copyright united-kingdom music
Youtube and copyright on music composition
<p>I posted a video to YouTube featuring a violin performance by my son. It was an original performance, recorded by me and using equipment owned by me. Later I found that ads were appearing on the video and being monetized by a third party who had filed a YouTube copyright claim.</p>

<p>Can anybody clarify for me the copyright status of music performances? The piece performed was "Tango Jalousie" composed in 1925 by Jacob Gade (1879-1963). Does the composer's estate really have the legal right to monetize my son's performance?</p>

<p>I am in the UK (England).</p>

<p>The person who <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/part/I/chapter/I/crossheading/authorship-and-ownership-of-copyright" rel="nofollow noreferrer">produces the video</a> holds copyright. However, one cannot just perform any old music in public without permission. <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/19" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Section 19</a> restricts public performance of copyrighted works: that means, in order to publicly perform a work, one needs permission (a performance license). Interestingly, this section says </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Where copyright in a work is infringed by its being performed, played
  or shown in public by means of apparatus for receiving visual images
  or sounds conveyed by electronic means, the person by whom the visual
  images or sounds are sent, and in the case of a performance the
  performers, shall not be regarded as responsible for the infringement</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So, if there was not a proper license, then the performance was infringing, but the performer is not the infringer, leaving us to wonder who exactly was (an event organiser, or whoever allowed this performance to happen). In case this has anything to do with school, <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/34" rel="nofollow noreferrer">section 34</a> says that a performance involving just pupils, teachers and those directly connected with the establishment is not a "public performance", but it also says that one is not "directly connected with the activities of the educational establishment simply because he is the parent of a pupil at the establishment".</p>

<p>On the one hand, the underlying music is still protected by copyright; but the public performance of it may have been infringing; but the performer is not the infringer; if this was a school performance, the presence of parents makes this a non-exempt performance; and yet, the producer of the video holds the copyright in the video. You might sue for infringement of the video, and the estate could counter-sue for infringement of the underlying work. Your solicitor would be able to advise you on the fine points, in light of the relevant unspecified details.</p>
