Posted by Mr. Copyright Law on December 21, 2000 at 13:24:04:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Vaughan Williams Concerto w/ Band posted by Mr. Public Service on December 21, 2000 at 11:42:54:
The copyright laws changed in 1978, and severely limited the previous exclusions for "fair use." Fair use is now limited to non-substantial excerpts for review or scholarly analysis, and just about nothing else. This allows Clifford Bevan to include excerpts from tuba parts in his book, for example, but not to reproduce an entire piece. Intentions of non-performance or non-profit applications have no bearing on copyright law, and everyone from the guvmint down to the local school is subject to those laws.
The U.S. changed its copyright laws to more closely align with international copyright laws, so don't expect Britain's laws to be any more lenient. The previous U.S. law provided a once-renewable 28-year copyright period, starting from the date the document was registered. That would have meant the RVW Concerto for Bass-Tuba would have been in the public domain in 2007. Whether the document is covered by the old rules or the new, given that it was authored in 1951 in Britain, I don't know.
A legal arrangement of the original work would still require permission from the copyright holder. Copyrights include rights to derivative works, such as arrangements, and can only be waived or assigned in writing from the copyright holder.
And copyrights extend for 75 years after the death of the author, the "author" being whoever penned that particular edition, or 75 years from the date of authorship, if the author is unknown. So, even if you worked from Vaughan Williams's 1951 (or thereabouts) original, it would not be in the public domain until 2033 (1958 when RVW died plus 75 years). Of course, one reason the parts are only available for rental is to keep one of those old editions from legally entering someone's library, which allows Oxford Press to come out with a new edition every few decades to bottle up the copyright for another 75 years.
So, there's almost zero probability that the faculty or student arrangement hiding in someone's library is legal. In fact, most universities are pretty picky about copyright infringement, so I'm a little surprised. It is possible that Oxford gave someone permission to do an academic arrangement, without also giving them rights for public performance. That should be stated clearly on the document. You have to assume that full copyrights are still retained by the original holder, however, unless you have the documentation showing otherwise. The burden is on the accused infringer to prove he didn't infringe (as long as copyright notices were given, which is the case here).