The reason I called this Mach II is not due to the fact that this is what I posted to the L&I discussion list. But because it was accidently saved as a draft and I have spent the last two hours trying to get this published to this blog — without success. Changed “status” a zillion times. Updated. Published. But it always reverted to draft. Might have something to do with the theme change and timing. So I copied and pasted…and here it is:
As our Music Director handed me an invoice today for our online music license reporting website – onelicense.net – I asked him what he thought about public domain / open access songs and music. Since he is a composer, who has donated both recorded and written music to different websites (for free), companies (for pay), churches and the archdiocese – he believes that in his current position as Director, open access or public domain items are a wonderful asset for everyone, especially non-profits.
[However as a composer, who gets an incredible small compensation annually from the companies that hold the right to sell usage of his copyrighted music, he feels for those composers who are taken advantage of. His complaint is all the “people, churches” etc. who do not report the usage of copyrighted material. I’m thinking that comment was meant for me since I do the reporting to the license companies.] Bill is overly concerned about the absolute correct information about the copyright information typed into worship books. And it’s okay for him to forget to tell me that he made 50 copies of a song that was sung six months ago and has to be reported… I would think it would be more important to acknowledge the use of the music, number of copies made, and make a payment if we don’t have an annual license.
At Christmas many of the songs that are sung at church, in concerts, and in large choirs are considered public domain because of their age and openly available on the internet. That is a good thing. We do not have to report its use. As our Director said, it’s the creative person (s) behind the music who do not benefit from open access, especially if their material is not copyrighted.
I would argue that open access could be used as a marketing tool for the composer if he wants to get his name out there — especially in Liturgical music, which is shared by so many denominations. Like Christian artwork and photography, it is a limited number of “new” sacred items available that once a name is known, I would think it would make sales increase.
Of course I also argue that when he uses his own music in the liturgy, it should be considered a donation by the composer.