Pamela,

Anything composed from 1925 forward remains under copyright at this time, even if the composer happens to be deceased (copyrights are transferred to the survivors for a short period of time). The next batch of songs to come out from under copyright won't happen for 6-7 years. This means Scott Joplin's "The Entertainer" is fine as a midi (with an mp3 you are potentially violating copyright of a specific artist's performance), and so are composers like Beethoven and Mozart, and even some early Irving Berlin.

If you want permission to use Autumn Leaves, you would have to contact the owner of the copyright (which is often not the composer, but the publishing company) stating the *exact* desired use for the piece (i.e., non-profit website, generating 40 hits a day, etc.). I'm not sure how easy it is to get permission without having to pay a fee, but I'm hearing that more and more people are willing to make concessions IF people ask in the first place. If you need help obtaining any of this information, please feel free to contact me.

[soap box mode = ON]
I know that many folks have a problem with the idea of intellectual property ... but as someone who is trying very hard to make a living as a composer, perhaps I can give you a little bit of insight. I write music in all fields, from tv/radio to pop to theatre to school to church. A few years ago I wrote my first Mass and it was subsequently purchased and used in my own parish. About a year later, we got some new people in the choir and they were very excited to tell me that they already knew my Mass. Two people had sung it in two different states in their churches, and another person had heard a midi version of one of the movements on a website for a large charitable organisation. They seemed a bit surprised when I didn't exactly do cartwheels. You see -- YES I'm *thrilled* that my music is being used, I'm *glad* it isn't just sitting in a suitcase somewhere -- but it's very hard to reconcile the fact that people think your music is good enough to steal, but not good enough to buy.

No copies of the Mass had been sold outside of my home state (the publisher was local); and on further investigation I found out that one church was able to do it because someone in my own parish had provided them with illegal xeroxes, while the other church was doing it because someone had attended my church, tape recorded the service, and gone home and written out "their" version of my music. As for the website ... someone heard it somewhere, dashed off a version on their midi keyboard, and uploaded it.

No action was taken on my behalf, by either myself or the publisher. The music was/is being used for its intended purpose and it's not worth the grief, heartache and bad publicity to "go after" these people. However, the loss of income is exactly why less than 10% of the members of large music organisations in this country (like ASCAP or BMI) are making a living with their music. As it is, I only receive 10% of the cover price, so if a large work (like a Mass) sells for $5 USD, I make 50 cents. If a choir of 35 obtains copies of my work without paying for them, I have just lost $17.50. Multiply that by two churches, and we're up to $35. Peanuts you say? Sure, but just keep multiplying. What's even worse, is that the publisher will come to you and say ... "You know, we think your stuff is great, but it's just not selling. We're not going to be able to publish you anymore."
[soap box mode = OFF]

Sorry about the soapbox; didn't really mean to ramble on. But I tho't it might help some people understand why there is such a furor going on over unauthorised use/duplicating of musical works. To anyone here concerned about my being a "net cop" ... perish the thought. I have no time, desire, nor inclination to visit your website and report what music you're using to anyone. Life is FAR too short! But I will happily try to educate people in the facts of the matter at anytime