Copyrights and permission question

[flybye023]

So, I was originally going to post this on CS but thought it might be safer here, just in case.

My mom owns a piece of sheet music. She's had it for 30-plus years. A couple of years ago, the choir director wanted to use it in a Christmas program but couldn't find any copies. He somehow tracked down a contact for the copyright owner and sent a letter. They responded saying the music was out of print but that he could make copies (I don't remember if they gave him a specific number or not).

Today he stopped by because he wants to use the music in his new congregation and needed the copies we had (evidently he kept some and my mom ended up with some). He made some remark about getting all the copies back to my mom when he was finished. She responded than, no, they were his and he could keep them. His reasoning was that the original is hers, therefore the copies he made with permission are hers.

Personally, I agree with him because if he ever needed to prove anything he wouldn't have it. Mom thinks we're both being silly. What do you all think?

[Andara Bledin]

Well, technically, making copies for others would be copyright infringement.

However, practically speaking, copyright is a civil matter, and for there to be a case, the copyright holder would have to pursue the case in court. If the work is not available for sale and he is not selling those copies, then there's not really any incentive for a civil case to be brought.

Finally, if the choir director has a copy of a letter that gives express permission to make copies, I suspect that would be an absolute defense to do just that.

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

It doesn't matter if your Mom possesses the only existing copy; the right to make and sell more remains with the author unless he has sold that right (or the work is a lot older than 30 years. This, by the way, is one of the evils of continually extending copyright length: it means that items the owners have long ago lost interest in, and which may only exist in a handful or even only one copy, which is probably old and fragile and perhaps in an out-of-date format as well, *still* cannot be copied by anyone else. Which means that by the time copyright expires, they won't even exist at all. Combine that with DMCA's provision that even if you have the right to copy something it's still illegal if the source media contains copy protection, and see where we may be in a hundred years or so.) If she refuses to make copies, well, nobody else will have any, ever, but that doesn't give her any rights.

[Andara Bledin]

Currently in the US, at least for the time being, it is legal to make a personal copy for back-up purposes under the auspices of fair use.

And in Canada, that extends even further, if I'm recalling correctly.

Not to mention that in a lot of other countries, there are completely different rules, such as those where unless you register the copyright in that country, they don't recognize its existence.

But that's neither here nor there; the copyright holder has extended written permission for the copying of the work in question.

And, as all that is required is to throw it onto a copier or to transcribe it, there is no copy protection circumvention to worry about, thus rendering that clause in the DMCA completely moot.

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

I didn't say it applied in this case. I was taking the opportunity to complain about the current state of copyright law.