John Howell wrote: >But I'm sure that there >are plenty of unambiguous pieces for which the >only editorial contribution is to modernize key >signatures and clefs. Is that enough to claim a >new copyright? Obviously Bärenreiter's attorneys >answered this "yes." > >Or a more easily seen example: There is a class >of modern editors of music for children's choirs >who seem to be convinced that if they change one >note of an original aria by, say, Handel, or >change one word of the text, or leave out a >phrase, that is sufficient to give them a new >copyright.
Personally, I don't have a problem with any of these. As I said before, the key for me is that these editors do not in any way make the original less available. They simply add something else on top which is not freely available to you. For any case like this, I have to ask: Why do you care? Why do you *want* to copy the edition of the Handel aria with one note changed? Why not just use the original public domain version instead? Either the new edition is more useful to you or it isn't. If it isn't, then fine, just ignore it and use the public domain original instead. If it is, then ask yourself why: that's the added value that you're paying for. mdl _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
