News:

Local man invests life savings into turnips. When asked whether it was a wise decision he responded, "Eh. I'm sure someone will buy them."

Main Menu

How Does Commercial Video Game Sheet Music Affect Our Transcriptions?

Started by Dekkadeci, March 04, 2017, 07:41:28 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

BlueStone

So I'm assuming that most people here already know that creating transcriptions either from scratch or borrowing from published sheet music are both infringing on copyrights, so why is there a distinction? As per U.S. copyright law, it's plagiarism whether you're copying other arrangements or not.

Latios212

No, making arrangements of video game music, in the credited way that we do, is not plagiarism.
My arrangements and YouTube channel!

Quote from: Dudeman on February 22, 2016, 10:16:37 AM
who needs education when you can have WAIFUS!!!!!

Spoiler
[close]
turtle

mikey

Using other arrangements as source material is using that person's effort without their permission
unmotivated

BlueStone

We are talking about published arrangements though which isn't much different from using the original composer's efforts without their permission. According toU.S. copyright law section 106, the copyright holders have the exclusive rights to "prepare derivative works" meaning that unauthorized arrangements is plagiarism, which by definition is "a piece of writing or other work reflecting such unauthorized use or imitation". You could argue that citing the original author bypasses plagiarism in one definition since that's what scholarly publications do (not to mention there are limitations to the exclusive rights (sections 107-112) that apply to research and educational institutes), but I've never seen a piece of music that "cites" another per say.

mikey

unmotivated

Latios212

Quote from: BlueStone on March 05, 2017, 08:18:51 PMWe are talking about published arrangements though which isn't much different from using the original composer's efforts without their permission. According toU.S. copyright law section 106, the copyright holders have the exclusive rights to "prepare derivative works" meaning that unauthorized arrangements is plagiarism, which by definition is "a piece of writing or other work reflecting such unauthorized use or imitation". You could argue that citing the original author bypasses plagiarism in one definition since that's what scholarly publications do (not to mention there are limitations to the exclusive rights (sections 107-112) that apply to research and educational institutes), but I've never seen a piece of music that "cites" another per say.
Relevant link about Nintendo and derivative works. Arranging from the original compositions is okay; copying from published arrangements is not.

Also, you refer to the definition of plagiarism but fail to address the part that says "the representation of that author's work as one's own", which our arrangements are not.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on March 05, 2017, 08:36:36 PM"Composed by [composer name]"
My arrangements and YouTube channel!

Quote from: Dudeman on February 22, 2016, 10:16:37 AM
who needs education when you can have WAIFUS!!!!!

Spoiler
[close]
turtle

Dudeman

Quote from: Latios212 on March 05, 2017, 08:55:04 PMRelevant link about Nintendo and derivative works.
I'm totally on the "what we're doing is okay" side of this argument, but friendly reminder that this is the company that, in the last six months, shut down Pokémon Uranium and AM2R for unauthorized use of IP. The fact that that article is 2.5 years old doesn't help any either.
Quote from: braixen1264 on December 03, 2015, 03:52:29 PMDudeman's facial hair is number 1 in my book

Latios212

I'm aware, just countering the "this-is-definitely-wrong" proposition.
My arrangements and YouTube channel!

Quote from: Dudeman on February 22, 2016, 10:16:37 AM
who needs education when you can have WAIFUS!!!!!

Spoiler
[close]
turtle

BlueStone

Quote from: Latios212 on March 05, 2017, 08:55:04 PMAlso, you refer to the definition of plagiarism but fail to address the part that says "the representation of that author's work as one's own", which our arrangements are not.
I did in the next sentence. Looking back at the definition though it would seem that the first is expressing an act while the second expresses a work. Still seems to be a bit of a grey area, but I'd hardly take the dictionary definition as something concrete enough to be upheld in court.

Quote from: Latios212 on March 05, 2017, 08:55:04 PMRelevant link about Nintendo and derivative works. Arranging from the original compositions is okay; copying from published arrangements is not.
That article is news to me. According to Google translate of the original Japanese article however, it says "In addition, this time the "Creator Encouragement Program" will be subject only to content posted on Nico Nico Douga, but services such as Nico Nico Live and Nikoniko Still are currently out of scope." Also this applies as far as I know to Japanese copyright laws, of which with I'm unfamiliar, but it wouldn't surprise me if Nintendo did have some sort of similar fan license for internet videos in the U.S. since that's what Warner Chappell has for SquareEnix music, however this is only for streaming video, not printed media. I've contacted the Alfred Publishing Company a few years ago about how they acquired the license to publish Nintendo sheet music, but unfortunately they didn't have very much information other than it took a long time before that relationship was made.

I still don't see how copying from published arrangements is much different from copying from published music. By the argument of applying "Composed by [composer name]" in order to retain accreditation, you could also apply "Arranged by [original arranger], [me]" to the transcriptions.

EDIT: I should clarify I don't care whether you believe it's wrong or not or continue to do it, that's a matter of your conscience. I'm only saying it's not any different from a law perspective."

Latios212

Quote from: BlueStone on March 06, 2017, 05:30:14 PMLooking back at the definition though it would seem that the first is expressing an act while the second expresses a work. Still seems to be a bit of a grey area, but I'd hardly take the dictionary definition as something concrete enough to be upheld in court.
I did not attempt to draw any connection between the dictionary definition and the court. I was merely pointing out that what we do does not fall under the definition of plagiarism. We are not misrepresenting authorship, as the composers are clearly attributed on our sheets.

About Nintendo's specific policy in the US, I agree that's not quite clear. There's not too much I can say about that.

Quote from: BlueStone on March 06, 2017, 05:30:14 PMI still don't see how copying from published arrangements is much different from copying from published music. By the argument of applying "Composed by [composer name]" in order to retain accreditation, you could also apply "Arranged by [original arranger], [me]" to the transcriptions.
I can try to address this. Using published music when arranging is a no-go because of the copyright notices on the published sheet books, the things that say "No part of this book may be reproduced, arranged, adapted, ...".

You don't seem to understand that our sheets on site are arrangements, not transcriptions. We are not reproducing the original compositions note-for-note in the same form as they originally were; we are adapting them for piano. It is not simply "copying from published music".

Quote from: BlueStone on March 05, 2017, 08:18:51 PMI've never seen a piece of music that "cites" another per say.
Musical arrangement is a common thing. See "Classical music" section.
My arrangements and YouTube channel!

Quote from: Dudeman on February 22, 2016, 10:16:37 AM
who needs education when you can have WAIFUS!!!!!

Spoiler
[close]
turtle

Dudeman

Quote from: Latios212 on March 06, 2017, 06:03:50 PMYou don't seem to understand that our sheets on site are arrangements, not transcriptions. We are not reproducing the original compositions note-for-note in the same form as they originally were; we are adapting them for piano. It is not simply "copying from published music".
I can't emphasize this enough. Transcribing a multi-instrumental piece of music for a single instrument (in this case, piano) is practically impossible.
Quote from: braixen1264 on December 03, 2015, 03:52:29 PMDudeman's facial hair is number 1 in my book

daj

I'm surprised no one's talked about "fair use" yet, ahaha.

You can google this, but in essence fair use allows people to use copyrighted works without permission for purposes such as reporting, criticism and parody. This law was implemented to encourage "free speech" and allow for better creative freedom with artists.

From my reading, I gather that fair use disputes are made with four factors in mind:
1. Whether your product is of a commercial nature, or if it's meant for education/etc.
2. The "nature" of the work - is it a scholastic analysis or a line-by-line rip off?
3. The amount/substantiality of the material copied
4. Whether your work might affect the market potential of the original

Obviously, NSM treads safely on all these conditions other than rule 3 - here we have a practice of copying the structure and melody of the original. But consider that none of this exists for commercial purposes, Nintendo's market share on the OST side probably won't be affected by (and probably benefits from) us publishing these for the sake of public interest.

These being arrangements, they serve to allow pianists to re-create the original tracks that they enjoy using instruments that are within their reach (i.e. piano). Our arrangements serve more as referential works rather than creative ones most of the time - once again, we don't play with structure and melody.

So I'm quite certain that we're doing pretty okay ^^

BlueStone

Quote from: Latios212 on March 06, 2017, 06:03:50 PMI can try to address this. Using published music when arranging is a no-go because of the copyright notices on the published sheet books, the things that say "No part of this book may be reproduced, arranged, adapted, ...".
The book doesn't have to say that though because it's copyrighted regardless if there's a notice or copyright symbol/text. They just print that to deter from people copying.

Quote from: Latios212 on March 06, 2017, 06:03:50 PMYou don't seem to understand that our sheets on site are arrangements, not transcriptions. We are not reproducing the original compositions note-for-note in the same form as they originally were; we are adapting them for piano. It is not simply "copying from published music".
I understand that they're arrangements, but transcriptions are also arrangements. They're both derivative works.

Quote from: Dudeman on March 06, 2017, 06:07:16 PMTranscribing a multi-instrumental piece of music for a single instrument (in this case, piano) is practically impossible.
I would disagree ;)

Quote from: daj on March 06, 2017, 06:16:47 PMSo I'm quite certain that we're doing pretty okay ^^
I agree. I don't expect Nintendo to do anything about the infringement going on on the site, just pointing out that it's infringing either way of copying from other arrangements or not. Perhaps my misunderstanding is merely in the site's own rules of quality, submission criteria, or whatever you want to call it.

daj

Quote from: BlueStone on March 06, 2017, 06:28:35 PMI agree. I don't expect Nintendo to do anything about the infringement going on on the site, just pointing out that it's infringing either way of copying from other arrangements or not. Perhaps my misunderstanding is merely in the site's own rules of quality, submission criteria, or whatever you want to call it.

I'd be satisfied with this middle ground, yes. :)

It probably won't hurt us to say that doing arrangements on this site is indeed, by the book, copyright infringement. There's no way around that. But the US Law also gives arrangers creative freedom to do these arrangements even with the laws of copyright in place, because hey, fair use.

Perhaps this is when the fourth rule I mentioned comes in best - fair use disputes can be made based on the ability of the derivative work to steal market potential off the original.

By making referential arrangements that allow random pianists to pursue their interests in VGM, we don't just allow the spread of creative information - we redirect interest, and therefore traffic, to the originals. This is done with good purpose, and it's very hard to argue that non-commercial, free-for-all arrangements will take away any glory from the original tracks, no matter how brilliant these arrangements are. There's a mutual, win-win sort of relationship - I pursue my interests and love you more, you get more attention and cash. ^^

Latios212

Thanks daj for summing it up haha

Just to point something out:
Quote from: BlueStone on March 06, 2017, 06:28:35 PMI understand that they're arrangements, but transcriptions are also arrangements. They're both derivative works.
From a logical standpoint, this is irrelevant. This statement does nothing to counter my argument or support yours. I couldn't really tell what you were trying to say, but those last couple sentences you said sums everything up, so it's all good.
My arrangements and YouTube channel!

Quote from: Dudeman on February 22, 2016, 10:16:37 AM
who needs education when you can have WAIFUS!!!!!

Spoiler
[close]
turtle