What is the legal basis for the sale of transcriptions?

[Timo-Germany]

Dear Community,

some of you may have noticed that I make transcriptions of jazz, rock and pop songs.

Do you know what the legal situation is regarding the sale of such transcriptions? Is it allowed to sell them officially or to make them available for free to Patreon members?

Thank you for your help!

 

[Moejo]

This is what business startups has to say....

Without written permission form ALL of the publishing rights holders (there can be multiple publishing rights for single titles), and without a valid license agreement, the only way to legally sell transcribed sheet music is to make sure the original compositions you are transcribing are in the public domain.

 

[Supergrobi]

You'd be publishing copyright reserved material (urheberrechtlich geschütz in German), which is illegal in at least the western world, no matter if commercial, for free or "on donation".

 

[Supergrobi]

Addition: in order to monetize or publish you'd in any case have to get an agreement from the music publisher doing the commercial exploitation. But since in Germany the copyright can in no way be transferred you'd also need the agreement from the originator(s) over here. This might not be the case in countries allowing for transfer of copyright like the US for example. No need to get an agreement from the record label, since they are publishing/monetizing music in audible form, not sheets.

 

[toddbishop]

I assume we're talking about drum transcriptions? The notes of a drumming performance are not copyrightable. A drum transcription is copyrightable, by the person who made it, i.e, you. I've been selling transcriptions for years and have never been messed with.

You couldn't transcribe The Black Page and sell that-- it's a composed piece, the written music is copyrighted. It's very likely that there are other Zappa compositions where the drums are considered part of the composition, and are therefore copyrighted. I would avoid selling anything with his name on it, legal transcription or not-- his estate is very litigious.

Of course you can't transcribe the melody and lyrics of Smells Like Teen Spirit and sell or distribute it.

 

[Push pull stroke]

I would doubt, at least in the US, that you would ever be sued for this. Fake books have been around for many, many decades.

Saxophone Reeds Buyer's Guide | WWBW.com : The Music Room

Use our comprehensive saxophone reeds buyer's guide and learn the essentials about saxophone reeds at Woodwind & Brasswind.

www.wwbw.com

And you’d just be providing drum parts, not even chords or melody. Fake books have always existed in a legal gray area, but I’ve never heard of a court case.

 

[dcrigger]

I would doubt, at least in the US, that you would ever be sued for this. Fake books have been around for many, many decades.

Saxophone Reeds Buyer's Guide | WWBW.com : The Music Room

Use our comprehensive saxophone reeds buyer's guide and learn the essentials about saxophone reeds at Woodwind & Brasswind.

www.wwbw.com

And you’d just be providing drum parts, not even chords or melody. Fake books have always existed in a legal gray area, but I’ve never heard of a court case.

But he'd be collecting money selling something bearing the titles of copywriter songs - while stating that "these parts are part of these songs". As soon as his marketing reached any level of visibility, rest assured cease and desist letters from one or more big publishers would arrive. And yes, they would sue - and have for far less. Of course, their suit would never see court because ceasing and desisting would be the only sensible path to take.

As for fake books - music publishers fought against fake books for decades.... threatening legal action against any retailer selling them. And obviously we could never by them mail order - because marketing them would get sued.

And now of course all a moot point - as illegal fake books are pretty much a relic of the past. Even the Real Book is now completely legal - since 2005(?), Hal Leonard began publishing it after having first secured all of the rights from the song publishers to do so.

 

[Push pull stroke]

But he'd be collecting money selling something bearing the titles of copywriter songs - while stating that "these parts are part of these songs". As soon as his marketing reached any level of visibility, rest assured cease and desist letters from one or more big publishers would arrive. And yes, they would sue - and have for far less. Of course, their suit would never see court because ceasing and desisting would be the only sensible path to take.

As for fake books - music publishers fought against fake books for decades.... threatening legal action against any retailer selling them. And obviously we could never by them mail order - because marketing them would get sued.

And now of course all a moot point - as illegal fake books are pretty much a relic of the past. Even the Real Book is now completely legal - since 2005(?), Hal Leonard began publishing it after having first secured all of the rights from the song publishers to do so.

There are transcriptions of drum parts freely available all over the Web and YouTube. Have you ever even googled them? Nobody is suing ANYONE over this. 🙄

Everybody on the internet is an expert on everything. And the real experts get lost in the shuffle. Please tell us, Justice Marshall, all about the relevant case law 🙄😂

 

[Chris Whitten]

There are transcriptions of drum parts freely available all over the Web and YouTube.

There's also a mountain of albums, tv shows and films that have been uploaded without permission. Just because something is common and basically overwhelming, doesn't make it legal.

 

[Juniper]

Regardless of any legalities or how common it may already be I think it comes down the below, in all honesty.

Would the OP like it if other people made transcriptions of his work/teachings…etc and sold them for profit?

Personally speaking, as someone that has released music that I helped create if I found out someone was making a profit on them (highly unlikely I may add) I’d be annoyed.

 

[toddbishop]

Regardless of any legalities or how common it may already be I think it comes down the below, in all honesty.

Would the OP like it if other people made transcriptions of his work/teachings…etc and sold them for profit?

Personally speaking, as someone that has released music that I helped create if I found out someone was making a profit on them (highly unlikely I may add) I’d be annoyed.

Some people like publicity, or like being seen as worth transcribing, or being included in drumming literature.

The work : profit ratio in making and selling drum transcriptions is the same as it is for playing the drums, or worse. Definitely worse, actually.

 

[Chris Whitten]

It wouldn't bother me.
I've already been paid for recording the drum part.
In fact I've been sampled more than once and never got paid.

 

[Juniper]

Some people like publicity, or like being seen as worth transcribing, or being included in drumming literature.

Sure, of course there are different opinions.

Just stating mine. Each to their own and all that.

 

[Timo-Germany]

Thank you for all your advice.It does seem that, at least in Germany, the consent of the rights holders must be obtained. It remains a difficult and controversial issue. It could also be simple!

 

[toddbishop]

In your videos you're playing along with the original recording, which youtube won't let you monetize-- youtube does actually pay the rights holder of that recording, so you're not ripping anyone off by doing it. You just can't get paid.

The transcription itself should be fine-- unless drumming and other accompaniment (the musical content, not the recording) is copyrightable in Germany? I don't believe it is.

 

[Supergrobi]

We have the so called "Urheberrecht" over here which is quite strong. No need to copyright anything - as soon as you e.g. let one slip it automatically falls under this right, one doesn't have to claim copyright for it. It is so strong you can't even pass your "Urheberschaft" over to another person or institution. You can give away the right to monetize you work, but not your "Urheberschaft". So whatever is created by anyone over here is copyrighted by default.

It's a challenge to claim your share of the cake when it comes to monetarization, that's for sure, e.g. you're playing out your own ideas on a recording of an artist. But you're the "Urheber" nonetheless, so you're able to define what's happening to your work.