Research on the Copyright Protection of Music Arrangements

Abstract： The concept of musical arrangement is not clearly defined in China's Copyright Law， much less its legal na?ture or the status of the arrangers. Due to the complexity of the legal nature of arrangements， the copyright protection ofarrangements remains quite a controversial issue in practice. There are several main approaches， namely the creationof \"arrangement rights\"， the creation of \"arranger's rights\"， including the \"rights of producers of sound recordings\"，and the protection of different types of musical arrangements according to internal classification instead of creating ad?ditional rights， as the last route is considered to be the most appropriate. The musical arrangement is one of the mostcrucial elements of a musical composition. The process of composing a musical composition reflects the expression ofthe arranger and has a certain level of originality， which should be protected by Copyright Law as a work. By clarifyingthe nature of the arrangement， affirming the originality of the intellectual work created by the arranger， and exploringthe mode of copyright protection for the arrangement， the rights and interests of the arrangers can be adequately andreasonably protected. In this way， their motivation for creativity can be greatly stimulated， which is promisingly for pro?moting the healthy development of the whole music industry.

Keywords： copyright; music arrangement; originality; music works

CLC：D 923 DC：A Article： 2096?9783（2023）02?0107?09

1 Introduction

1.1 Background and Significance

The musical arrangement， known as one of the most significant elements of a musical composition， refers to theprocess of utilizing the orchestration to deepen the composition of the melody in order to form a piece of music thatcould be considered relatively complex. The arranger sets the tone of music by matching musical instruments with har?mony so as to show diverse artistic effects. The term \"arranger\" is not a native Chinese word but is translated from Japa?nese \"へんきょく\". However， the Japanese entertainment industry does not treat the word rigorously.

When translating and introducing the concept of arrangement， China did not take into account the fallacies thatmay be caused by the differences between the language systems of the two countries but blindly imitated this term，which led to the misunderstanding of the concept of arrangement and the confusion between composition and arrange?ment. Compared with the composer， who creates monoline melodies， the arranger often has solid musical theory knowl?edge and comprehensively coordinates the timbre， volume， strength， texture， and other factors of different harmoniesand orchestrations. The level of the arranger determines the effect of the music. From the perspective of most profes?sional musicians， the importance of music arrangement is beyond doubt. However， from the perspective of the public，which does not know much about music， the contribution of arrangers is often obscured. Many confuse the arrangerwith the composer， making the arranger almost invisible. Arrangements play an unreplaceable role in a musical work.Different types and arrangements will bring different artistic effects to the piece and give the listener typical kinds of ar?tistic enjoyment. In pace with the increasing enrichment of people's cultural lives， disputes and infringement eventscaused by music arrangements are also emerging. As for the arrangement， which plays such an essential role in musiccreation， the concept， legal nature， and position of the arranger are not clearly defined in China's Copyright Law. In re?cent years， the legal status of arrangements of musical works and the legal status of the arranger have become highlycontroversial. Thus， it is necessary to clarify the legal nature of arrangements from a theoretical point of view and givethe arranger a name in the legal sense. Only when the rights and interests of the creators are fully and reasonably pro?tected can the whole industry develop continuously and healthily. Therefore， it is essential to affirm the originality ofthe intellectual achievements created by the arranger during the music production process.

This article will analyse the legal nature of music arrangements， classify them according to the level of originality，and explore the copyright protection mode of music arrangements.

1.2 Literature Review

The copyright protection of music arrangements involves both law and music. As a cross-disciplinary issue， it re?quires highly specialized music. Compared with the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works，which explicitly includes the concept of the arrangement in deductive works， there is a particular gap in the legal na?ture of the arrangement and the protection of copyright in China's Copyright Law.

1.2.1 Current State of Foreign Research

The United States， which has a relatively developed music industry， began to explore the originality and copyabili?ty of musical arrangements at the beginning of the last century. The early start of the pop music industry and the grow?ing awareness of copyright have resulted in a large number of music infringement cases involving arrangements[1].These cases focus not only on the expressive forms and intellectual heights of the elements of music， including arrange?ments， but also on emerging musical creations such as remixes. The German Copyright Law explicitly protects musicalarrangements within the scope of melodies， prohibiting the apparent use of other people's melodies as the basis for newworks[2]. Although the Japanese Copyright Law does not directly prescribe the independent right type for the arranger，the work formed by the arrangement form is explicitly included in the type of deductive work. The term \"arrangement\"is explicitly listed in the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and is directly included inthe protection of Copyright Law in the United States， Japan， and Germany.

1.2.2 Current State of Domestic Research

In China， although there are many disputes arising from the arrangement of songs， there are few cases that haveentered the judicial field. There are few scholars in the legal perspective of the composition of music works and theoriginality of the particular study. Li Lixia v. Li Gang， Chen Hong， and Cai Guoqing for violating the right of adjacencyand the dispute over a recording production contract is the first case in our country's legal practice to determine the le?gal nature of music arrangements. It is also the most cited case in the academic literature[3]. The Court of the first in?stance in the case held that the arrangement could not be expressed independently of the computer program on thegrounds that it was not a work under the Copyright Law， and the Court of the second instance characterized the arrang?er's working process as labour work， thus denying its originality. The conclusion is that the arrangement should not beprotected by the Copyright Law.

With the development of the music industry and the improvement of copyright consciousness， the academic fieldhas begun to focus on the legal nature of music arrangement and copyright protection. Liu Chengwei， a professor at theChina University of Political Science and Law， argues that many people do not grant the right to arrange music in Copy?right Law because the arrangement is mainly based on lyrics and music. What is questioned and denied is not the effortof the arranger but the originality of the result. But in the arrangement， the creative level is becoming more and morepresent. The arranger should have the corresponding right. Scholars began to affirm that music arrangements should beprotected by copyright. Still， there are different views on the protection path， which can be summarized into two view?points： the first is to preserve music arrangement as a deductive work. In this point of view， the relation between ar?rangement and composition is regarded as the relation between modification and modification， and the arrangement isregarded as a kind of adaptation to the works of lyrics and melodies[4]. The second is to protect the arrangement as anobject of neighbouring rights. The idea is that the arrangement is a \"paper performance\" of the work through harmonyand orchestration， which is analogous to the performer's rights enjoyed by performers. The arranger should have a simi?lar adjacency to the arrangement he or she creates[5].

To sum up， the copyright protection of arranged music works has gone through the process of no one paying atten?tion to it to strengthen the protection. Scholars have put forward different protection paths， but due to the crossing ofdisciplines， there is a certain threshold. In this regard， the level of protection compared with foreign countries stillleaves a gap.

2 The Current Situation and Predicament of Music Arrangement Protection

2.1 The Current Situation of Copyright Law Protection in China

Currently， there are no clear laws and regulations to protect the music form of \"arrangement\" in China. Section 4（3） of the regulations for the implementation of the Copyright Law defines a musical work as \"a work with or withoutwords capable of being sung or performed， such as a song or symphony\". In practice， people often interpret musicalworks simply as a combination of words and music， equating a piece of music with a theme. It can be seen that the ar?rangement of the music as an indispensable part of music is still ignored， and the rights of the arranger cannot be aswell protected as the rights of the lyricists and composers.

The concept of \"arrangement\" is not clearly stipulated in China's Copyright Law. Article 12 of the Copyright Law，however， mentions that \"Copyright in works derived from adaptation， translation， annotation， or arrangement of a preexistentwork shall vest in the adapter， translator， annotator， or arranger， the exercise of which， however， may not in?fringe the copyright in the pre-existent work\". The word \"arrangement\" comes from the equivalent in the Berne Con?vention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. The formal translation submitted by the Chinese governmentto the World Intellectual Property Organization upon approval of its accession to the Berne Convention for the Protec?tion of Literary and Artistic Works translates the term \"arrangement\" as \"arrangements of music，\" while the ordinarymeaning of this word in the Chinese context is to organize. The absence of \"arrangement\" in China's Copyright Lawmay be due to a misunderstanding.

2. 2 The Dilemma of Music Arrangement Protection in China

Although disputes arising from music arrangements have been emerging in recent years in China， few cases haveentered the judicial field. As mentioned above， China's Copyright Law does not explicitly put forward the concept of\"arrangement\". The legal nature of music arrangements has not yet been clarified， and the level of originality is diffi?cult to judge.

As infringements of music have become more common recently， with the improvement of mass cultural accom?plishment and copyright awareness， melody-level plagiarism can be used to safeguard rights through the CopyrightLaw， and the infringer's responsibility can be investigated. However， since the arrangement itself has not yet occupieda place in China's Copyright Law， the legal nature is vague， and the arrangers cannot find an effective way to protecttheir rights and interests. The neglect of music arrangements on the level of the Copyright Law is conniving in thebreeding of a large number of music arrangement infringement incidents， but the infringer does not take responsibilityfor it. The neglect of the arranger by the legal field and the public will harm the vitality and enthusiasm of the creatoras well as the healthy development of the whole industry.

3 Whether Music Arrangement Can be Recognized as a Work

Whether music arrangement can be recognized as a work is the most valuable argument concerning music arrange?ment. Once it is recognized as a work in the sense of Copyright Law， it is necessary to discuss the judgment of its origi?nality and the classification of the work. According to Article 3 of the China's Copyright Law， \"work\" is defined as acreative intellectual work in the fields of literature， art， and science that can be expressed in a particular form. \"Withinthe field of literature， art， and science\" points to the field limitation. The legal significance of the field limitation main?ly lies in the exclusion of expression or intellectual products apart from the fields of literature， art， and science from thefield of copyright. The main point of contention as to whether music arrangements can constitute works within the mean?ing of the Copyright Law is whether they can constitute expressions and whether or not they have originality.

3.1 Whether the Arrangement Can Constitute an Expression

As a part of a piece of music other than the main melody， an arrangement can be fixed on a certain form of mediumor be performed just like the main melody. After the arrangement is completed， the score can be formed to distinguishthe different parts of the band， or it can exist in the arrangement software in the form of a multi-track engineering filebefore being exported. Both of them allow the work to be performed repeatedly and perceived and used by others.

In a famous case on music arrangement in Chinese legal practice， Li Lixia v. Li Gang， Chen Hong， and Cai Guoq?ing for violating the right of adjacency and the dispute over a recording production contract， the Beijing Haidian Dis?trict Court discussed arrangement in detail in Li Lixia v. Li Gang and others in a dispute over infringement of neigh?bouring rights and sound recording production contracts. The Court held that the act of arranging music resulted in \"liv?ing\" music that could not be expressed independently， and therefore there was no independent right to arrange music.Since the arrangement of music was inseparable from the recording production process， the Court held that the plaintiffwas only entitled to the rights of the recording producer. In other words， the Court of First Instance recognized the actof arranging as an act of creation. It rejected the result of the arrangement because it did not satisfy the \"expression\" re?quirement of a musical work. The Court of Second Instance held that the arrangement did not constitute a compositionbecause it did not change the basic melody. It is clear from this that neither the Court of First Instance nor the Court ofSecond Instance's decision reflected any protection of the rights of the arranger， and the result was a significant disin?centive for the arranger to defend his or her rights. The Court of first instance denied the fact that an arrangement canbe expressed in a form that can be perceived directly or indirectly， on the basis that it cannot be expressed indepen?dently of auxiliary media such as musical instruments and computers and that it will eventually be transformed into asound recording. More crucially， the decision in this case does not provide a detailed analysis of the nature and type ofarrangement. As the Court of First Instance stated in this case， the music arrangement results do not exist independent?ly of the auxiliary media， such as musical instruments or computers. Therefore， the author believes that the Court ofFirst Instance was wrong in its findings of fact and that arrangements do have a separate form of expression.

3.2 Whether the Arrangement Is Original

Originality， as the primary condition for copyright protection of a work， requires that the creative process of thework be completed independently by the author himself or herself and has a considerable level of creativity. To judgewhether the arrangement meets the conditions and is reasonable， start with \"originality\" and \"creativity\".

The term \"originality\" may refer to either the independent creation of the creator from zero to one or the re-cre?ation based on the existing works， which is corresponded to the arrangement. Although the arrangers， in most cases，make arrangements based on existing melodies， harmonies， orchestration， and computer production， the music formedby it is different from the melody of a single voice， which can be recognized objectively and is following the require?ment of originality.

The term \"creation\" means that the work that is regarded as work must reach a certain level of intellectual cre?ation. When orchestrating the harmony of a melody， the arranger will choose the right combination from a large numberof chords according to the mood he wants to express and will choose instruments of different pitches， lengths， volumes，and timbres to perform. The selection of harmony and orchestration reflects the knowledge of music theory and the emo?tional preference of the arranger， reflecting quite a level of creativity[6]. In American legal practice， some precedents af?firm the creativity of arrangement and harmony. In Tempo Music， Inc. v. V. Famous Music Corporation v. Gregory A.MOR-RIS. 838F. Supp. 162 （1993）， the judge stated that， although the creation of a melody cannot be separated fromthe arrangement and combination of a limited number of chords， the composer can still express his thoughts and feel?ings through different choices in the course of his creation， and it is this kind of choice that has originality， so the Courtheld that harmony also has the possibility of becoming the object of copyright protection①.

Although both the Copyright Laws of common law countries and those of civil law countries have specific require?ments for the originality of works， their degrees are not the same. The condition for \"creativity\" in common law systemcountries is far lower than in civil law system countries. This makes it possible that the objects of works that can be pro?tected in common law countries can only be the objects of neighbouring rights in civil law countries and cannot be pro?tected by Copyright Law. China's Copyright Law is formed based on the two， but at the \"creative\" level， it has not madea specific definition， making it difficult to judge in judicial practice. In addition， as a general concept， music arrange?ment can be further divided into different categories; different types of music arrangement exist due to varying methodsof creation， and their creative levels are also different.

According to the characteristics of the arrangement and the level of creativity， the author divides the arrangementinto the following three categories：

3.2.1 Song Accompaniment

In China's pop music industry， the term \"arrangement\" usually refers to the accompaniment of songs， that is， theinstrumental music playing apart from the human voice. It can be further divided into two types： an accompanimentbased on the direction of the main melody， and an independent accompaniment that matches the main melody but doesnot use it. The former can be regarded as the adaptation of the vocal part of the song， which can constitute a kind of de?ductive work in the sense of Copyright Law. Section 101 of the U.S. Copyright Act includes \"music arrangement\" in itsdefinition of deductive work. Japan's Copyright Law lists the works formed in an arrangement as a type of deductivework. Article 28 mentions that the arranger should have a corresponding exclusive right to the second work. For the sec?ond type of accompaniment aforementioned， although this kind of accompaniment plays a foil role to the main melodyof the human voice， it can be separated entirely from the main melody and exist alone， sometimes even before the mainmelody. For example， there is a kind of accompaniment called \"beat，\" which is usually accompanied by rap. This ac?companiment is often not based on the main melody and possesses quite a level of originality. Thus， this kind of accom?paniment may be regarded as an independent musical work.

3.2.2 Music Arrangement

The difference between music arrangement and accompaniment is that the objects arranged are not limited to themain melody. In many cases， it may include the main melody itself. The arranger combines real or electric instrumentsaccording to their timbre， range， and tonality， respectively. In this way， the existing monoline melody becomes a bal?anced sense of hearing and a rich performance of three-dimensional music. This type of arrangement is also based onthe theme of further creation， so it should be understood as a deductive work in the sense of Copyright Law[7].

3.2.3 Folk Song Arrangement

The creation and circulation of folk music are not usually fixed on a page. The recording of folk music's melody orlyrics， combined with the appropriate pitch， rhythm， and speed， can be regarded as an act of arrangement. In the pro?cess of processing and re-creating the main melody， the organizer reorganizes the original work， and the music is thedeductive work.

Although adaptations are usually made with the original author's consent， folk music is often unknown in a partic?ular region. In the first domestic folk music lawsuit， the case of \"The Wusuli Boat Song\"， the Court held that the copy?right of the song in question had been infringed because the melody of the folk song had been adopted in the course ofits creation. However， the Court merely asked the adapter to mark \"adapted from the folk song\" as a sign of respect forthe local people. The signature and rights of the folk music shall be followed with the relevant provisions of \"works offolk literature and art\"， although it was established at the beginning of the legislation of the Copyright Law that theworks of folk literature and art are within the scope of the protection of the Copyright Law， the specific contents andmethods of its protection still need to be regulated by the State Council in order to improve further[8].

To sum up， the process of music composition has a certain level of originality， in which the unique expression ofthe arranger should be protected as a work in the sense of Copyright Law.

4 Foreign Experience in Copyright Protection in Music Arrangement

4.1 Copyright Protection of Arrangement in the United States

The Copyright Act of the United States also includes \"Music Arrangement\" in the scope of deductive works undersection 101[9]. The arrangement of music protected as an adaptation also has considerable requirements in terms of orig?inality. For the arranger to be protected by Copyright Law， substantial adaptations must be made[10]. In Woods V.Bourne Co.， 841F. Supp.， the Court held in 118（1993） that it is the essential work of a talented musician in the musictrade that a musical work can become a deductive work more than a simple cocktail of variations. A musical interpreta?tion requires an unusual treatment of sound， the addition of new lyrics and special harmonies， and a new arrangementof the themes， all of which， to some extent， have been combined with the old work to create new work and a newdevelopment of the old work②. However， in the case of Shapiro， Bernstein amp; Co. V. Jerry Vogel Music Co.， Ltd.， 73f. InS. D. 165（D.N.Y. 1947）， the Court held that the addition to a piece of music was merely a minor alteration of the melo?dy and accompaniment of the original piece and could not be considered a performance③.

This shows that although the arrangement is covered by the U.S. Copyright Act， it does not provide for originalityin more detail. In practice， it still depends on whether the arranger has made substantial changes to the original work orhow much original expression has been added.

4.2 Copyright Protection of Arrangement in Germany

The reference in Article 24， paragraph 2， of the Germany Copyright Act to the fact that a melody created by anoth?er creator cannot be clearly used as the basis for a new work created from scratch and that the exploitation of the melo?dy by another person must be authorized by the original owner means that the melody mentioned here includes not onlythe main melody but also the arrangement of the music. From this， we can see that Germany has a higher standard ofcreation for deductive works. While fully protecting the original author， the position and interests of the arranger havenot been ignored. In the music field， the combination of musical surface and the musical instrument can be regarded ascreative labour since this kind of labour requires the arranger to have a solid foundation of music theory， which isbased on the premise of his musical ability.

4.3 Copyright Protection of Arrangement in Japan

Although Japan's Copyright Law does not give an independent right to the arranger， there are arrangements thatform the work that will be included in the scope of the deductive work. According to Article 27 of the Japan's Copy?right Law， an author's exclusive rights include the right to adapt his or her work through translation， music arrange?ment， the form of expression， change of script， filming into a film， or other forms. The author of the second work has thesame copyright as the original author. The music arrangement is directly protected by law as a deductive work underthe Japan's Copyright Law.

To sum up， in foreign Copyright Law， \"arrangement\" is often directly stipulated in Copyright Law. The path ofpreservation is biased， as is the protection of adapted works. Whether the arrangement can be protected by CopyrightLaw should be based on the judgment of its originality. In this respect， there are a large number of infringement casesthat are continuously increasing in the judicial practice of the United States. In this regard， the experience can be usedas a reference in Chinese legal practice.

5 Copyright Protection Paths of Music Arrangement

5.1 Comments on Existing Protection Paths

Due to the complicated legal nature of music arrangements， there are great disputes in practice about the copy?right protection of music arrangements. In theory and practice， three kinds of protection paths are put forward， includ?ing the right of arrangement， the right of the arranger， and the right of producers of sound recordings. In the following，the author provides a specific and in-depth review of these three protection paths and expresses his specific views onthe issue， classifying arrangements for respective protection instead of creating additional rights.

5.1.1 Adding the Right of Arrangement as One of the Properties Rights of the Work

Some point out that to protect the rights and interests of the arranger， \"the right of arrangement\" can be added tothe property rights of the work.

The authors argue that there are considerable limitations to this route to protection. In the field of law， China hasnot yet formed a clear definition of the \"arrangement of music\"， and the addition of this right to the property rights ofwork must define this concept accurately. In addition， with the development of the music industry， new ways of compo?sition are likely to emerge， and the meaning of \"arrangement\" will be expanded and adjusted accordingly. It may be outof touch with the status quo if it is defined in haste. What's more， the additional establishment of rights also needs toconsider the cost of legislation and the stability of the Copyright Law system. In essence， many arrangements can be re?garded as a kind of deductive works formed on the basis of the original melody， it can be regulated utilizing legal inter?pretation in the deductive right part of the current Copyright Law[11].

5.1.2 Adding the Right of Arranger as One of the Rights of Adjacency

It is also unreasonable to add the right of the arranger to the right of adjacency. First， it is similar to the idea ofadding the right of arrangement. If the right of the arranger is added， it will involve the definition of the concept of thearranger and arranger. In judicial practice， there are still misunderstandings about the definition of \"arrangement\"， andthe ambiguity of the relevant concepts of music arrangement from a legal perspective makes it difficult for the \"right ofthe music arranger\" to gain a foothold. Second， since the right of adjacency does not require originality， mechanical la?bour and technical adjustments such as the simple application of chords and transfer may also be brought into thescope of protection. This causes the category of \"arranger\" to expand too much， which is unfair to the arranger who putsmore energy and creative expression into the arrangement work[12]. Thirdly， for the consideration of legislation， if \"ar?ranger\" is classified as a neighbouring right， it will make great changes to the Copyright Law system of our country， andthe cost of the system will be too high. Changes in legislation and the revision of new provisions are also detrimental tothe stability of its structure. Therefore， this path of protection is considered undesirable.

5.1.3 Including the Right in the Rights of Producers of Sound Recordings

The view that arrangements are part of a sound recording and are uniformly protected by \"producer's rights\" iseven more unreasonable， as it completely misinterprets the meaning and status of arrangements in musical composi?tion， confuses the act of creation of an arrangement with the act of making a sound recording， and ignores the distinc?tion between the independent and original expression of the arrangement itself and the act of fixing that expression.The distinction is made between the independent creative expression of the arrangement itself and the act of fixing thatexpression. Including arrangements in the \"sound recording producer's right\" is essentially tantamount to denying thecreative nature of arrangements， ignoring the laws governing the creation of arrangements in practice， and challengingthe basic logic of Copyright Law， which places original expressions within the scope of works rather than products.Moreover， even if the arrangement is recognized as part of the sound recording， in practice， the producer's rights areusually enjoyed by the record company， which exercises its rights uniformly， while the arranger is only paid as a staffmember of the record company， like other staff members such as sound engineers， mixers and record planners. Thiswill not improve the living conditions of music arrangers in China at this stage and will hardly help to raise their profes?sional status or improve their income levels[13]. Therefore， such a protection path is even less desirable.

5.2 The Author's Opinion： Classifying Arrangements for Respective Protection Instead of Creating Addi?tional Rights

In view of the internal arrangement， it can be divided into different types， and the level of originality is also differ?ent. The authors think it can be classified and discussed. Shifting， notation， and the use of repetitive drum and chordroutines to produce a patterned accompaniment-type arrangement are \"head sweat\" types of technical work. The spacefor originality is minimal. Therefore， it is not protected in the sense of Copyright Law. For music arrangements， folksongs and accompaniment arrangements formed on the existing melody can be regarded as an adaptation of the originalmelody， a deductive work protected by Copyright Law. The independent accompaniment， which can be separated fromthe original melody and is quite original， should be protected as an independent music work because it is not based onother works.

Although this approach is the most feasible， it still has some limitations. For the arrangement considered an adap?tation of the original melody， although it can be protected as an adaptation， the property of the right of adaptation stillmakes it inevitably restricted by the original work. This attribute of the right of adaptation is stipulated in Article 12 ofChina's Copyright Law， which states that the copyright in works created as a result of adaptation， translation， annota?tion， and collation of the original work shall be enjoyed by the author of the adaptation， translation， annotation， and col?lation. Still， the exercise of the copyright shall not infringe upon the copyright of the original work. Future creators willstill have to get authorization from both the original author and the arranger if they want to borrow an element thatdoesn't exist in the original， and such a \"one size fits all\" rule may discourage the creators[14].

Although China's Copyright Law does not specify the arrangement of music， according to the current law， it canstill be interpreted through legal means. The \"arrangement\" in the relevant regulations of deductive works in Article 12of the Copyright Law is interpreted as \"music adaptation\" to protect the arrangement accordingly， but the process ofprotection should be based on the level of originality of the arrangement for classification protection.

6 Conclusion

China's modern music industry is far from mature compared with other countries， and there is still room forgrowth. There are far fewer copyright infringement disputes involving music arrangements in China than abroad， not be?cause there are no disputes in this respect， but precisely because the public's awareness of copyright is relatively lack?ing， and the Copyright Law on the protection of the arranger is not complete， which only led to this situation. The ar?rangers， who play an essential role in the songs， often cannot obtain the same protection as the lyricists and composers，and it is difficult to safeguard their rights. The neglect of the arranger's interests at the social and legal levels has great?ly dampened his creative enthusiasm. It has been detrimental to the healthy development of the whole industry in thelong run.

The composer created the main melody using only one part of the voice. The rest of the voice is completed by thearrangement. It is true that the main melody， as the skeleton of a musical work， is regarded as the soul of a song. Onlyby accurately clarifying the nature of the arrangement and precisely and analytically classifying the arrangement ac?cording to the originality of the intellectual creation of the arranger， based on classification， should the rights and inter?ests of the arrangers be fully and reasonably protected to stimulate the vitality and enthusiasm of their creation， thusmaintaining the order of the whole industry and promoting its healthy and vigorous development.

References：

[1] JOSEPH P F. Music as a matter of law[J]. Harvard Law Review， 2018（131）： 1861-1923.

[2] REHBINDER M . Copyright law[M]. Beijing： Law Press， 2004： 162.

[3] LIU L J， ZHOU S R. Between judicial activism and judicial restraint： judicial protection of right-exploring the rightof melody-composition in jurisprudence[J]. Journal of Jiaxing University， 2006（5）： 37-40.

[4] ZHANG G， LIU C. Research on the copyrightability of arrangements of musical works[J]. Western Law Review，2016（2）： 23-30.

[5] YUAN B. The ineligible \"right of arrangement\" and \"right of arranger\"[J]. Electronics Intellectual Property， 2015（4）： 48-51.

[6] AREWA O B. Copyright and cognition： musical practice and music perception[J]. Saint John's Law Review， 2016（90）： 565.

[7] BRAUNEIS R. Musical work copyright for the era of digital sound technology： looking beyond composition and per?formance[J]. GW Law School Public Law and Legal Theory Paper， 2014（17）： 1.

[8] ZHANG N. On copyright protection of folk music： talking from above the moon[J]. Journal of Law Application（Judi?cial Case）， 2018（16）： 109-115.

[9] FRIEDMAN J L. Copyright and the musical arrangement： an analysis of the law and problems pertaining to this spe?cialized form of derivative work[J]. Pepperdine Law Review， 1979（7）： 125.

[10] EVANS R. Musical arrangements： the unprotected intellectual property[J]. Media Law and Policy， 1997（5）： 23.

[11] DEMERS J， LYONS P G. Steal this music： how intellectual property law affects musical creativity[J]. Syracuse Sci?ence and Technology Law Reporter， 2007： 1.

[12] GHERMAN S. Harmony and its functionality： a gloss on the substantial similarity test in music copyrights[J]. Ford?ham Intellectual Property， Media and Entertainment Law Journal， 2009（19）： 483.

[13] ZHAO Y Z. The legal analysis on music arrangement-misunderstanding， clarification and protection[J]. Electron?ics Intellectual Property， 2020（7）： 4-15.

[14] BRANDSTETTER J. The lone arranger： have the courts unfairly singled out musical arrangement by denying themprotection as derivative works[J]. Entertainment and Sports Lawyer， 1997（15）： 1.