Just to refresh here for a moment-- I asked a question about the issue of
copyrights - legal rights for an editor; and how to procede when his editions
are published in another country. Since my scores could be published in the UK,
I cited the Sawkins case as specific example of the thorny nature of the law in
this regard.
I don't think the issue is as simple as Dr. Sawkin's being a greedy monster.
He approached Hyperion many times, and they ignored him. He took them to court.
That's his right legally. He won the first trial; and he won on appeal. I doubt that there are
that many stupid judges in law in the UK, or that the Hyperion attornies were unable
to give the court the basic explanation of what's involved in preparing a musical edition.
I am just curious why is it the profit model is ok for publishers, or orchestras,
or record labels, or video productions, or the record chains, that make profits
from music that's in the public domain is somehow "OK." But when an editor
makes his case in court (and wins), he's seen as the Antichrist for doing it?
Kim Patrick Clow
On 2/14/06, David W. Fenton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
--
Kim Patrick Clow
"There's really only two types of music: good and bad." ~ Rossini
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
