On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 09:40:05AM +1000, Peter Chubb wrote:
> >>>>> "Chris" == Chris Sawer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Chris> Yes, this is a problem. In my experience, quite a lot of music has the
> Chris> editor's name on, but by no means all of it. Sometimes editors are
> Chris> famous and easy to trace, and in other cases the composer edits his own
> Chris> pieces. However, as you've found, in many cases it is difficult to find
> Chris> out the editor's details. This is why "Urtext" editions are so handy,
> Chris> because they only contain the composer's original markings.
>
> Just because you have an Urtext doesn't mean it's public domain.
> If the editor had to do significant effort to convert to the edition
> shown, (by, for example, comparing and contrasting several different
> early editions and creating a line-of-descent for the document, etc.,)
If the definition of an Urtex is a score that is assumed to be exactly
what the composer wrote, it seems impossible to claim a copyright on
anything.
Otherwise the good candidate would be Urtext + "editor dead more than
70 years ago". It makes thing very hard indeed.
Laurent
_______________________________________________
Gnu-music-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-music-discuss
