Etiquette question

[guitar george]

Giving the pieces you bought, as part of a package from a composer on line, to another teacher sounds a bit unethical to me. It is quite likely he might use them again for his teaching purposes. You should ask the teacher to teach you other pieces, of his and your choice, and then when you are capable enough, you could learn the pieces that you bought on line by yourself.

[jhmulkey]

Originally Posted by Lake Sagatagan

the piece is part of a package I bought online from a composer who jealously and justly guards his product.

I take it from this deduction that you must have read something that he stipulated on the site and/or music itself as to what you could or could not do with it, right? What did it say?

Also, you don't have to let the teacher keep a copy.

[Brick is Red]

Originally Posted by devellis

Pretty sure this is a perfect example of what's meant by "fair use." The example usually given for fair use is for strictly educational purposes.

Copyright is intended to serve the public good not merely protect the originator of the work. But, of course, the two are not diametrically opposed. All law is intended to serve the public good. Part of serving the public good is not depriving creators of the opportunity to benefit financially from their creations, which would stifle creativity and societal progress. So, creators are afforded protections. But another part of the public good is not making restrictions so draconian that uses not compromising the value of the creation are restricted across the board. As with most laws, there's a balancing act between the rights and benefits that accrue to various parties (in this case, the individual creator and society as a whole). Laws, ultimately, are for society's benefit (at least in democracies) and only serve individuals to the extent that doing so is seen as benefiting society. Of course, serving individuals often does benefit the society as a whole by promoting a sense of fair play and buy-in to the social order. If the pendulum swings too far in either direction, that is compromised; so the goal is to treat both individuals and society as a whole -- creators and those who might have legitimate, allowable uses for their creations -- even-handedly. Public use is a clear example of this principle, where uses that don't materially harm the creator are allowed, especially if those uses serve a greater good (such as education) at the same time.

OP, tell the instructor that the material is copyrighted and that you don't want to be unfair to the copyright owner, so you're asking that he/she not recopy or otherwise distribute it. That should suffice.

Photocopying is most certainly not a copyright violation. If it were, there wouldn't have photocopiers in libraries, or most other places for that matter. Educational institutions can make copies of published materials for distribution to students when doing so requires timely access and the materials are limited in scope (e.g., not an entire book).

I'm not a lawyer and those who are may have more nuanced explanations of these laws. What I've stated above was garnered from my involvement in some multi-site projects that involved the use of copyrighted materials under the auspices of the federal government and with the input and guidance (at our request) of government legal experts. I was actually on both sides of the issue as a creator of some materials that were used in these projects. Something I learned incidentally from these projects was that a lot of this stuff hasn't been definitively resolved in law but certain fundamental principles are presumed to apply and seem likely to be supported by courts if cases were actually brought. But nothing is "air tight."

The situation the OP describes certainly looks to be consistent with the fair use doctrine, however, and that's an integral component of copyright law.

All just my observations, which carry no particular weight.

Well said. Thoughtful and articulate distillation of some foundational principles. You've captured what I think is the big picture. I saw first hand what happens when a music teachers orders one set of sheet music for 6 alto sax players and photocopies the rest. Make no mistake that under those facts, a publisher has a meritorious cause of action against.

There is often a push make sense of things by understanding a doctrine as applied to one set of facts and then proceeding to broadly apply it to other situations. A teacher can makes copies of a book chapter and distribute it to the class for educational use. I know that's been allowed. The error is in understanding fair use doctrine as applied to one type of use and broadly applying it to all use in a educational settings or for any educational purpose. When cases are decided and opinions published, it had the effect of creating law. We're often instructed on how statutory language is interpreted by the courts, we learn how broadly or narrowly courts will apply the law to a set of facts. It has the effect of creating law because courts give substantial weight to prior precedence.

Fair use for the history teacher as applied to the music teacher sets up a strong likelihood for a different outcome. I won't know whether what the OP did in distributing his music to the instructor is fair use. What I do know is that courts are deciding how broadly or narrowly copyright law is applied to certain kinds of use. It's not enough to know the outcome of a case if one fails to analyze why and how a court arrived at its decisions. Complexity where it exists, is often in layers.

Writing on an iPhone is brutal. I've got to be killing my eyes and autocorrect is screwing up things I can't even see.

[rmgjsps]

I am not a lawyer, but there is concept in copyright law called "fair use." Typically, it is OK to use small amounts of copyrighted material in an educational setting without explicit permission and free of royalty payment. You may NOT use that material for performance or in any commercial setting. You may use it as a learning tool, your instructor may use small parts only in teaching, but may not duplicate it or distribute it or play it for performance -- you can't perform it publically either. Any lawyers out there who can add something? I only know any of this because I worked at a major university for fifteen years or so.

[vindibona1]

Originally Posted by Lake Sagatagan

Thanks for all the thoughtful answers. My prejudice, you might guess, was toward those who suggested it wasn't a big deal. BUT, since there wasn't unanimity, I decided to err on the side of integrity. Just this once.

I've contacted the composer for guidance and am prepared to follow his druthers. In my case, an added $10 to the cost of my lessons isn't that much. The loss of my soul must be worth nearly double!

True character... That's something you don't see every day.
Good for you!

[Larry Pattis]

When I took lessons (many decades ago, as a kid) my instructor had *me* buy the sheet-music for the pieces we worked on...mostly classical.

He already owned them.

You crossed a line...sorry.

[CycleBob]

Originally Posted by Lake Sagatagan

Thanks for all the thoughtful answers. My prejudice, you might guess, was toward those who suggested it wasn't a big deal. BUT, since there wasn't unanimity, I decided to err on the side of integrity. Just this once.



I've contacted the composer for guidance and am prepared to follow his druthers. In my case, an added $10 to the cost of my lessons isn't that much. The loss of my soul must be worth nearly double!

Good for you Lake. Best of luck learning the piece.

[Jabberwocky]

Good for you, Lake. You are a stand-up guy.

[Dronfield]

Hi

I have a monthly lesson and take along my own guitar books - we work through the 3 pieces that I am currently learning.

My teacher scribbles in pencil on my books and gives advice/help on areas that I have struggled with.

She doesn't have her own separate copies of the pieces - why would she need them when she can just share mine at the lessons?

I would guess she probably teaches 50 other pupils so not sure why she would want/feel the need to work on my pieces away from my lesson time.

Sorry if I am missing something here.

Rich

[fazool]

I disagree about the moral argument. This is not OK, morally. Just because you steal a copy of the writer's work, use it without paying, then destroy, it doesn't mean anything.

The instructor is using it as a vehicle for profit and you are using it without permission or paying the person who wrote it.

[jhmulkey]

Originally Posted by Larry Pattis

When I took lessons (many decades ago, as a kid) my instructor had *me* buy the sheet-music for the pieces we worked on...mostly classical.

He already owned them.

My understanding is that the OP owns the music, and the photocopy was just for the instructor to play along with him at the lesson (I guess the print must be too small to play from one music stand or something). That's not the same as a teacher buying the music and letting students take photocopies of it home with them.

Originally Posted by fazool

I disagree about the moral argument. This is not OK, morally. Just because you steal a copy of the writer's work, use it without paying, then destroy, it doesn't mean anything.

The instructor is using it as a vehicle for profit and you are using it without permission or paying the person who wrote it.

The OP bought the music, so I'm assuming you're referring to the photocopy for the teacher to play along with him at the lesson as "stealing"? That depends on the stipulation of the copyright holder. They may allow photocopying for lesson use (for the teacher to be able to play along more easily during the lesson, not to keep); they may not. Many educational materials allow for photocopying for classroom use, for example.

[vindibona1]

Originally Posted by fazool

I disagree about the moral argument. This is not OK, morally. Just because you steal a copy of the writer's work, use it without paying, then destroy, it doesn't mean anything.

The instructor is using it as a vehicle for profit and you are using it without permission or paying the person who wrote it.

I'm not sure if you're referring to this specific incident or all things where purchased sheet music is copied, used an then destroyed? I don't think the answer (in general) is so cut and dried.

I happen to play in two groups tangentially tied to two local universities (one a MAJOR university with a big name music school) and they do not issue original parts to their musicians. It's not a secret and not done in clandestine fashion. Every university that I know of copies music. It's just the way things are done. If it was considered a copyright infraction you would think there would already be legal action and judgement. If we backup a step and look at the music purchase, the purchased sheet music often comes with one or two of each part. But what if the organization has 3 or 4 players on each part in some sections, one or two in other sections. Do they not copy the music for the use of their other players, or do they have to buy a number of copies to accommodate their largest sections? From a morall standpoint, are these universities copying music to steal from the composer/publisher or to merely protect their investment by not issuing original parts to the players?

I understand the difference between the above situation and the OP's situation. In my mind it comes down to intent. Did the OP buy the music? Yes. So he's covered there. Is the copy only intended for convenience, or actual sharing? I think that's where the distinction comes in. But I applaud him for going above and beyond to take the high road.

[TBman]

Originally Posted by Tico

I was in a big choir that bought only one score of each piece.
They xeroxed 100 copies, one for each member.

Somehow they got caught and threatened with a lawsuit.
After that they bought 50 scores, and two members shared one.

To me, that would be counter productive in a way to the original artist.

If a choir can't get your notation economically to perform and publicize your music for you, your music will be unheard.

Every time someone plays a song, its free advertising for the artists. What if music groups turned the table and wanted to get paid for the promotional expense of performing (covering) your song?

[devellis]

Originally Posted by Tico

I was in a big choir that bought only one score of each piece.
They xeroxed 100 copies, one for each member.

Somehow they got caught and threatened with a lawsuit.
After that they bought 50 scores, and two members shared one.

As with music downloading, just because technology makes something easy (and private/secret) does not mean it's not stealing.

So you have to decide what kind of person you want to be.

Being threatened by a lawsuit doesn't mean that you're doing anything wrong. Often, these threats are intended as intimidation to coerce compliance with what a party would prefer to happen.

On the project I mentioned tangentially above that involved the use of copies of materials on a federally-funded project, we received a letter from the attorney of one author. We forwarded it to our university's legal department. They said we weren't doing anything wrong and they sent a letter to the author's attorney saying that they (the university's legal office) would be happy to see them (the author and his lawyer) in court. We never heard from the author or his attorney again, the materials were used on the project, and that was the end of it. We also checked with government attorneys, since the feds were funding the project. they also reassured us that the way we were using the materials was not a problem. The multi-site project even constituted an intellectual property committee to work with lawyers in the event that further claims arose. I'm not sure if any others did arise but if so, they were similarly dealt with.

So the threat of suit in the instance I described was just a stab in the dark by the author and counsel. They likely knew they didn't have a firm basis for a suit but figured it was worth a try. Calling their bluff quickly silenced them. Of course, a major university is in a better position to do that than a private party who may be just as much in the right as we were (based on the opinions of our and the government's lawyers) but may not have the resources to defend themselves.

This isn't to say that the case raised in the post quoted is similar in any way or that a lawsuit in that instance wouldn't have been pursued. I have no idea. It's simply to say that the threat of a suit doesn't mean that the person making the threat is in the right.

[Lake Sagatagan]

This afternoon I saw a sublime concert, in a small deconsecrated church, overlooking the San Francisco Bay, given by Andrew York. He is the composer of the music that I provided to my teacher. (I hoped my teacher would be able to refer to the music and guide my study.) After the concert, when I described the question to him, as presented in my original post, Mr. York absolved me. Copying a piece to be shared by one other person and without the intention of financial profit did not offend him. He and I are square.