> Am 29.10.2021 um 13:47 schrieb Wol <[email protected]>: > > > Copyright exists SEPARATELY in the composition, the arrangement, the > performance, and the edition. >> As long as you distribute only engravings (output from LilyPond), there is >> no assertion in GPL of a need to release source, as described in my answer >> to Karsten. You are free to keep the source used for the engraving closed >> and share it with nobody. > Because the engraving is a mechanical transformation of the source, I think > the correct argument is these two are one copyright. And yes, because, IFF it > is all your own work, then you are under no obligation to share anything, you > set your own terms, you can share the engraving separately from the source > with no reference to any other licences. > > This also holds true when engraving eg *original* Beethoven - the original > music is PD, you hold copyright in the engraving ...
That depends on the legislation – it is true for the UK but not e.g. for Germany. In your legislation there’s the concept of “sweat of the brow” that serves as base for copyright in typesetting/engraving. In Germany there’s no copyright in handicraft, and that includes type design, typography and musical engraving. While music publishers claim to have a copyright in the “note image”, that’s simply not true. But since there’s a copyright on editions/adaptations, most publishers make changes to the scores – even if they introduce errors. > Copyright is a legal hairball - as soon as you start dealing with OTHER > PEOPLE'S work, there be dragons ... Yes. Good luck, Hraban
