On 14 Feb 2006 at 22:30, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > I am not taking sides on this, but I do actually see some > justification for editor's royalties. Whether the Hyperion case is > somewhat more complicated is another matter (and I don't know enough > about it)
The Orff situation is the case of a publisher having inherited the copyright for a work from its original composer, no? Indeed, the work is still under copyright, no? The Hyperion case is about music that is clearly in the public domain. The issue of published critical editions is not involved -- Sawkins made a private edition for the use of the performing group that Hyperion was recording. Sawkins was paid a fee for the use of his edition. He sued for performance royalties in addition to his editing fee. I really think it's better not to discuss this case without having read the decisions involved, because it's a very specific set of facts. I can't see how Sawkins had any claim to original contribution of the kind that is usually required to justify the payment of performance royalties. In my experience, most people who get indignant on Sawkins' behalf either ignore or are completely unaware that he received the customary editing fee up front, and that what he asked for was to be treated as equal to a composer. It is in the consideration of this latter issue that the judge made a complete hash of musical and musicological issues. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
