Why I Use Creative Commons
As of October 18, 2019, I have decided to not copyright my music and to make my sheet music free to download. Instead of traditional copyrights, I will be using a Creative Commons license — usually a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Frankly, it’s been a long time coming.
I’ll tell you why I came to this decision, and I’ll also explain the Creative Commons license. But first, let me tell you a little bit about why copyrights are bad for art. I’ll explain using a series of vignettes.
Vignette #1: A composer wanted to write a piece of music on a well-known poem. The poet was long dead, and yet, because of the stringent copyright imposed by the poet’s estate, the composer was not able to secure the rights to use the poem. So rather than using the existing text, they asked a poet friend of theirs to write a new poem using the same meter and rhyming structure, and it was that poem that became the basis for the piece. To the best of my knowledge, this is a true story. The original poem was Robert Frost’s “Stopping By Woods on a Snowy Evening,” a work that is still, inexplicably, under copyright. The resulting piece? Eric Whitacre’s “Sleep.”
Vignette #2: A composer wanted to write a piece of music on a well-known poem. They were able to secure the rights to the poem for a reasonable fee, but was eventually given the opportunity to revise the piece. Knowing the copyright situation, the composer considered pulling an Eric Whitacre and commissioning a poet to write a new poem using the meter and rhyming structure of this original poem. This is a true story. I know, because I am the composer. The poem is “Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night” by Dylan Thomas, which was (but may cease to be) part of An American Requiem.
Vignette #3. A songwriter wanted to the set a work by a well-known recently deceased poet. They were able to contact the publisher and tentatively secure the rights, but the asking fee was so high that they abandoned the project. Again, this is a true story. The poet and the poem will not be named, but the songwriter was my wife.
And just because I can’t resist, here’s Vignette #4: A composer writes a piece of music, gets it published, and it sells fairly well... for a while. But then the sales drop off, and the composer begins to weigh their options. The problem is that the pieces were copyrighted by the publisher, so the composer doesn’t actually own the rights to their own music. The options, in other words, are extremely limited. Once again, a true story. I’m the composer, and the pieces in question could be either “Missa Brevis” or, to a lesser extent, “All Flesh is Grass.”
Are copyrights really bad for art? Well, yes and no. There are situations where they are very good for art, or at least artists. Copyrights protect an artist’s work from being used in ways that they don’t approve of, thereby giving them the final say and safeguarding their intellectual property. There are also times when an artist’s failure to get permission to use copyrighted material has yielded some creative results. Eric Whitacre’s aforementioned “Sleep” is one example; another is F.W. Murnau’s silent horror masterpiece “Nosferatu,” a film that would have been “Dracula” had Bram Stoker’s widow granted the rights.
What it really comes down to is this: In my line of work, and at this point in my career, I want people to perform my music, and I want to simplify the process of distributing my work. I’m willing to stop micro-managing my work, to let other people share, tweak, and experiment with what I’ve written. Simply stated, I want to be truly collaborative, even and especially when it comes to music I’ve already written. I’ve also had enough run-ins with overzealous copyright law to know that I’d rather be part of the solution than perpetuate the problem. The natural extension of this is that, at least at this time, I’m willing to make less money — even no money — from sheet music sales. I’m trusting that people will donate what they can and what they think is appropriate, but if they don’t... well, they’ll still have my music, so I’ll count it as a win.
And that’s where Creative Commons comes in. From creativecommons.org: “Creative Commons is a nonprofit organization dedicated to building a globally-accessible public commons of knowledge and culture. We make it easier for people to share their creative and academic work, as well as to access and build upon the work of others. By helping people and organizations share knowledge and creativity, we aim to build a more equitable, accessible, and innovative world.” In other words, Creative Commons has staked out a middle ground between traditional copyrights and the public domain; rather than “all rights reserved,” works licensed through Creative Commons have “some rights reserved.”
I’m far from the first creative person to do this — the novelist Cory Doctorow has been using Creative Commons and sharing his work since 2003 — but I don’t know of any other “classical” composer who is trying it. I do, however, know a lot of composers whose work is hard to find, inaccessible, and rarely performed. My hope is that this new distribution model will address this issue for me and my music.
As always, if you have any questions, please email me at [email protected].
Frankly, it’s been a long time coming.
I’ll tell you why I came to this decision, and I’ll also explain the Creative Commons license. But first, let me tell you a little bit about why copyrights are bad for art. I’ll explain using a series of vignettes.
Vignette #1: A composer wanted to write a piece of music on a well-known poem. The poet was long dead, and yet, because of the stringent copyright imposed by the poet’s estate, the composer was not able to secure the rights to use the poem. So rather than using the existing text, they asked a poet friend of theirs to write a new poem using the same meter and rhyming structure, and it was that poem that became the basis for the piece. To the best of my knowledge, this is a true story. The original poem was Robert Frost’s “Stopping By Woods on a Snowy Evening,” a work that is still, inexplicably, under copyright. The resulting piece? Eric Whitacre’s “Sleep.”
Vignette #2: A composer wanted to write a piece of music on a well-known poem. They were able to secure the rights to the poem for a reasonable fee, but was eventually given the opportunity to revise the piece. Knowing the copyright situation, the composer considered pulling an Eric Whitacre and commissioning a poet to write a new poem using the meter and rhyming structure of this original poem. This is a true story. I know, because I am the composer. The poem is “Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night” by Dylan Thomas, which was (but may cease to be) part of An American Requiem.
Vignette #3. A songwriter wanted to the set a work by a well-known recently deceased poet. They were able to contact the publisher and tentatively secure the rights, but the asking fee was so high that they abandoned the project. Again, this is a true story. The poet and the poem will not be named, but the songwriter was my wife.
And just because I can’t resist, here’s Vignette #4: A composer writes a piece of music, gets it published, and it sells fairly well... for a while. But then the sales drop off, and the composer begins to weigh their options. The problem is that the pieces were copyrighted by the publisher, so the composer doesn’t actually own the rights to their own music. The options, in other words, are extremely limited. Once again, a true story. I’m the composer, and the pieces in question could be either “Missa Brevis” or, to a lesser extent, “All Flesh is Grass.”
Are copyrights really bad for art? Well, yes and no. There are situations where they are very good for art, or at least artists. Copyrights protect an artist’s work from being used in ways that they don’t approve of, thereby giving them the final say and safeguarding their intellectual property. There are also times when an artist’s failure to get permission to use copyrighted material has yielded some creative results. Eric Whitacre’s aforementioned “Sleep” is one example; another is F.W. Murnau’s silent horror masterpiece “Nosferatu,” a film that would have been “Dracula” had Bram Stoker’s widow granted the rights.
What it really comes down to is this: In my line of work, and at this point in my career, I want people to perform my music, and I want to simplify the process of distributing my work. I’m willing to stop micro-managing my work, to let other people share, tweak, and experiment with what I’ve written. Simply stated, I want to be truly collaborative, even and especially when it comes to music I’ve already written. I’ve also had enough run-ins with overzealous copyright law to know that I’d rather be part of the solution than perpetuate the problem. The natural extension of this is that, at least at this time, I’m willing to make less money — even no money — from sheet music sales. I’m trusting that people will donate what they can and what they think is appropriate, but if they don’t... well, they’ll still have my music, so I’ll count it as a win.
And that’s where Creative Commons comes in. From creativecommons.org: “Creative Commons is a nonprofit organization dedicated to building a globally-accessible public commons of knowledge and culture. We make it easier for people to share their creative and academic work, as well as to access and build upon the work of others. By helping people and organizations share knowledge and creativity, we aim to build a more equitable, accessible, and innovative world.” In other words, Creative Commons has staked out a middle ground between traditional copyrights and the public domain; rather than “all rights reserved,” works licensed through Creative Commons have “some rights reserved.”
I’m far from the first creative person to do this — the novelist Cory Doctorow has been using Creative Commons and sharing his work since 2003 — but I don’t know of any other “classical” composer who is trying it. I do, however, know a lot of composers whose work is hard to find, inaccessible, and rarely performed. My hope is that this new distribution model will address this issue for me and my music.
As always, if you have any questions, please email me at [email protected].