A question about a "hypothetical" deposit procedure (perhaps useless)

Member

Posts: 1,231
City: Villanova di Guidonia

May 16, 2013, 17:41

I would like to pose this question to those who have already done something like this (for my part, I am already thinking of doing it and that's it, since it doesn't change anything at all):

after having deposited a piece, since the transposition of a part is necessary (and therefore everything else, we are talking about a piece for piano and mezzo-soprano), is a new deposit necessary or not, given that precisely, not even a single note in the score changes, but only the key?

I asked SIAE (which I think will respond tomorrow) but I have partly answered myself: I transpose it if necessary (now) and leave unchanged the "version"

that I deposited, because I am also thinking of those situations where a piece is transcribed for another instrument; the first remains the same, and at most, in the case of

a transposing instrument, it is necessary to indicate the appropriate accidentals in the clef for the latter (in that case, the "situation" changes a bit).

Thank you

Thesimon

Administrator

Posts: 4,504
City: Ariccia, RM

May 16, 2013, 21:08

I confess my ignorance on the subject, Mauri, but I believe it is not necessary to send the same thing transposed, otherwise copyright is finished; I take a piece by Gaber, transpose it, and appropriate it... It seems to me subtle, to say the least.

Piccinesco

Member

Posts: 1,231
City: Villanova di Guidonia

May 16, 2013, 22:10

I really think you are right, I think so too, and I am trying to shout out (slowly) the illogical things that go through my head, including exactly

non-existent problems, since as you say a transposition is simply (and I know it, but see what the hell insecurity does to you? Knowing it, eh) a re-presentation of the same

piece in another key (which I have already taken care of, moreover), I am also being a bit too strict about these things, and everything has been worsened by the unclear "responses"

from SIAE regarding this, which should have "consultants" on the matter with specific knowledge of music as well as copyright law (not for its own sake, i.e., relegated to the purpose of profit,

understood obviously as earnings, indirectly also for them, especially them, but as recognition of their own work).

For some time now I have started sending myself emails and recording what I do (it is not music at the moment) on a specific site with Creative Commons licenses, but

it is a site that supports additional services, which at the moment (for the reasons you know, and also because I don't have a specific need for one yet) I do not use and for which one must pay a certain amount.

I wouldn't even bring into it the relationship with the expenses to be incurred, but rather the methods of deposit (of recording), modification, etc., much more flexible and accessible at any time

compared to SIAE, for which every time I go, almost 7 euros in tickets and 3/4 hours of transport are spent (by bike, round trip took me 2 hours, it is 33 km from my house).

Piccinesco

Member

Posts: 1,231
City: Villanova di Guidonia

May 16, 2013, 22:14

Anyway, I "confess" to having practiced self-plagiarism more than once; for example, a part that is significant to me, used in several pieces of different genres—it fit well, so why not?

After all, I didn't take anything from others, and if I were to notice it, I would say so immediately, as happened with a 3-voice invention.

Gerardo

Member

Posts: 277

May 17, 2013, 22:07

In my opinion, if you work on your own ideas, you risk nothing. In the end, you would only owe rights to yourself

Piccinesco

Member

Posts: 1,231
City: Villanova di Guidonia

May 18, 2013, 00:10

In the end I did this, I transposed and sent the piece; I am someone who overthinks things too much, but even SIAE should adopt more precise methodologies,

and not (impossible, I know) rely solely on piece recognition for the purpose of revenue, because that is what happens.