Is There Copyright on Music Over 200 Years Old? Legal Disputes Over Chopin

“Does classical music have copyright too?”

Chopin's music, which seems to come alive on the piano keys. What if the melody, which we thought was free for anyone to enjoy, suddenly faced legal issues? Recently, a copyright dispute involving Chopin's Nocturnes, Ballades, and Polonaises surfaced among classical music fans. At first, I was puzzled by the question, "How can music over 200 years old still have copyright?" However, it turns out the issue isn't with the original compositions, but rather with the **performance** rights. In this post, we'll take a closer look at the real issues behind the Chopin music copyright debate and what impact it might have on our everyday lives.

Table of Contents

Why Is Chopin's Music in the Public Domain? The Issue of 'Performance Copyright' Rights of Record Producers and Performers A Real Case of Dispute How Does Copyright Law Regulate This? What to Keep in Mind When Using Classical Music

Why Is Chopin's Music in the Public Domain?

The works of Frédéric Chopin (1810–1849) have been in the public domain for over 70 years after his death, meaning that the copyrights for his compositions have expired in most countries. This means that the original compositions of Chopin can be freely performed, reproduced, and modified by anyone. However, the Chopin music that we commonly hear today is a "performance version," interpreted and recorded by modern musicians. This can give rise to another set of copyright issues.

The Issue of 'Performance Copyright'

Item	Description
Original Copyright	Expires 70 years after the composer's death (for Chopin, expired)
Performance Copyright	Rights to the performance/recording by modern performers and record labels (usually protected for 70 years)
Issue Arises	Public domain music was used, but a recorded performance was used without permission, leading to a lawsuit

Rights of Record Producers and Performers

Not all performance recordings of Chopin's pieces are freely available just because the composition itself is in the public domain. Depending on who performed and recorded the piece, separate rights may exist. Especially in classical music, where high-end recording equipment and expertise are involved, producers and performers are entitled to protect the rights to their recordings.

• Performer (Performance Rights): Rights to the interpretation and expression of the performance
• Record Producer (Neighboring Rights): Rights to reproduction and distribution of the recorded sound
• No rights if performing the public domain score directly

A Real Case of Dispute

In 2022, a YouTube educational channel used Chopin's 'Nocturne' as background music but had its revenue restricted due to a copyright infringement claim by a record label. The channel operator claimed the sheet music was in the public domain, but it turned out that the music used was a commercial recording by a famous pianist. This case highlighted that performance rights and recordings still exist, even if the composition itself is in the public domain.

Case	Core Issue
YouTube Educational Channel Dispute	The issue arose from using a commercial recording, not a public domain performance, leading to neighboring rights infringement
K-Classical Album Sampling Case	A classical performance was used in a remix form, which resulted in a dispute and was settled after negotiation

How Does Copyright Law Regulate This?

Korean copyright law protects performers' and record producers' rights through "neighboring rights." This legal framework acknowledges the creativity and effort involved in the performance or recording itself, separate from the original composition's copyright. Typically, these rights are protected for 70 years after the first release.

Type of Right	Description
Performance Rights	Rights to the interpretation and expression of the performance. Consent is required for commercial use
Recording Rights	Rights to reproduce and distribute the recorded sound. Caution is needed when sampling or using music for YouTube background

What to Keep in Mind When Using Classical Music

Even if a piece of music is in the public domain, its performance version may still be under copyright. To safely use the music, follow these steps:

• Perform and record the score yourself
• Use public domain music websites (e.g., IMSLP, Musopen)
• Check the copyright status before using it commercially

Frequently Asked Questions

Q Can I freely use all of Chopin's music?

While the composition is in the public domain, using a specific performance recording may still infringe neighboring rights.

Q What happens if the performer changes?

Performers can create new works through their interpretation and expression, so they may hold neighboring rights over their performance.

Q Do I have to pay to use music tracks?

Commercial tracks may require a licensing fee. It’s safer to use public domain tracks available for free.

Q Where can I find public domain music tracks?

You can find public domain tracks on sites like IMSLP, Musopen, and Free Music Archive.

Q Can I use Chopin music as background music for a YouTube video?

If you use a public domain recording or one you perform yourself, it's fine, but using a commercial recording could result in a copyright warning.

Q Can I upload a recording of my performance of Chopin to YouTube?

Yes, you can freely upload your performance of a public domain piece as your own creation.

Conclusion & Tags

Classical music, which many have thought of as "public property," actually involves many legal considerations, as we’ve learned from the Chopin music copyright controversy. I’ve had my own challenges with copyright when using classical music in YouTube videos. It may seem complicated, but I’ve come to understand that it’s because it’s someone’s creation, full of time and effort. If you love classical music, it's important to respect the rights of those who perform and record it.

Disney's Copyright Extension Lobby Case: A Legal Shift for Mickey Mouse

"Law is equal for all—except for Mickey Mouse." How did Disney manage to change copyright law? Let’s explore the reality behind a global lobbying campaign to protect one character.

Hello everyone, today we’ll talk about the relationship between Mickey Mouse—the character that comes to mind when we hear “Disney”—and the amendment of copyright law.

Disney is more than a content company. It’s a global brand that wields massive influence in politics and legislation. In this post, we’ll take a closer look at how Disney lobbied to change U.S. copyright law and how that effort affected the entire copyright industry.

Table of Contents

1. Mickey Mouse at Risk of Losing Copyright 2. Disney’s Lobbying Strategy and Use of Funds 3. The Passage of the 1998 Copyright Extension Act 4. Backlash and Criticism After the Law Change 5. Impact on Global Copyright Trends 6. Corporate Power and Ethical Questions in Creativity

1. Mickey Mouse at Risk of Losing Copyright

Mickey Mouse made his first appearance in the 1928 animated short 《Steamboat Willie》. Under U.S. copyright law at the time, creative works were protected for 75 years, which meant Mickey Mouse was set to enter the public domain in 2003.

For Disney, having the world’s most iconic character become public property would’ve been a catastrophe. This led to the launch of a systematic lobbying effort to extend copyright protection.

2. Disney’s Lobbying Strategy and Use of Funds

Starting in the early 1990s, Disney led lobbying efforts with three main pillars: political donations to congressional members, public opinion shaping, and alliances with the cultural industry.

• Donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to over 100 members of both Republican and Democratic parties
• Formed alliances with the music and publishing industries under the banner of "creator protection"
• Spread the message that copyright expiration could lead to cultural decline

In fact, Disney spent approximately $1.7 million in lobbying expenses to the U.S. Congress in 1997 alone, ranking as the highest among entertainment companies at the time.

3. The Passage of the 1998 Copyright Extension Act

Eventually, in 1998, the U.S. Congress passed the Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA). This law extended copyright protection for individual creators from 50 to 70 years after death, and for corporate-owned works from 75 to 95 years after publication.

Category	Before	After Amendment
Individual Works	50 years after death	70 years after death
Corporate Works	75 years after publication	95 years after publication

Unofficially, this law is called the “Mickey Mouse Protection Act”, clearly reflecting Disney’s influence on the legislation.

4. Criticism and Backlash After the Law Change

After the passage of the CTEA, academia, the legal community, and digital communities strongly opposed the change. They argued that the extension of copyright terms favored corporate monopoly over actual creators.

• Civil organizations claimed it infringed on freedom of expression and the right to access information
• Reduction of the public domain limited reinterpretation and reuse of creative works
• Concerns that capital-centered culture would dominate over cultural diversity

Legal scholar Lawrence Lessig especially argued that "culture develops through reuse and reinterpretation", and even filed a constitutional lawsuit against the law, but the Supreme Court upheld the CTEA as constitutional.

5. Impact on Global Copyright Trends

The extension of copyright in the U.S. influenced copyright policies in many other major countries. The European Union, Japan, South Korea, and others adopted the 70-year posthumous protection following the U.S. example.

Country	Copyright Duration	Effective Date
United States	70 years after death	Since 1998
European Union	70 years after death	Applied since 2001
South Korea	70 years after death	Revised in 2013

This global trend emphasized the importance of copyright protection, but critics argue that the “Disney effect” restricted creative environments worldwide.

6. Questions on Corporate Power and Creative Ethics

This case wasn’t just about saving a single character. It was a prime example showing how much influence a corporation can have on law and policy, and how that influence impacts creative freedom and consumer rights.

1. Copyrights are meant to protect creators, but they should also eventually return to the public as cultural assets.
2. Lobbying should not become the core mechanism for changing laws—civic oversight is essential.
3. In the digital age, we need more open copyright systems and social consensus around that openness.

Disney’s actions leave us questioning how we balance corporate interests with cultural ethics. As consumers and cultural participants, it’s our responsibility to reflect on this balance.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q Why did Disney push for copyright extension?

Because iconic characters like Mickey Mouse were at risk of entering the public domain. To prevent this, Disney lobbied for extended copyright terms.

Q How much were the copyright terms extended?

With the 1998 CTEA, personal works were extended from 50 to 70 years after the creator’s death, and corporate works from 75 to 95 years after publication.

Q What were the main criticisms of this law?

It shrank the public domain, limited creative reuse, and was seen as harming cultural progress and access to information.

Q Were other companies involved in supporting the law?

Yes. Warner Bros., Sony Music, Hollywood studios, publishers, and music industry groups also supported the extension.

Q Did countries outside the U.S. also follow this trend?

Yes. The European Union, Japan, South Korea, and other major nations adopted similar copyright extension policies influenced by the U.S. precedent.

Q Are Disney characters still protected?

Yes. While the early version of Mickey Mouse has entered the public domain, Disney still holds strong rights through trademark and derivative works protections.

In Conclusion: A Company That Protected a Character, A Decision That Shifted Culture

Disney’s lobbying for copyright extension was not just about protecting its own characters — it became a turning point that reshaped the global copyright landscape.

While laws are meant to protect creators, this case showed how copyright can be prolonged and controlled by corporate influence.

Nicknamed the “Mickey Mouse Protection Act,” the CTEA sparked new debates about the free circulation of culture and access to creative works. As consumers and cultural participants, we must now think deeply about how to protect that balance moving forward.