Again, big proviso, NOT my area of law. I'm sure everyone can see why this is a specialty. ;) Here's my two cents. If someone arranges public domain music, what is copyrighted is the new arrangement. The public domain melody, and lyrics if any, don't become the property of the arranger but his/her arrangement does. If you use the public domain melody to make another arrangement of your own then your arrangment is not a violation of the other arranger's copyright since the melody is in the public domain. Thus my arrangement of Greensleeves is mine and copyrighted, but if you arrange another version of Greensleeves, it's yours and under your copyright. What if the arrangements are pretty similar? That's a grayer area but I suspect, unless the arrangments are exactly alike, I'd have considerable difficulty trying to exert my copyright over your version. As for the photocopy of someone else's facsimile. You are copying someone else's book/music, so, yes, that would violate copyright, imo, despite the fact you are removing any evidence that the copy came from their book. Although the orginal printers might have considerable difficulty proving you actually did copy their facsimile if you completely removed any evidence it came from their facsimile. (I also suspect that actually removing all evidence of the printer's ediction wouldn't be all that easy, at least to expert eyes.) And that copyright protection is fair, I think. After all, you are making use of their reproduction of the original. If you wish to reproduce the orginal without violating their copyright, you are theoretically free to go in with whatever photographic equipment is necessary and make your own facsimile of the original. What we are paying for with royalties on copyrights is the use of someone else's work. Copyrighting wasn't designed just to protect creativity. Copyrighting protects intangible work products that can easily be copied and thus are easily subject to what amounts to a form of theft. Study the legal miseries, and frequent poverty, of musicians and writers, and printers, prior to the invention of copyright protection and you'll probably gain an appreciation of the value of copyright protection. Just because a printer or music publisher makes a facsimile doesn't mean they didn't put any "work" into the endeavor. They deserve some compensation for taking on the task. If it was easy to make an exact facsimile of a historic work, we'd all go out and do our own rather than buying a beautifully printed reproduction.
Ray Brohinsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Granted, with the proviso that only those who can afford to prosecute the violator have actual protection. However, this is exactly not the case I was describing. BB cannot claim ownership of the intellectual property of Odhecaton: the composers, editors and typesetters of the original are long dead. (And, I might add, unlikely to rise from death to prosecute SCA arrangers!) In their original facsimile, BB only endeavored to reproduce what was there, which while it requires craft, does not require the kind of creative qualities Copyright was intended to protect. None-the-less, they have a copyright, so the question remains. Is a xerox of a facsimile which removes all but the image which the facsimile is attempting to reproduce a violation of the copyright on the facsimile? There seems a parallel to, say, a medly that contains a public domain song. Let us make it even more parallel: a public domain song from a source which is held privately by the arranger. If another arranger takes the melody and arranges it, have they violated the copyright of the first arranger? Yes, he privately owns the manuscript from which the melody came, and could make money, one presumes, from sale of it, or by selling access to it. But the melody is, ultimately, in the public domain, and his exposure of it in an arrangement does not make it his. Or does it, under the law? Ray On Nov 23, 2007 5:23 PM, wrote: > On Wed, Nov 21, 2007, Ray Brohinsky said: > > > > And...assuming that there is great value in what you are copyrighting. > > mmm, not necessarily. Sometimes the author wants a say in how his > material is used. Consider an edition of 16c dance music harmonized and > slightly ornamented in the style of the time; a significant augmentation > which is very much in demand for play for live dancing at reinactment > events (eg, SCA). The composer might feel very good about the music being > played in that context, even xerox'd widely, not a cent in royalties being > required. > > But, perhaps less happy to see it recorded for sale, or played in public > concerts; the settings being plausible, but not authentic; a scholars > reservation sorta thing. > > Copyright gives him the ability to limit performance to those venues he is > comfortable with, its not always about filthy lucre. > > -- > Dana Emery > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > --------------------------------- Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. --
