On May 16, 2012, at 8:23 AM, R. Mattes wrote: > This is partly right and partly wrong - but first let's be > clear about what we talk here: the rights on the composition > (which most likely ended centuries ago :-) or the right of > the _image_ of the original work. Those remain with the owner > of that artefact (and are independent from the musical rights).
I don't think copyright is created by mere possession under anyone's copyright law. It makes no sense. If three museums or collectors each have a first edition of Dowland's Third Book of Songs, would they all have a copyright in it? > And then there are the photographer's rights ... > Yes, _iff_ the manuscript (image rights) is public domain then > it's pretty easy ro distribute copies/facsimiles of the artefact > (manuscript/print/scribble etc.). But - most libraries will not > release their content into public domain. As far as I can tell, > every time I ordered microfilms/images I needed to sign papers that > explicitly forbid further distribution. I had to sign similar > agreements working with the microfilm collections of several > libraries/institutions (Basel Musikwissenschaft & University Library, > London - BL etc.) I think they had you sign those agreements precisely because they had no enforceable right in the historical document. They were creating a copyright, as to you, by contract. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
