Can a university claim outright ownership of rare music when they own the original publication?
September 152011
Hi, I have been scouring the world for Czerny’s Piano Concerto in A minor. I found it at California Berkeley’s library and they are charging me to make a microfilm copy which I will then enlarge so I can use. But my problem with this is along with the order form they sent me a piece of paper to sign. Which essentially claimed all intellectual rights to the piece along with claiming any derivative works coming from this piece. They even require written approval from their head of music to perform this piece for profit!? My question is, this has been public domain for hundreds of years!? Do they have any right to claim all these rights to it when they simply own an original publication of the work? It is not like they own the copyright itself. All I simply want to do is create a copy and send it in to the Library of Congress so at least our own nations library has it but I sure won’t tell them that because I am sure they want to retain their super rare materials and keep it rare…. Do I have any way that I can avoid signing the waiver while still being able to purchase the microfilm copy from them? Or is the reality that they won’t give away any of their rare materials unless people sign the stupid waiver? Does that mean if I obtain the original Hofmeister publication that I can claim ownership on any derivative work or recording and make people sign waivers when I distribute it!? It sounds absurd to me that they can do this to public domain music! Help me beat the system for the sake of making rare music common again!
1. This item is to be used for scholarly purposes only.
2. Reproductions in whole or in part of this item must beb authorized by written permission from the Head of the Music LIbrary in every instance.
3. The Music Library, University of California Berkeley, should be cited as the OWNER of this work with each publication or other public use of a part or the whole of the work.
4. Written permission from the Head of the Music Library must be obtained for the following: facsimile or modern editions, recordings for commercial purposes, public performance or publication or research based on one or more of the music library sources, whether in part or whole. In addition, one copy of the article (in off print0< book, edition or other published form in which our title is cited or featured prominently must be supplied to the Music Library gratis.
5. This item may not be passed on, sold, or loaned through interlibrary loan or similar networks.
6. All prospective BORROWERS (SO NOW THEY QUALI
6. All prospective BORROWERS (SO NOW THEY QUALIFY ME AS A BORROWER…) of this item should be referred to the Music Library Berkeley.
7. All costs are borne by the borrower.
True I might be over-hyping it, but my main goal is to get this in other libraries. There is NO WAY I see them letting me do that.
This is a fairly standard form to get whenever using archival materials. Some of the clauses here only really apply if you want to write an academic paper or publish material that you borrow from the library.
Owning the original score does not entitle you to royalties for any subsequent performance and ex-post-facto ownership of recordings. However it does give you limited control of public for profit usage of the specific document.
As long as the item is the property of the library you have to follow their rules if you want to use it. There are a few exceptions to this. If the material is in the public domain you may freely use that (however if what you do is related to specific markings unique to a their copy then you are restricted, i.e. analysis based the composers stray marks). Since the piece is already in the public domain then you may perform it free of charge, the relevant clause is superceeded by public domain.
Item 2 is again standard. They own the document and within the bounds of other applicable laws can control its usage. Item 3 is simply a matter of properly citing your sources and I take no issue with it.
Item 4 is a standard quid pro quo. If you create something as a result of using their materials you agree to give them a free copy.
5 is again not problematic, in plain english you agree not to steal, or be complicit in stealing their documents.
6 to a library a borrower is simply someone who uses the library materials, this is nothing to be concerned about. If you don’t want to be a borrower, look for the materials somewhere else.
7. means if you want to use, you have to pay for it yourself. No free lunches.
All in all I think you’re hyping this too much. In general libraries want their materials used and enjoyed by the public. I don’t see any need to "beat the system" over this.