Am 2013-03-09 um 12:50 schrieb David Kastrup: >> It's exactly these things: articulations, editorial annotations, >> expressive marks, that are under frequently copyright. > > Also the actual image.
Only in some legislations, e.g. not in Germany, Switzerland and Austria (DACH), but e.g. in the UK, AFAIK. Keyword "sweat of the brow" - it’s not a piece of art, but of handicraft (you may call that an art, too...) > It's probably safest to start from an "Urtext". ... as long as you're not sure about the legislation of your publication. > Now those go to a lot of pain to create a canonical version from > possibly conflicting manuscripts, and that is a lot of work, too. But > it's not creative expression and thus should not be copyrightable > content. Naturally I am not a lawyer, and you should remember that with > a host of lawyers at the disposal of publishing houses, being in the > right is only able to moderately tilt the balance of a court case > outcome anyway, and even winning it may lead to your bankruptcy. Indeed. > If more people refused to say "I agree" to completely outrageous > conditions, maybe the legal departments of publishers would start > reining their drug usage in somewhat. :-) Greetlings, Hraban --- fiëé visuëlle Henning Hraban Ramm http://www.fiee.net http://angerweit.tikon.ch/lieder/ https://www.cacert.org (I'm an assurer) _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
