Just to clarify: anything is copyrightable of course - there's no laws that I'm aware of that prevent people from asserting a copyright; question is, can it/has it a chance of standing up?
M. On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 2:09 AM, Mike Blackstock <blackstock.m...@gmail.com>wrote: > Interesting. > > I spent an hour or so doing various searches looking for court decisions > and came up blank; I'm wondering if we're making a "mountain out of a > mole-hill"? Can somebody find an instance of a music publisher suing > somebody over such things? Like I say I couldn't find any with my average > search skills; it would certainly be illuminating to see how the courts have > ruled however. I'm wondering if fingerings and/or phrasing slurs are even > copyrightable: is a suggestion on how to solve a technical problem > copyrightable? If so, couldn't one copyright a golf swing? It starts to look > ridiculous - which may explain the lack of easily-located court cases. > > Just thinking out loud. > M. > > On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Michael Ellis > <michael.f.el...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> A few excerpts from the Wikipedia article on derivative works. >> Highlighting and italics added by me. >> >> 17 U.S.C.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_17_of_the_United_States_Code> >> § 103(b) <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/103%28b%29.html> >> provides: >> >> The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the >> material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the >> preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any >> exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is >> independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, >> ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting >> material. >> >> >> US Copyright Office Circular 14: Derivative >> Works<https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.copyright.gov%2Fcircs%2Fcirc14.pdf> >> notes >> that: >> >> A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the >> Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some >> previously published material. This previously published material makes the >> work a derivative work under the copyright law. To be copyrightable, a >> derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as >> a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. *Making >> minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will >> not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new >> material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short >> phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable.* >> >> >> When does derivative-work copyright exist? >> >> For copyright protection to attach to a later, allegedly derivative work, >> it must display some originality of its own. It cannot be a rote, uncreative >> variation on the earlier, underlying work. The latter work must contain >> sufficient new expression, over and above that embodied in the earlier work >> for the latter work to satisfy copyright law’s requirement of >> originality<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originality> >> . >> >> Although serious emphasis on originality, at least so designated, began >> with the Supreme Court’s 1991 decision in *Feist v. >> Rural<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural> >> *, some pre-*Feist* lower court decisions addressed this requirement in >> relation to derivative works. In *Durham Industries, Inc. v. Tomy Corp.*[ >> 1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work#cite_note-0> and earlier >> in *L. Batlin & Son, Inc. v. >> Snyder*,.[2]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work#cite_note-1>the >> Second Circuit held that a derivative work must be original relative to the >> underlying work on which it is based. Otherwise, it cannot enjoy copyright >> protection and copying it will not be copyright infringement. >> >> In the *Batlin* case, one maker of "Uncle Sam" toy banks sued another for >> copying its coin-operated bank, which was based on toy banks sold in the >> United States[3]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work#cite_note-2> >> since >> at least the 1880s. (These toys have Uncle Sam's extended arm and >> outstretched hand adapted to receive a coin; when the user presses a lever, >> Uncle Sam appears to put the coin into a carpet bag.) The plaintiff's bank >> was so similar to the 19th Century toys, differing from them only in the >> changes needed to permit a plastic molding to be made, that it lacked any >> original expression. Therefore, even though the defendant's bank was very >> similar to the >> plaintiff's,[4]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work#cite_note-3> the >> plaintiff's was not entitled to any copyright protection. "To extend >> copyrightability to minuscule variations would simply put a weapon for >> harassment in the hands of mischievous copiers intent on appropriating and >> monopolizing public domain work." >> >> -------------------------------------- >> >> >> Obviously, laws vary from country to country, but to me this suggests that >> it would be very hard to assert a copyright claim to any set of of rhythms >> and pitches that are already available in the public domain. I think that's >> why I was having trouble with the concept that a copy of a chorale with a >> mistake is a copyrighted work. >> >> Cheers, >> Mike >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Michael Ellis >> <michael.f.el...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> Thanks Graham, it's good to get the straight story! I must say there are >>> certainly some confusing aspects to copyright law. So If I'm understanding >>> you correctly, if I were to transcribe a fugue from an out of copyright >>> source, I have a copyright if I make a mistake and none if I copy it >>> perfectly! What if I transcribe from a copyrighted source and make a >>> mistake (or a lot of mistakes)? Or copy from a copyrighted source only >>> those aspects that exist verbatim in a non-copyrighted version, e.g. notes >>> and rhythms as Bach wrote them but no dynamics or layout added by the >>> editor? >>> >>> Anyway, I do appreciate the insights. For the time being I'm >>> interpreting her publicly granted rights according to the notice on her web >>> site, i.e free use for purposes other than financial profit. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Graham Percival < >>> gra...@percival-music.ca> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 12:59:39PM -0500, Michael Ellis wrote: >>>> > We all seems to agree that: >>>> > 1. The "music" of the chorales (the sequences of pitches and >>>> > rhythms notated in the Breitkopf edition) is public domain. >>>> > 2. The Breitkopf edition itself is also in the public domain. >>>> >>>> I haven't checked it myself, but if this Breitkopf edition is on >>>> IMSLP, then yes. >>>> >>>> > 3. Margaret Greentree's XML files do not contain any copyright >>>> > assertions other than for the PDF output. >>>> >>>> "Assertion" is completely irrelevant to the status of being under >>>> copyright or not. If something would normally be under copyright, >>>> then it is under copyright the instant that it is produced in >>>> fixed form. (i.e. as soon as I type each letter of this >>>> paragraph, it is under copyright -- even though I am not going to >>>> append "Copyright (c) 2011 Graham Percival" to this email) >>>> >>>> > Given the above, it seems that an important question is whether her >>>> > reservation of rights applies to distributing material created by >>>> > applying LilyPond to the notation sequences embodied in her XML. >>>> >>>> No. The question is whether her particular rendition of the Bach >>>> chorales in XML can be under copyright. If it is -- and I believe >>>> it can be, especially since somebody noted that her rendition was >>>> not completely accurate -- then all the XML files are under >>>> copyright, and you cannot do (legally) anything with them without >>>> her express permission (with certain exeptions that vary from >>>> country to country). >>>> >>>> > On the other hand, I'm not sure that failing to declare a copyright to >>>> >>>> "Failing to declare a copyright" has no meaning since 1970 or so. >>>> In the first half of the 20th century, that had a legal meaning, >>>> but after one particular major rewrite of copyright law, any "idea >>>> in fixed form" (paraphrased) was under copyright. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> - Graham >>>> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lilypond-user mailing list >> lilypond-user@gnu.org >> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user >> >> >
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
