Re: [Finale] OT : Research and Copyrighted Microforms headaches....
Martin Banner wrote: Go to www.hinshawmusic.com There's a brand new book on this subject written by Rob Monath, entitled By The Book. Thanks for the link -- have you read the book? $14 for a 77-page book seems like a pretty steep price for not a lot of book! I'd love to know if anybody has read this book and can give us a review slanted to those of us in the engraving/publishing field as well as to performers to know if it's really valuable information or simply rehashing the same details we go over on this list from time to time. Interestingly, Amazon also has the book for sale but there's no discount. There is, however, a review, from which the following is a quote: As Monath explains in the Preface, By the Book, is not crammed with miscellaneous facts, rules, qualifiers, and exceptions. As a person who has witnessed death by Power-Point presentation, Monath instead demonstrates a workable strategy for anticipating and avoiding common music copyright problems. You do not need to be an expert, writes Monath, but you do need to know how to protect yourself. The book is clearly written and entertainingly presented. The cartoons will be especially appreciated by anyone who has addressed the vexing issues that copyright law presents on a daily basis. It sounds as if this is a general guideline expensive pamphlet rather than a precise guide which is what it sounded as if the original poster was asking for. The table of contents, which is viewable, doesn't seem to offer much guidance to the minutiae which many of us are concerned with when we deal with copyright issues. I bet it doesn't cover Kim's situation (wanting to print out pages from a copyrighted microfiche collection of clearly public domain works) at all. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT : Research and Copyrighted Microforms headaches....
Kim Patrick Clow wrote: *Andrew Stiller* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...but eventually I figured out that there was a don't ask, don't tell system in operation: you call up a microfilm from the stacks, don't tell anybody you're going to copy it, then waltz openly into a microfilm viewing room and print out as much as you like: no one will question you or try to stop you. Works like a charm. Along those lines, I found another facility with the materials I need. Staff is very friendly. Heck, the library even offers a service to copy the materials (very reasonable rates); and mail them to me! Can't beat that! :-) Wow! congratulations on what seems to be a great solution to your problem! How did you find this new facility? -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT : Research and Copyrighted Microforms headaches....
Title: Re: [Finale] OT : Research and Copyrighted Microforms head At 11:01 PM -0400 7/20/06, Kim Patrick Clow wrote: On 7/20/06, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Saur can copyright the images themselves -- not their content, which can be copied out by hand or transcribed by an OCR program. I understand the logic about not copying the photograph, which is Saur's copyrighted material. A copy would be essentially duplicating their materials, but why would OCRing material be ok? Isn't that essentially a mechnical reproduction of the photograph? I think Dennis mean copying from the original, not a facsimile of the original. But that's exactly what leaves me confused. Why exactly are their copies of the original, whether photographs, scans, or whatever, copyrightable when there is exactly zero added intellectual content? What they are selling are facsimiles, and I can't remember seeing copyright notices on those facsimiles I've happened to see. Is this one of the differences between European copyright law--under which I understand that page layout can be copyrighted--and U.S. law, which has never recognized such a copyright? Curious and willing to learn ... John -- John Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT : Research and Copyrighted Microforms headaches....
But that's exactly what leaves me confused. Why exactly are their copies of the original, whether photographs, scans, or whatever, copyrightable when there is exactly zero added intellectual content? -- I think (and this is pure conjecture), the photographs themselves are copyrighted. It'd be like you going to the streets of Washington DC and taking photographs of buildings. There's no copyright on the buildings, but your photographs are yours, and covered by copyright. Kim Patrick Clow ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT : Research and Copyrighted Microforms headaches....
At 11:44 AM 7/21/06 -0400, John Howell wrote: I think Dennis mean copying from the original, not a facsimile of the original. No, copying content from the 'facsimile' is what I meant. Copyright subsists in the photograph itself, which is not truly a facsimile... Why exactly are their copies of the original, whether photographs, scans, or whatever, copyrightable when there is exactly zero added intellectual content? Photographs and scans are different to some degree, but let's stick to photos. The US copyright law protects the fixing into a medium, even if it is a photo of something else. This is a rabbit hole, where a photo of a photo is protected, too. (Just look at the enormous number of permissions required and credits given in a typical feature film these days.) Is this one of the differences between European copyright law --under which I understand that page layout can be copyrighted --and U.S. law, which has never recognized such a copyright? But we have design patents. (I really don't know about patents or European copyright law, so scratch that as a meaningful comment.) My reading of US law goes back a long way, but as an amateur informed by lots of (too much) reading. My first real run-in was interviewing Bill Gates about (the not yet available) software copyright for an article back in 1980. From then on, I've kept a close eye on developments and tried to make sense of the letter of the US law as well. If I photograph a page of a public domain document, have I created a separate work of art? What if I photograph two pages in one frame? Several in an arrangement? Several pages in separate frames? What about my contribution of lighting and depth of field to illuminate a fuzzy text? At one point does it go from a simple copy to a separate work of art containing other art? What about the roll of microfilm or the facsimile book? What contribution was made to the work as a whole that makes it eligible for protection? Because the sections of the law I quoted earlier are flexible, it's not an easy call. In the frenzied protect-everything environment, either objection-by-action or caution-by-inaction is in order. For the impecunious among us, caution is the likely choice. :) Dennis -- Please participate in my latest project: http://maltedmedia.com/waam/ My blog: http://maltedmedia.com/bathory/waam-blog.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT : Research and Copyrighted Microforms headaches....
At 6:41 AM -0400 7/21/06, dhbailey wrote: I'd love to know if anybody has read this book and can give us a review slanted to those of us in the engraving/publishing field as well as to performers to know if it's really valuable information or simply rehashing the same details we go over on this list from time to time. I immediately requested an examination copy, for possible adoption for my arranging class. I don't know whether Hinshaw is set up to relate to college teachers or not, so we'll see whether they respond. If they do, I'll send a report. John -- John Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Request for font info
A couple of folks on the 18th-century list posed these questions. I assume that they are looking for fonts to use in text, not in a notation program. I'll be happy to pass on your replies, but please make them simple; when it comes to the inner workings of computers, I'm a Bear of Little Brain! (I don't even know what Andrew means by an OT font.) Please note that these are pretty specialized requests. From: Andrew Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [C18-L] Musical notation fonts Can anyone recommend fonts for providing (some of) the characters used in eighteenth-century musicological writings ? They have to run on a Mac, and I would prefer an OT font. Thanks. AB I need a musical notation fonts for a PC. I have a dance book with music from 1815. Nancy Thanks! John -- John Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Can't open file
I have been updating a piece from FinMac 3.5 to 2K4, and have run into a problem. The piece is a song cycle in which each song is in a different file. I had noticed that all the files open rather sluggishly: it takes a second or two for the notes to appear after the staff does. This one file, however (the 8th of 9) will not open at all. When I double-click it, the staff, clefs, meter appear, and the first couple of bars of notes, but then nothing but the Spinning Beach Ball of Death. This hangs the entire computer and I have to force a reboot w. the power button. The funny thing is that I did manage to open it, once. It opened very sluggishly then, and I started the update procedure (Page Setup settings, a font substitution), and these too proceeded very sluggishly. Then, before I had saved anything, the computer decided it had to go on line (why this happens I have no idea), the file vanished from my screen, and Finale became unwilling to open any other. A simple restart brought Finale back to normal, but the behavior of the one bum file has ever since been as described in the previous paragraph. The file's info panel (or whatever it's called) showed no change in its condition after the initial disaster, so after one round w. the SBBOD I went into Classic mode and updated the file from 3.5 to 2K2, hoping that would leapfrog whatever the problem might be. During this procedure 2K2 had no trouble at all opening the file, which displayed no sluggishness whatsoever. I saved the file in 2K2, then went back to OSX.3 and FinMac 2K4. No joy: the file still behaves as described in my first paragraph. Finale behaves beautifully w. all other files, so the problem is clearly in the file itself. How do I either get the thing to open or get the data out of it into a new file? FWIMBW, I possess copies of both ResEdit and HexEdit (both OS 9). If either of these will be of use, please give me very precise instructions what to do, because I hardly ever use these tools and am frankly scared to death of them. Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Chord Question Again :)
Thanks so much for the explanation and response! - Jacki On Jul 19, 2006, at 5:32 PM, A-NO-NE Music wrote: Jacki Barineau / 2006/07/19 / 05:14 PM wrote: Later on, the same chord is used that does include a G... Does this change things?! :) Yes, very much. The reason why 6/9 chord is used by specifying to omit major 7th is because melody is root of the chord, that will produce distractive flat 9th sound. If there is no root in the strong beat of the melody, there is no need to use 6/9 chord. It is more correct to say Maj 13th. In another word, 6/9 chord notation is to tell the performer don't dear voice major 7th!. :-) -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT : Research and Copyrighted Microforms
First and foremost, I am not a lawyer (IANAL). Secondly, it might be useful in discussing legal opinions to cite relevant case law. The most important case for US copyright law is 'Feist v. Rural', which was decided by the Supreme Court, and held that a minimum level of creativity was required for something to be copyrightable (in that case, an alphabetical telephone directory was not copyrightable). Subsequent cases have relied on this interpretation of Feist. An extremely important case in 1999 is the 'Bridgeman v. Corel' in which a District Court held that photo-realistic prints of public domain paintings were not copyrightable. To find the general facts of the case check Google or Wikipedia. Here is an interesting interpretation from one article (there are all sorts on the internet): http://www.panix.com/~squigle/rarin/corel2.html This only appies to copyright in the USA. Are there other cases which would have a bearing on copyrightability of photographic reproductions of public domain sources? Rafael Ornes Manager, CPDL [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cpdl.org ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT : Research and Copyrighted Microforms
At 02:34 PM 7/21/06 -0700, Rafael Ornes wrote: http://www.panix.com/~squigle/rarin/corel2.html This case applies to photographs as reproductions. Do we know how much of the Saur is simple reproduction vs. an enhanced and/or three-dimensional photograph? Knowing nothing about them, I perhaps incorrectly assumed that they were like photographs of an open book, not akin to a cropped photographic photocopy of flat pages, as well as being part of an organized collection that could be copyrighted as a whole. If they are simply flat reproductions akin to photocopies, there would likely be no added creative value ... though I'd hate to get into the legal realm over it. If it were me, I'd copy the original public domain content without copying the added creative value (which is why OCR might be a good route). My own experience is one of care on the part of the cable and news organizations not to get entangled in any sort of rights tussle. The photos on these pages (http://bathory.org/erzsorig.html and http://bathory.org/erzsfoto.html) are among those most often requested in high-resolution versions, and they have always paid without objection the token photo fee to obtain them -- even for the 2D portrait. I suppose they could steal and share the 2D one, but they haven't yet. Dennis -- Please participate in my latest project: http://maltedmedia.com/waam/ My blog: http://maltedmedia.com/bathory/waam-blog.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
