on 22/5/02 11:06 AM, Fred Heutte at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I think the deal here is that the copyright would be in the "sound > recording rights" not the song "publishing rights". >
no....it would be publishing rights as we are talking about a the underlying intellectual property rights within a composition. although it would probably be a fair argument that DNA is something that is in the public domain. I suggest these scientists could probably own the copyright of an ARRANGEMENT of a work in the Public Domain. > But it's a murky area and one thing we know is that whenever copyright > or other intellectual property rights are involved, systems designed to > protect the creator, performer and audience often end up being tilted > toward the intermediaries who add no value at all to the music, art, > photo or writing itself. > this may be true of record companies (they own sound recording) who don't own any intellectual property within compositions. ie they only own the master tape and rights relating to its reproduction/transmission. your sweeping generalised statement is completely untrue when it comes to the intellectual property holders of a musical work. Publishers and copyright societies representing composers of music add value to it by promoting legitimate use, compensating the creator appropriately when the work is exploited and taking action when a musical work is exploited without the appropriate permission. don't mistake the recording industry with the publishing industry...they are worlds apart in respect of size, representation and ethics. rc --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
