Bravo, Guglielmo! Finalmente siamo d'accordo... RT ______________ Roman M. Turovsky http://polyhymnion.org/swv
> From: bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 19:56:07 +0200 > To: Howard Posner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Caution: copyright stuff > > hornet no. 1 - > > in theory, if i'm called upon to restore a fresco (let's say) by an > artist long dead and if that restored piece is then included in the > illustrations of a book or reproduced on a postcard; according to the > precedent set by this ruling, i'm entitled to the benefits of > copyright. ridiculous, no? the article doesn't say if dr. sawkins > registered his "contribution" prior to recording but i doubt it. > > i believe the american actors guild went on strike a few years back in > a similar dispute. i don't know what the final outcome was but the > actors took the position (if i remember correctly) that a share of the > revenue from repeated television programs should go to them as well. > > if i was hyperion, i'd edit out dr. sawkins's contribution and > re-release it as an unreconstructed, or unfinished piece - look what it > did for schubert! > > art is brief - avarice is forever. > > my two cents - bill > > > On Venerdug 16, 2004, at 19:08 Europe/Rome, Howard Posner wrote: > >> At the risk of setting a quarrel new abroach, I point out this article >> from >> the Birmingham (England, not Alabama) Post about a legal judgment that >> a >> musicologist's work in reconstructing an orchestral piece was >> substantial >> enough to warrant copyright protection. It has not much bearing on >> law in >> the U.S., and for all I know, not much in the UK. >> >> http://www.andante.com/article/article.cfm?id=24034 >> >> I will now proceed to duck out of the way of the hornets. >> >> > > >
