of the time what goes through people's head is "I like this, I want others to hear it". They certainly aren't thinking "I want to ruin someone else's business".
As for "Kantor Media" are you saying they aren't doing this legitly?
https://kontornewmedia.com/en/about-us/
https://kontornewmedia.com/en/digital-distribution/music/
I am afraid you are excessively charitable in this case, TerraEpon. "Johann Rufinatscha" routinely posts protected recordings and the very fact that he adds his sort-of-excuse shows that he knows what he is doing.
I think Google ought to be forced to enforce copyright laws on its "property" by the government. As it is--as far as I know--they will take down postings that violate the law--if it pointed out to them. Which unfairly puts people like Hadrianus in the position of having to check up on this stuff. To police this seems to me a great application of so called artificial intelligence.
You are 100% right. It is disgraceful that copyright recordings are allowed to be posted on YouTube with apparent impunity. It takes money from musicians who mostly get paid very little anyway for recording the sort of music we enjoy on this forum.
Recordings are, however, an entirely separate issue from -published scores and parts- and their specific US copyright status, so never mind from here.
Brilliant just writes me that "Kontor Media is our sister company, taking care of our digital distribution worldwide. YouTube started a pay streaming channel last year like Spotify. It's not really successful but they are paying for it."
To me this is not a "pay streaming channel" at all!
What then makes it sense of producing CDs and offcial downloads one has to pay for if they allow free of charge "digital distribution worldwide" on YouTube??
I couldn't agree more.
When I was in Moscow I visited a outside-town shop with tons of illegal goods, mainly fashion products. In an adjoining room of about 80-100m lenght, they were selling pirate CDs, pop and classic. And, of course, world's cinema history on video. As far as classical music is concerned, you could get everything: Cecilia Bartoli, Maria Callas, Fischer-Dieskau, Karajan, Bernstein etc. Mostly with newly set primitive artwork. Some are also being sold by poor people in city street underground passages.
A friend of mine told me once that all my Moscow Symphony Orchestra recordings can be downloaded in the Darknet for free.
In other words, if Brilliant allows this, anyboy can just plug in a wire to the audio output of a computer and record this on a private device - and make copies. Of course, for private use it's ok, but I doubt this is being respected in all over the world.
This "Johann Rufinatscha" chappie needs taking down. Not only is he infringing copyright on multiple occasions - he is also besmirching the name and reputation of one of the foremost unsungs.
A certain member of this forum should also take down from his YouTube channel all those recordings which similarly infringe copyright. He knows who he is...
Interestingly, both individuals display an image of Rufinatscha himself. Could these two uploaders be one and the same person, I wonder?
Act now, sir, before we take action against you!
Oh boy, lot's of stuff here...
Quote from: Double-A on Saturday 27 April 2019, 13:58
I think Google ought to be forced to enforce copyright laws on its "property" by the government. As it is--as far as I know--they will take down postings that violate the law--if it pointed out to them. Which unfairly puts people like Hadrianus in the position of having to check up on this stuff. To police this seems to me a great application of so called artificial intelligence.
Yeah about that. It's already an ABSURDLY huge problem with YT's automatic algorithms as it is. There are people who's /wholly original music/ is claimed by other companies, sometimes automatically. Not to mention the whole fair use thing which is pretty much often just destroyed because "they said something bad, take it down" among many many other problems that have happened. The absolute sheer VOLUME of videos YT gets means they either have to be reactive or they wouldn't exist -- plus I believe it may actually be a legal thing that if they actively start policing some things anything they miss THEY could be liable for, but if they are just the host then they aren't liable
Quote from: hadrianus on Saturday 27 April 2019, 15:53
To me this is not a "pay streaming channel" at all!
What then makes it sense of producing CDs and offcial downloads one has to pay for if they allow free of charge "digital distribution worldwide" on YouTube??
And what about Spotify? You can listen for free there too. It boggles me that you're complaining about a company releasing music on a platform on their choice. Unless your contract when them specifically doesn't allow for it, I suppose, but that's between you and them.
On Spotify you cannot get everything for free. They have a "Free Service" and a "Paid Subscrition" option. And you need to open an account. Which means that it's a controlled thing - and for a Paid Subscrition you get a code. YouTube is not of all this: everybody can access without registration. Spotify say that "The Unlimited Service may not be available to all users. We will explain which services are available to you when you are signing up for the services."
In their terms of use, Spotify writes, among other:
1. The following is not permitted for any reason whatsoever:
Copying, redistributing, reproducing, "ripping," recording, transferring, performing or displaying to the public, broadcasting, or making available to the public any part of the Spotify Service or the Content, or otherwise making any use of the Spotify Service or the Content which is not expressly permitted under the Agreements or applicable law or which otherwise infringes the intellectual property rights (such as copyright) in the Spotify Service or the Content or any part of it;
2. using the Spotify Service to import or copy any local files that you do not have the legal right to import or copy in this way;
3. transferring copies of cached Content from an authorized Device to any other Device via any means;
4. reverse-engineering, decompiling, disassembling, modifying, or creating derivative works of the Spotify Service, Content or any part thereof except to the extent permitted by applicable law. [If applicable law allows you to decompile any part of the Spotify Service or the Content where required in order to obtain the information necessary to create an independent program that can be operated with the Spotify Service or with another program, the information you obtain from such activities (a) may only be used for the foregoing objective, (b) may not be disclosed or communicated without Spotify's prior written consent to any third party to whom it is not necessary to disclose or communicate in order to achieve that objective, and (c) may not be used to create any software or service that is substantially similar in its expression to any part of the Spotify Service or the Content];
5. circumventing any technology used by Spotify, its licensors, or any third party to protect the Content or the Service;
6. selling, renting, sublicensing, or leasing of any part of the Spotify Service or the Content;
7. circumventing any territorial restrictions applied by Spotify or its licensors;
etc.
These rules are, of course, a sort of mockery: Who does respect them and how is it possible to detect transgressors? But, at least, it looks more serious than Youtube.
As far as "copyrighted material" is concerned, today we artists also have rights. Which means that if one is a member of a "interpreter's society" like I am (both in Switzerland and in the USA), it's not always so easy to just use this and that without asking permission first - or without paying royalties. Brilliant did not inform us that they were also using their files for free download. We supposed, since they are a serious company, that they would only allow paid downloads and streamings. A contract between Brilliant and me as an "artists" does not exist. They only agreed of making a licensing contract with the Brun Estate, who is the owner of the CD masters. In there, of course they had to agree to assign the "Neigbouring rights" to the Company for a period of 10 years (Naxos, who wants to control the musical world, always wants perpetual rights!).
Last but not least, I am just the artist...
Yesterday, after I submitted to YouTube a complaint regarding the copyright situation of Fritz Brun (this in connection with other illcit Brun postings), they were not even able to understand. They answer that my complaint is suspicious and that they may delete my YouTube account! I don't even have one! They are totally dumb.
I think we artists should fight for our rights. The internet is taking advantage of us - but the money which is being made out of it goes into the wrong pockets...
...which still leaves us with this YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/user/JAMESLEVEE (https://www.youtube.com/user/JAMESLEVEE)
Exactly!
Even if the Brun Estate renounced to "neighbouring rights", allowing Brilliant to re-use the files on other media, this does not mean that Brun's music is no more under copyright.
Officially, only (double-morale) "copies for private use" are being allowed, not a world-spreading free of charge "copying" action like this. Over here, if I want to make a conference on Brun and distribute free audio samples on CDR, I have to pay a copyright fee, even if the conference is not a paying-fee one.
In my own yearly composer's (and arranger's) rights statement, It happens sometimes that am being paid for an "authorised private CD copy". This ifs fair - and may be in connection with a broadcast or with a public conference.
It is the same, for example, with photocopies: Over here, every copy shop or library has to pay an annual fee for potential copies of copyrighted material. I get some little money every year for a book I have written (which is registered at ISBN), even though it is not 100% sure if any pages of it have been photocopied. This goes on as long as my authors right's are running. In other words, the writer's union are collecting a yearly lumpsum to be distributed amongst authors - according to the quantity of titles they have registered at ISBN.
We Swiss had to fight for years until this became a law. Now we musicians/composers are on the move as far as internet rights are concerned!
In the USA, there is Soundexchange, protecting us performers. They control internet streamings etc.. Every 4 months I get some (very) little money for my recordings. And in Eurore there are companies controlling musician's Radio and TV performances. If you become a member, you are getting paid. But you have to fill in a complicate form for each separate track (not work!) you have recorded. You can imagine all single tracks of my 49 CD's. My CD with the music of "Jane Eyre" has 21 tracks... But I did - and I am being now rewarded.
Quote...which leaves us with YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/user/JAMESLEVEE
The internet service where I am at present doesn't allow connection to streaming services, but I assume that this YouTube channel carries copyright material without the copyright holders permission. If so, it's reprehensible that any long-time member here should do such a thing, especially remembering the number of times the practice has been condemned here.
This is the 'disclaimer':
It is my sincere and heartfelt wish that any and all remuneration that may be directed to me for this presentation be instead diverted to all holders of copyright. Should any party deem its removal necessary, I hereby request immediate notification prior to the filing of a claim with YouTube and I will not hesitate to delete it with all due haste.
Now: JAMES LEVEE - delete all your copyright-breaking uploads. IMMEDIATELY. Or face the consequences.
:-\It will actually take some time, but it can be done. Can't do anything about the other channels that have duplicated my uploads, some of whose owners may also be anonymous members here. I can get started tomorrow. Remember, I will only delete those uploads where I have received copyright claims from YouTube. You can kick me off this forum any time you like, but it is kind of defeating the purpose of the forum to delete these presentations. I and my anonymous colleagues have done more to reveal unsung composers to the general public than this forum alone ever will, keeping in mind that I have only been compiling into whole works what separated movements I've already found there on YT. And I have indeed gotten express permission from some of the parties involved, so I can't delete those either. Not to mention the work I do on Facebook, to which you are not privy. As I recall, the president of Nestle saying that the people of the world had no right to free drinkable water, I say that if they want to start putting clear mountain streams under surveillance and billing or arresting those hikers who drink from them, do any of us want to live in that world? I actually have some ideas that would be beneficial to all concerned, but it bears discussion. Keep in mind also, I receive no compensation from any party for my efforts, and always strive to see that those who have a claim get their due.
That response is a complete and utter disgrace. As for your claim that you and your 'anonymous colleagues have done more to reveal unsung composers to the general public than this forum alone ever will' - you would never have known about the works in the first place, or have had access to our downloads, so we reject that argument outright.
I'm afraid that's the end of the line for you at UC, Jim. Your lack of contrition here has sealed your fate.
This is all very fascinating and I quite agree that UC's tacit position as regards youtube itself (not just those who post copyright material for diverse reasons not including personal gain) should be one of deprecation. Now, unfortunately, a tacit stance has become explicit and Pandora's box has been opened. Personally, I try not to take too strong a moral stance on anything because on the one hand that would probably leave me open to the accusation of hypocrisy and on the other I realise that others (including many of my friends) live by a different moral code. Only think of climate change...
There's no question of a Pandora's Box being opened here. Our decision is a narrow one because it relates solely to the actions of one of our members. If we find that any other member has infringed in the same way, we will take the same action. Beyond that, all we can do is deplore the wholesale breaking of copyright on YouTube.
I am not sure why UC should just recently be a court of justice for what our members do outside UC. Where should this start and end? Anyway, I assume JimL has had enough already and won't bother with UC any longer.
But I hope, der79sebas - if you have read what happened on YouTube to my Fritz Brun CDs
and, over many years now, to many other CDs which I conduct - that you approve my position!
I am sick and tired of this arrogant and ruthless attitude by illegal uploaders of commercial recordings - mostly also containing music by copyrighted composers! Those guys have no idea what it needs to realize recordings. Producers, composers and artists are in right to get a little something back!
No problems with Spotify, this is a controlled thing, but Google/YouTube should really be careful. I know of many legal complaints against them already. And in Germany, there is a new law being issued enabling YouTube postings to be put stronger under control - and claims.
I have nothing against excerpts/samples being posted on YouTube by CD labels for commercial purposes - but no complete CDs posted by some music lovers with a sharing mania!
Exactly so, Adriano. And I would hope that members of this forum would have a proper respect for the musicians who give us so much pleasure.
QuoteI am not sure why UC should just recently be a court of justice for what our members do outside UC.
Well, that particular individual has in effect exploited UC (e.g. constantly asking for information on movement tempi, etc.) for his own ends. His activities outside UC would not have been possible had it not been for his membership in UC. We are therefore perfectly entitled to put a stop to his abuse of this site. After all, members here
contribute, don't they? Why should we put up with exploitation?
In addition, this individual has history - known only to the moderators.
Quotethat particular individual has in effect exploited UC (e.g. constantly asking for information on movement tempi, etc.) for his own ends.
I always found it odd that the member(s) who would upload to Youtube audio made available to this site by its members would never direct their Youtube audience to unsungcomposers.com (at least in the video descriptions and comments that I've seen). And there always seems to be someone commenting about how great this unknown piece is, how they've never heard of this composer before, about why isn't this work heard more, etc. What a great source this site would be for such people. And yet the Youtube uploader claims to be promoting the music of little-known and forgotten composers.
Thanks, Alan - and yes, cypressdome.
I think many of those guys have similar loneliness problems like most Facebook and Instragram addicts sharing pictures and little films. They show up with something rare they have found in the net and spread it around to make them feel "interesting" and therefore get "friends" communicating with them. In my weekly correspondence I have to deal with quite a few such cases calling themselves "friends" - which I have never met personally. They write me all kind of nice things, but also give me advice what I should do. That I should promote myself better, to become an international star, that I should conduct this and not that, that I should use this or that booklet cover or put a big cover photo of myself instead of silly old paintings - or write my liner notes differently. I also had to deal with stalkers, or "friends" who were just standing in my door, wanting to make my acquaintance and become "friends". There was once a guy from Buenos Arires who, apparently, had flown to Zurich only to meet me - he had received my private address from a Swiss acquaintance. After all, he had all my CDs in his collection, so he felt in right that I became his "friend". Not to speak of some SMS messages I get sometimes on my mobile...
A reply to eschiss1 - to his first posting of this thread
The Swiss composer's copyright company (SUISA) just write me that, if one wants to reproduce a printed score by Fritz Brun on the IMSLP page, he must ask permssion to the publisher (Hug Musikerlage, Zürich) - otherwise it would be an infringment of "graphic rights".
Of course this shows how hopelessly complicated intellectual property law has become. The "graphic rights" I assume belong to Hug, not to Brun's estate. Imagine IMSLP got its hands on a photocopy of Brun's autograph. Could they post that in Canada? Or would Brun's estate also own graphic rights?
There is the other question: If the work got posted in Canada would it be worth the effort for Hug to sue? I doubt very much. So what is the point of those graphic rights?
@ Alan Howe: Thanks for the clarification!
Frankly, DoubleA (and eschiss1), this should be enquired directly by the parties who want to upload. I am not here for that too. I am an artist and not a copyright enquiries bureau. I've given enough info already to help.
I think perhaps we've gone as far as we can with this topic.
I'll end on a personal note. A decade or so ago I encountered the music of Rufinatscha - and forged a close working relationship with the Tyrolean State Museums in Innbruck who sold (and still sell) wonderful recordings of his music. And what did I then find? That the member now banned from this site had uploaded some of these precious recordings for any cheapskate Tom, Dick or Harry to download free of charge - without any consideration of the effort and cost that had gone into their production.
No wonder Adriano feels so strongly about all this. It's his living, after all...
I wish it were, Alan...
But not even with my low conducting fees - and many recordings condcuted fro free - I would have been able to live. My job at the Zurich Opera kept me up. Now I have to survive on a not all too exciting pension - in this extremely expensive country of mine. And, dont't forget, I never was given a cent of royalties for my 30 Marco Polo/Naxos CDs. Small royalty precentages coming from Guild were passed on to the Brun Estate and from the two last Sterling CDs, will go to the sponsors. But these are sums in the range of less that 80 Euro per year...
To me this copyright problem is mainly a matter of principle and respect toward artists and musicians.
I am sorry, Hadrianus. My questions were meant entirely rhetorical/sarcastic. I think we can all agree that the law as presently on the books and as presently enforced is far from optimal.
Right, Double-A .-)
Brun's autographs are definitely deposited all over here in Switzerland, either at the Paul Sacher Foundation or with the Brun Estate (deposited at the Zurich Central Library). Two separate works are in Berne Archives. That's easy to take under control, since he did not write much music.
As you see, also those autograph's rights are clearly defined. And, if IMSLP would want to reproduce a photocopy of an autograph, they would have to ask the Estate first. From the Sacher museum fridge one does not get anything for sure!
But I doubt whether MS copies in the net will be possible as long as Brun is protected. I have "safety" PDF copies of all orchestral and chamber works - scores and autographs - and work on a detailed catalogue. The Estate fully trusts me also in my function as a controller of all work's sources.
The problem with Brun is that most of his works are in autograph form; only his Symphonies 3-5 have been printed, besides some songs and chamber works *). So, in case another conductor would want to perform an unprinted Symphony, he would have to do this from an autograph's copy - like I did. Bruns publisher (Hug Musikverlage) was alarmed at Bruns stylistic development after the 2nd Symphony, so after the 4th, they did not want to continue the series.
Piano scores of the Piano and Cello Concerto, of his Variations for strings and piano - and the two work for choir and orchestra are available in new editions prepared by myself - as the scores (and parts) of the Festive Overture and of the mentioned Variations.
*) New editions of Brun's two Violin Sonatas are available for sale from Amadeus Verlag, Winterthur.
http://www.amadeusmusic.ch/itemlist.php?qsa=|||143|||
Quite by happenstance I listened to the entire Brun Cello Concerto on YouTube a day after it was posted there and liked it so much I immediately purchased the CD. This is a good thing, no? Had I not been able to hear the music (not just a sample but the whole piece) there is no way I would risk $20 on the completely unknown. What I describe has been duplicated dozens of times by me, and all to the financial renumeration of the composers, artists, and record labels Adriano advocates for. Isn't this the bright side of a phenomenon everyone here seems to unqualifiedly castigate?
But what if you didn't like it and therefore didn't purchase it? Listening to sample clips is different from listening to the whole piece. You dont buy a shirt and wear it a function and then decide to purchase it because you liked it.
Right so, FBerwald!
Greg K sounds honest to me, but he is certainly a rare case :-)
Nothing against the possibility of listening to a work online before buying a CD, but this should be possible only by paying a small fee - in favour, at least, to a still copyrighted composer. YouTube too should set up something like this.
To be fully protected as a performer/artist I have given up hopes since a long time...
In the worst of cases, one could go to a library.
Over here we have an online collection of all CDs figuring in the State Phonographic Archive. My complete Discography looks, for example, like this:
https://www.fonoteca.ch/cgi-bin/oecgi4.exe/inet_fnbasephononamedetail?NAME_ID=36705.011&LNG_ID=DEU
(klick on "Alle Dokumente"). This list also includes some recordings by other conductors which I have restored.
So, one can go to a public library, click and listen to those audio files (without copying them, of course).
Some CD shops still have listening devices. One also can read reviews or listen to Radio.
I must admit that sound samples are of no good help - and can be totally misleading.
As far as buying music is concerned: The greatest part of recordings of my huge collection were bought blindly, rarely by listening to sound samples - or upon recommendation - or after reading biographies.
Music is worth taking risks, as any other art form, including cinema.
I bought my complete Proust, Dickens, Chechov and Dostojewski without even knowing a passage; just because I was curious and had heard that it's great :-)
As far as the Brun Cello Concerto is concerned, my liner notes can be read in the free online 164-page Booklet on Brilliant's Website. This could also be considered a recommendation :-)
https://www.brilliantclassics.com/media/1621710/95784-brun-booklet-download-file.pdf
Or subscribe to a free account with spotify... Brun's complete orchestral works can be streamed with a decent quality (mp3-128), which is much better than samples. Then decide if you want to buy the CDs or download with a higher quality...
Exactly, jdperdrix :-)
I hope the new control laws against YouTube are being soon taken over by other countries as well. Germany just started a week ago.
QuoteMusic is worth taking risks
Quite right!
My copy of the Fritz Brun boxset arrived today, and I've almost finished the first disc.
So far I'm finding the music very enjoyable.
Please could all comments on the Brun boxset itself be posted here:
http://www.unsungcomposers.com/forum/index.php/topic,7089.15.html (http://www.unsungcomposers.com/forum/index.php/topic,7089.15.html)
UE when it asked IMSLP to cease and desist basically said, iirc, that yes since it was still downloadable in the EU no matter where it was uploaded from. 2 years later IMSLP took measures to make this much more difficult, so the site went back up. A number of publications that are C-EU but PD-elsewhere and published by Gebrüder Hug are @ IMSLP already; if Hug really objects to these they can email IMSLP as provided at its front page...
Thanks, eschiss1
But I am certainly not prompting Hug about this, in case the miniature score of the Brun Quartet will show up. They have more important problems surviving as a music publisher...
I am generally protesting becase I am struggling since the coming of internet that more rights to composers, musicans and publishers should be given. To me, the present situation is still very undignifying.
Brilliant Classics also has their own official YouTube channel, on which they've uploaded videos as brief as individual piano bagatelles and as long as 8 hours of Telemann several-CD sets (might be a playlist, have to double-check) (and many things, much of it within our remit and of general interest to this channel, I should add- I have no commercial association with them, etc., etc.). (They have not uploaded the Brun set there, I'd assume needless to say. Lots of other things, though.)
Pretty sure all Brilliant uploads are full discs and sets, not playlists (outside of maybe in the early days). But yeah, they seem to be firmly in the 'if you can't beat em, join em' mentality on the matter.
@eschiss
Brilliant has (unfortunately) uploaded the complete Brun set on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_kRIeSTQ72UT8TNnpUIy6TUgz2e7yg86Zs
Various companies (like Kontor Media in this case, acting on behalf of Brilliant) have now an agreement - and an obligation with YouTube, that the composer's copyrights are being respected. This especially after a new German law of a couple olf months ago.
It also appears that private uploads (I just discovered some new ones), will be controlled by Kontor Media. So let's be curious how really the next GEMA/SUISA copright statement of the Brun Estate will look!
This kind of "suicide by instalments" by labels I will never understand. They just should stop complaining about low sales: it's their own fault.
Incidentally, after my last complains on some other private uploads, YouTube/Google has asccused me of doing "illicit activities" - and they blocked my accounts without further comment. All I was trying is to put their attention about rewarding protected music! I think I was noot too far away to comparw YouTube/Google with a kind of Mafia.
BTW my* Naxos Music Library subscription through IMSLP no longer covers works that are not in fact @ IMSLP (a little more complicated than that even), so while I did have access to the whole NML for awhile- including eg the Brun symphonies streaming in their earlier incarnations - I don't now. So goes!
*(and - so far as I know others who get NML as part of an IMSLP subscription; it is now a limited though still quite large subset of NML)
I am suprised this affects Naxos - whose sole aim is to control the whole musical world...
As far as the theme in my earlier posting is concerned, already in 2016 there was an agreement with YouTube & Co.:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/02/business/international/germany-music-royalties-youtube.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blocking_of_YouTube_videos_in_Germany
The new (2019) law is now being extended, among others, to enable artists to force YouTube deleting contents of which they are the (sole) right owners:
hyperallergic.com/492115/what-the-eus-new-copyright-law-means-for-artists/
dw.com/en/article-13-will-it-hinder-or-promote-artistic-expression/a-48081724
In other words I cannot claim anymore against Brun CDs of mine being privately uploaded to YouTube, since my rights as a performer are not included in the release agreements with the labels involved. Anyway, they would not have produced these recordings if I had insisted on royalties. Already in my early Naxos/Marco Polo years, I had to sign an agreement, renouncing to "neighbouring rights", otherwise all these recordings could not have been done.
But what is more important: Brun's music copright is now being controlled and respected on the so-called free internet.
One learns something new every day.