copyright infrigment

I just looked, and when I pulled up one of your titles, there was a message saying it had been pulled because you were submitting it to a publisher. Maybe he's relented.

What do you mean? You mean SMA?

Because I just subscribed and downloaded all 5 of my scores, without any problem! :angry:

No, that's on IMSLP.

The funny thing is, this person seems to be under the misguided impression that making a "new scan" of the same music breaks its original copyright and gives him some sort of new copyright. hehehehehehe

I suspect he's thinking it's like a new edition of a "copyrighted edition", and forgetting that Niko's music is what is still covered by copyright law.

Sure, if you grab a Henle edition of a Beethoven sonata, then punch the notes into Finale or Sibelius and basically make your own "new" edition, THAT is covered by your "new medium" edition copyright (if you apply for it). But making a photocopy, or a scan, of a "copyrighted edition" such as Henle, or International, or whatever, does not in any way break the original edition copyright holder's rights. He is still illegally copying a copyrighted work (the engraving, in this case).

However, the simple fact of re-copying for yourself a copyrighted work does not in and of itself break its copyright nor bestow any "new" copyright upon your own copy of it.

Problem solved for me.

I got in contact with someone in SMA and my name and scores are removed.

Thanks everyone and I'll let you know of the details should you wish so (not so many really).

Nikolas

Good for you! Although I think if this happened to me I wouldn't have been quite as upset. I certainly would have asked them to take it down, but I would never have subscribed to the site (it's rather ironic to me that you did) or bothered with lawyers. It would have been different had he actually claimed that they were his own compositions and was trying to make some kind of hefty profit at your expense...

I understand you want to assert your right and be proud of your works, but I think we also have to put aside our emotions sometimes and think logically and practically about the situation - Was the stress you put yourself over this issue really necessary? Instead of assuming that this site was deviously trying to ruin you and steal your hard work.. I would have first thought it was an oversight (esp. considering how large the selection of composers are - I wouldn't be surprised if they simply had some sort of automated system that groomed IMSLP for scores) and asked them to take down my work. Fortunately in this case, they were cooperative and the issue was resolved.

Anyways, I guess what I am trying to say is there is a silver lining to this cloud - yes, them having your works up was wrong, but they weren't an donkey about it as far as I could tell, and on some level you should be happy that these random strangers thought your work was good enough to have listed in their catalog of composers - alongside the likes of Bach, Beethoven and Mozart. Of course, I don't mean you should be happy that they decided to charge people money to see it, but that it merited being charged money to see!

What they did was wrong. They mentioned there was some kind of bug, and have removed other living composers from the subscription part of SMA, which is good.

Problem, with my case, is that (if you have read this somewhere), I'm looking for self publishing, so this whole case COULD potentially hurt my best interest. I'm not (at least I don't consider me to be), just an amateur composer, etc. This is why I was rather upset.

PLus the random strangers did NOT asset my works at all. They just got to the IMSLP page and got the same 5 scores that were there.

It's wrong to steal. Period.

What they did was wrong. They mentioned there was some kind of bug, and have removed other living composers from the subscription part of SMA, which is good.

Problem, with my case, is that (if you have read this somewhere), I'm looking for self publishing, so this whole case COULD potentially hurt my best interest. I'm not (at least I don't consider me to be), just an amateur composer, etc. This is why I was rather upset.

PLus the random strangers did NOT asset my works at all. They just got to the IMSLP page and got the same 5 scores that were there.

Of course it was wrong. I wasn't denying that. I would have been irked too, and asked them to take it down. But I'm just saying that it could have been a lot worse. And even if they didn't assess your work.... I bet most people browsing the site would think that all of the music listed was 'professional' and not just amateur music - the effect would have occurred even if unintended. It's very likely that a certain number of people saw your name, and even viewed the scores, and make a subconscious connection that Sideris = Real Composer. They may have never been exposed to your music and name otherwise. So all in all I would have to say that this probably wasn't a bad thing to happen to you - but you are right that if the music remained there TOO long, it could have hurt your self-publishing interests. Fortunately, everything worked out fine.

It's wrong to steal. Period.

If only the world were this black and white..... there will always be exceptions to almost any rule. Was it wrong for the Allies in WW2 to intercept Axis communications to help win the war, and stop the Holocaust? They were stealing information that belonged to the Axis powers, right?

I most certainly agree that violating copyright is wrong. In my mind, this company would be Guilty of that offense.... but then the matter of sentencing comes along. If they are guilty, then how bad was the offense? How are we to determine our emotional and logical response to this company's actions? I merely propose that we don't all get emotional and overreact whenever anything goes wrong.

Nikolas did the right thing by asking the company to stop and they did. But he nearly acted irrationally by contacting lawyers\assuming the worst possible scenario\etc. We just need to be careful, that's all.

I don't think you are fully grasping the full picture. Nikolas was offering his music for free on his own page at the time, and someone decided to take his music and make money off his work. Why should someone profit on the work of someone else when the craft man decide that at this moment his work shall not be for sell? It's identical to going up to someone's lawn, taking a handmade chair or table that they made, and selling it. It isn't right nor fair.

Coupled with the fact that Nikolas planned to one day sell these works, this person could have unwittingly stolen potential profit from Nikolas because people bought his works from that guy instead of him. All in all whatever name recognition he gained does not counteract the potential loses he could have suffered. Although you may not think it's a big deal, Nikolas as a professional understands the importance of choosing how your work is used and who it is sold by.

It's definitely wrong to steal, and I totally understand Nikolas' reaction.

It's one thing if someone profits off of your work and you're a teenager doodling some tunes or writing music for school - you might be able to take this as a "compliment" that your work is good, but it's a bit more serious if music is your career and you have a family to support.

Either way, It's wrong.

What you are saying is absolutely correct. However, it doesn't apply to this situation. Did this company really make any profit from Nikolas's work? Is there any proof that they made any sort of significant profit? If there isn't any, than what occurred was a misunderstanding and an honest mistake (if we are to believe what they say, that is.) and they acted appropriately by removing the score. If you feel that they are more guilty than that, the best thing you can do is merely not give them your business (but why would you? IMSLP is free and less hassle).

But if they accidentally made 10 cents off of his work.... this amount of money can't 'support a family' and isn't worth calling lawyers/60 minutes/etc. over. It's really only barely worth mentioning here on this forum - no doubt a subconscious guise to vent out our frustrations against 'the man'.

I don't think you are fully grasping the full picture. Nikolas was offering his music for free on his own page at the time, and someone decided to take his music and make money off his work. Why should someone profit on the work of someone else when the craft man decide that at this moment his work shall not be for sell? It's identical to going up to someone's lawn, taking a handmade chair or table that they made, and selling it. It isn't right nor fair.

Coupled with the fact that Nikolas planned to one day sell these works, this person could have unwittingly stolen potential profit from Nikolas because people bought his works from that guy instead of him. All in all whatever name recognition he gained does not counteract the potential loses he could have suffered. Although you may not think it's a big deal, Nikolas as a professional understands the importance of choosing how your work is used and who it is sold by.

Again, I must repeat that I never said it was rightful of them to infringe copyright. It is most certainly wrong and should not have occurred - even if they didn't deliberately decide to steal Nikolas's music, they should be more diligent in sorting out what is under copyright. But what they did was not Absolutely Reprehensible.

There is absolutely no proof that this either hurt or helped Nikolas in the long run. I was merely trying to suggest that there could be a silver lining to all of this instead of just complaining or bemoaning the situation. I am 99% certain that this event will have no perceivable effect either positive or negative on the future success of Nikolas. Of course, this is merely a gut reaction I have. If I happen to be wrong about this, then I do apologize.

The issue isn't if it did or did hurt him. It had potential to hurt him. What if he never found out? When he decided to sell his work, he would have no idea that he was also competing against someone else who happen to have access to his work. You may think his actions may have become irrational, but there is nothing irrational about preserving the right to decide who will sell your work and who will not.

Did this company really make any profit from Nikolas's work? Is there any proof that they made any sort of significant profit?

That's not really the point. The point is that they tried to make profit from another person's work, while this person doesn't gain anything from it and has never agreed to it. What's even worse, is that the people who visit this site will be quite unaware of this fact and may actually think they are supporting artists by subscribing. When I pay for music by a living composer, I naturally assume that some of the profit goes to the composer (not much maybe, but some).

Another thing is that any artist carries responsibility for the art she or he produces. Everything an artist "lets off the leash" to the outside world makes an artist somehow vulnerable, as it is seen in direct relationship to her or his person. The readiness of a composer (or any other artist) to take this responsibility for her or his own works that are displayed publically also means however that the control of what and how this art is released to the outside should remain with the creator. It's not much different than displaying nude photographies of yourself, really, or to say it even more extremely: to offer your body to others physically. It is your choice to whom and under what terms you choose to do this, and the fact whether you're doing it for free or asking money for it shouldn't change anything about that. You never lose that fundamental right to decide about things that so directly concern your self by choosing to offer it for free under certain terms.

I know that drawing parallels between prostitution and compositions may seem a bit far-fetched, but I think in some cases it's actually rather close to reality. A work of art is a very personal thing (or can be, at least). I would not tolerate that one of my pieces was used as a political propaganda for a totalitarian regime. Or that sketches of pieces I wrote, but chose to throw away were printed and sold with my name written over them, without my consent. Because every public display of your work that carries your name also puts forward a message in your name. It's simply a question of decency to respect this and not to display or distribute works of art in ways the creator didn't want. (I realize that in this case it's much less tragic than a totalitarian regime using your pieces as propaganda, but it's the same problematic, just on a much smaller scale.)

The issue isn't if it did or did hurt him. It had potential to hurt him. What if he never found out? When he decided to sell his work, he would have no idea that he was also competing against someone else who happen to have access to his work. You may think his actions may have become irrational, but there is nothing irrational about preserving the right to decide who will sell your work and who will not.

But the issue isn't potential either - because again there is no proof, only speculation. He could potentially be killed tomorrow by a bus.... But unless I have proof of that, it won't stop him from going about his daily business.

And while your last sentence may have a nice ring to it, the two sides flanking the comma have nothing to do with one another. If I ever said that preserving your own work was irrational, then I suppose it would be relevant, but I didn't. There is a difference between acting rationally on a reasonable threat, and acting irrationally on a reasonable. Besides, I only said that he almost did something irrational. He did the right thing by preserving his work by asking them to remove the material in question. He would have been doing the wrong thing by paying lawyers to do the same thing. And it would be wrong not because it isn't worth protecting your own music, but because it would have been an unnecessary expense of time and money (Plus, it would be contributing to the wealth of lawyers.)

It's sort of like buying a $2000 computer and only using it to calculate the circumference of a circle.

That's not really the point. The point is that they tried to make profit from another person's work, while this person doesn't gain anything from it and has never agreed to it. What's even worse, is that the people who visit this site will be quite unaware of this fact and may actually think they are supporting artists by subscribing. When I pay for music by a living composer, I naturally assume that some of the profit goes to the composer (not much maybe, but some).

Another thing is that any artist carries responsibility for the art she or he produces. Everything an artist "lets off the leash" to the outside world makes an artist somehow vulnerable, as it is seen in direct relationship to her or his person. The readiness of a composer (or any other artist) to take this responsibility for her or his own works that are displayed publically also means however that the control of what and how this art is released to the outside should remain with the creator. It's not much different than displaying nude photographies of yourself, really, or to say it even more extremely: to offer your body to others physically. It is your choice to whom and under what terms you choose to do this, and the fact whether you're doing it for free or asking money for it shouldn't change anything about that. You never lose that fundamental right to decide about things that so directly concern your self by choosing to offer it for free under certain terms.

I know that drawing parallels between prostitution and compositions may seem a bit far-fetched, but I think in some cases it's actually rather close to reality. A work of art is a very personal thing (or can be, at least). I would not tolerate that one of my pieces was used as a political propaganda for a totalitarian regime. Or that sketches of pieces I wrote, but chose to throw away were printed and sold with my name written over them, without my consent. Because every public display of your work that carries your name also puts forward a message in your name. It's simply a question of decency to respect this and not to display or distribute works of art in ways the creator didn't want. (I realize that in this case it's much less tragic than a totalitarian regime using your pieces as propaganda, but it's the same problematic, just on a much smaller scale.)

What you are saying does have some truth to it. Nikolas's reaction certainly does show that he is very protective of his music - therefore he must ascribe high value to it which means he likely invested a large amount of time and talent into creating it, which in turn suggests that it is of higher quality than someone who doesn't care about their music.

Also, since he is willing to fight, it might discourage others from trying to steal his music.

Seen from this angle, his reaction becomes more understandable to me. I suppose it is ultimately up to Nikolas how much time and money he wishes to invest into this sort of thing - but there will always be a fine line between being protective and being overprotective. The location of this line will always be subjective and highly variable from individual to individual - I happen to be slightly less pessimistic about these things than most people, that's all.

Please don't compare the taste of an apple to the heat of the sun. What we have here is a given information that someone attempted to profit off of Nikolas' work without his consent. The probability of him being screwed prior to that person selling his work was essentially zero, as soon as that many took action against Nikolas his probability increased. It's his right to lower his risk by whatever means he feels is reasonable. Nikolas only threaten to use lawyers if he could not reach the man or if the man did not agree to remove his work. How is that irrational? Lastly, what authority do you have to state if an expense is necessary or not?

Please don't compare the taste of an apple to the heat of the sun. What we have here is a given information that someone attempted to profit off of Nikolas' work without his consent. The probability of him being screwed prior to that person selling his work was essentially zero, as soon as that many took action against Nikolas his probability increased. It's his right to lower his risk by whatever means he feels is reasonable. Nikolas only threaten to use lawyers if he could not reach the man or if the man did not agree to remove his work. How is that irrational? Lastly, what authority do you have to state if an expense is necessary or not?

I don't have any authority - only opinions really. If you don't like them, and I am unable to convince you, then you simply do not have to listen to me. I promise that you won't hurt my feelings - we are each entitled to have our own beliefs and I would never want mine forced onto others - nonetheless I will freely state my opinions for those who wish to read them.

There is still no proof that the probability of Nikolas being screwed was anything to worry about. If you told me to worry about something, and then offered no evidence to convince me, I would not be worried. It is as simple as that.

Even if the site refused to take down the music, deciding to resort to lawyers is not a decision to be hastily made. You would have to carefully weigh the cost against the potential benefits. If he did intend to one day self-publish those 5 pieces for profit - would the profit outweigh the cost and emotional stress of a lawsuit? Even if you are fighting for moral reasons, and not economic ones, is it worth it to be potentially broke and in debt? If the answer to that question is yes, then by all means proceed as you will, as I or no one else will be able to stop you. I only ask that we carefully think through important decisions that we have to make in our lives. This really isn't directed so much at Nikolas, since I am sure he is capable of making good decisions for himself, but for those who act in an impulsive manner.

I'm confused. Nikolas, did you or did you not upload your music onto a database?

I'm (very) amateur when it comes to web development, but if your music was uploaded on a web server, I'm sure there are plenty of ways you can keep people from downloading your music. If uploaded your music on an online database, then the terms and conditions of the owner of the database reign.

I just don't understand what you did and why this individual was able to download your work from your website if that is what happened. If you uploaded your music somewhere else and then used something like a widget or a link to access that material, then you need to understand the parameters of your rights.

If you leave your car running with the keys inside and the door unlocked, then walk away from it, you don't get to make a claim of theft against your insurance company when someone gets in and takes off. Just because you are the creator and have 'specific' rights to its use, you don't get to place your work in 'virtual public' and cry foul when someone comes along and takes it to use as content. The difference here is that this individual used your material (and others') to aggregate content to draw a userbase to his website. He didn't use it for the specific purpose of selling YOUR music. He's selling a membership to his site, aggregating free information in one convenient location for members to access that content. The end. Finito. You left your material out in public to be freely accessed. There's no crime when someone comes along to monetize it later. Free enterprise is, well, free (at least it can be).

If you really want to self-publish, I think it would be worth your time to pick up Dreamweaver (arguably the best among web-designers) or some comparable program and take a few weeks to become familiar with how to use it at a basic, functional level. You can always hire someone to consult on the web project later to help with layout and functionality, but that's probably your safest way to publish your material online. It's not THAT expensive either. A domain costs, what, $10 per year? You can even outsource the maintenance of the site once you become more accomplished.

I guess this goes for everyone here where publishing music online is concerned and shouldn't be directed solely at Nik. People are allowed to make money through free enterprise, even if it means using someone else's talent to achieve the objective in their own creative way (without infringing on the work itself). It just makes no sense to me that any infringement of any kind took place here at all. It looks more like a misunderstanding of the terms and conditions of an online database.

I think you misunderstood quite a few things there.

But excuse me for not being able to elaborate some more here... it's half past four in the morning here and it's about time I go to bed.

Nightscape: I make a living out of music. I'm what one would call a professional composer. Period! I'm not "having fun", or "spending some time", etc. I hope you realise what this means in terms of time and money invested in (my) music.

I repeat, I was upset because I'm planning on taking commercial advantage of my music, while at the same time keeping it accessible to all of you (thus I keep posting here). I'm trying to find the golden dichotomy between sharing my stuff for educational (and promotional, let's face it) purposes, and selling my stuff.

A database such as SMA, with subscription would be hurting the above and my idea of "marketing". A website such as IMSLP, as it stands now, didn't (although the CC license DID).

It could be that I over reacted, but e-mail travels at the speed of teh Intern3t, so I was expecting a reply sooner. In addition this thread (along with similar thread in every other music forum), is here to inform people as well (Juji found out about HIS score and Josef about his, very many, scores). The thread serves a bypurpose.

Moreoever, I was only hunting for what was "mine", and nothing more. I wasn't looking for damages, and nothing similar. I just wanted to see my scores removed, and after getting no reply from the contact form, an e-mail bounced, towards the owner, etc, I felt "in danger".

AA: You have misunderstood quite a few things indeed!

I won't do the website myself! I work with professional web designers and I pay dearly for the design of my website (www.nikolas-sideris.com). Incidently, this very website has gotten me 2 gigs, so I'm fine with paying in order to do a good job.

The idea, again, is to be able to control, to an extend, from where my scores and music comes from. It's one thing to post an mp3 here (poor quality), and see the reactions and another to see it suddently to iTunes!

Publishing of the scores, and the CD, will come in due time, when everything is ready, and I'm ready to offer as high quality as I possible can and want.

People are NOT allowed to take advantage of other peoples talents UNLESS they have permission. This is why IMSLP is perfect (Juji ASKED me before upoloading), and SMA is NOT and I was SO aggrevated with them. Now that a contact connection has been established I will see what I'll do.

Nightscape:

I do think that I did over react a little.

What I learned are 2 things:

CC licenses are quite dangerous and I don't think I'll put any more stuff with such a dangerous license around. CC licenses give permission to redistribution, ALL OF THEM, so it's not for me.

And

I need to invest time in consulting a law knowledgable person, before posting, etc. This turned out well, but maybe something else might not.

I dunno about where you are, but we have a local chapter of Free Lawyers for the Arts here in New Orleans...

CC licenses come in different flavors though, look'em up. There's a lot of options and the main gist of these licenses is that they are customizable depending on what you actually need.

So long as you get the proper license behind what you want to license, you SHOULD be fine.

Nope, the license I got was the "closest" one. There is no license more strict for what I want and in fact, IMSLP (the creator), came up with an additional license (which again is not exactly enough for me).

CC is insufficient and there is A LOT of talk around about the damage that it does! Unfortunately.

Problem is that with CC you basically sign away certain rights. Copyrights? You hold ALL rights (all rights reserved). CC license? You hold the rights BUT they WILL distribute your music any way they want and they WILL adapt your work, by always crediting you. That's the one that I had on IMSLP.

Either way, this whole situation was not, probably, due to CC license leaking, otherwise I would still be discussing. But it was really worth looking into the issue. :)

And I LOVE your new 8-bit avatar!

Nightscape: I make a living out of music. I'm what one would call a professional composer. Period! I'm not "having fun", or "spending some time", etc. I hope you realise what this means in terms of time and money invested in (my) music.

I repeat, I was upset because I'm planning on taking commercial advantage of my music, while at the same time keeping it accessible to all of you (thus I keep posting here). I'm trying to find the golden dichotomy between sharing my stuff for educational (and promotional, let's face it) purposes, and selling my stuff.

A database such as SMA, with subscription would be hurting the above and my idea of "marketing". A website such as IMSLP, as it stands now, didn't (although the CC license DID).

It could be that I over reacted, but e-mail travels at the speed of teh Intern3t, so I was expecting a reply sooner. In addition this thread (along with similar thread in every other music forum), is here to inform people as well (Juji found out about HIS score and Josef about his, very many, scores). The thread serves a bypurpose.

Moreoever, I was only hunting for what was "mine", and nothing more. I wasn't looking for damages, and nothing similar. I just wanted to see my scores removed, and after getting no reply from the contact form, an e-mail bounced, towards the owner, etc, I felt "in danger".

AA: You have misunderstood quite a few things indeed!

I won't do the website myself! I work with professional web designers and I pay dearly for the design of my website (||Nikolas Sideris||). Incidently, this very website has gotten me 2 gigs, so I'm fine with paying in order to do a good job.

The idea, again, is to be able to control, to an extend, from where my scores and music comes from. It's one thing to post an mp3 here (poor quality), and see the reactions and another to see it suddently to iTunes!

Publishing of the scores, and the CD, will come in due time, when everything is ready, and I'm ready to offer as high quality as I possible can and want.

People are NOT allowed to take advantage of other peoples talents UNLESS they have permission. This is why IMSLP is perfect (Juji ASKED me before upoloading), and SMA is NOT and I was SO aggrevated with them. Now that a contact connection has been established I will see what I'll do.

Nightscape:

I do think that I did over react a little.

What I learned are 2 things:

CC licenses are quite dangerous and I don't think I'll put any more stuff with such a dangerous license around. CC licenses give permission to redistribution, ALL OF THEM, so it's not for me.

And

I need to invest time in consulting a law knowledgable person, before posting, etc. This turned out well, but maybe something else might not.

It's true that posting this here did alert other members that their music was on the site too. So it is definitely a good thing that you let other people know about. I know it seemed like I was just picking a fight and splitting hairs... but we should definitely let others know about these things - I didn't mean to imply that we should just keep quiet about these things.

And of course I realize that you are serious about composing. I never said otherwise - although I hope that even though you are a 'professional composer' you are still having fun doing it and also spending time on composing ;)

Anyways there isn't much left to say. The situation worked out and we all learned something, I think.