On 4 Sep 2005 at 17:18, dhbailey wrote: > David W. Fenton wrote: > > > On 4 Sep 2005 at 9:31, dhbailey wrote: > > > >>For instance, Hal Leonard has brought out a couple of fake books of > >>obviously public domain material, either material old enough to be > >>public domain but with known composers, or folk songs with no known > >>composer and also old enough to be public domain, and on each song > >>in each book they have a copyright claim such as "copyright © 2000 > >>by Hal Leonard Corporation" -- I realize there could be a valid > >>copyright claim on the entire collection of songs within that book, > >>such that nobody could simply photocopy the entire book and sell it > >>as their own, but there is no valid copyright claim in any of the > > > > > > If there are chords in there, it constitutes an arrangement, as > > every melody can be harmonized in more than one way. > > > > So, I see no problem with their copyright claim at all. > > Chord progressions, according to all I've read and heard, can't be > copyrighted. Who would "own" the blues? Neither can titles.
But it's not a chord progression that's being copyrighted, but a melody harmonized with a particular succession of chords. That's an arrangement, to me, and seems fully worthy of the same copyright protection as any arrangement would have. -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
