On 10:57 Uhr dc wrote:
I've never heard of anything like a "typographical copyright" in
France, but I'm no expert on these questions.
By the way, I'm very intrigued by Swiss law on copyright, after
reading in a _facsimile_ of a public domain work (Rousseau's
Dictionnaire de musique):
WARNIN
On 2:44 Uhr Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
I think it was supposed to, but has not completely succeeded. For
example, while Germany, and I presume, France, appears (based upon
Johannes statements) to treat typographical copyrights the same as
the copyright to the composition
Don't base it on my sta
David W. Fenton wrote:
I don't quite understand the inclusion of Dover in that list. They
are a very different operation. They sometimes reprint editions that
are under copyright outside the US, and when they do so, they do it
with permission (I assume that means they've made a financial
arra
John Howell wrote:
I am curious whether the E.U. has regularized differences in copyright
law among its various countries, or whether that was already
accomplished through Berne, etc.
I think it was supposed to, but has not completely succeeded. For
example, while Germany, and I presume, Fr
On 04.09.2005 23:56 Uhr David W. Fenton wrote:
Well, I know for a fact that Dover reprints certain European editions
with permission of the European copyright holders (some of the Mozart
operas are in this class).
I have got the Dover Score of the Marriage of Figaro here. Taken from a
Peters
On 4 Sep 2005 at 17:18, dhbailey wrote:
> David W. Fenton wrote:
>
> > On 4 Sep 2005 at 9:31, dhbailey wrote:
> >
> >>For instance, Hal Leonard has brought out a couple of fake books of
> >>obviously public domain material, either material old enough to be
> >>public domain but with known compos
On 4 Sep 2005 at 16:35, John Howell wrote:
> At 2:37 PM -0400 9/4/05, David W. Fenton wrote:
> >
> >I don't see the other reprint houses as being at all on the same
> >level -- they add nothing, and reprint without permission, as long as
> >it's not copyrighted in the US.
>
> You may be quite rig
John Howell wrote:
At 11:29 AM +0200 9/4/05, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Furthermore I'd like to add: there are special copyrights in Europe
for publishing previously unpublished music. Even if a piece was
composed 500 years ago a publisher can claim the "publication rights"
which will, as far
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 4 Sep 2005 at 9:31, dhbailey wrote:
For instance, Hal Leonard has brought out a couple of fake books of
obviously public domain material, either material old enough to be
public domain but with known composers, or folk songs with no known
composer and also old enough
At 2:37 PM -0400 9/4/05, David W. Fenton wrote:
I don't see the other reprint houses as being at all on the same
level -- they add nothing, and reprint without permission, as long as
it's not copyrighted in the US.
You may be quite right about Dover. I included them because they
are, in fact
Johannes Gebauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In Europe there is also a copyright of the engraving itself, which I
> understand is not possible in the US. In Europe it is simply illegal
> to reprint an engraved page as long as it is in copyright (75 years?).
> It makes no difference whether it co
On 4 Sep 2005 at 10:17, John Howell wrote:
> This graphic copyright has never existed in U.S.
> law, which may explain why the reprint houses like Kalmus, Dover, and
> Luck's are all located in the U.S. One can trademark a graphic such
> as a recognizable logo, but not copyright it.
I don't qui
On 4 Sep 2005 at 9:31, dhbailey wrote:
> For instance, Hal Leonard has brought out a couple of fake books of
> obviously public domain material, either material old enough to be
> public domain but with known composers, or folk songs with no known
> composer and also old enough to be public domain
Ray Horton wrote:
The only parts they dislike more are the old french parts with the
backward quarter rests for eighth rests and other difficulties.
John Howell wrote:
Actually it's backward eight rests for quarter rests. We ran into
that with the Saint-Saëns A Minor Cello Concerto last s
At 11:29 AM +0200 9/4/05, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Furthermore I'd like to add: there are special copyrights in Europe
for publishing previously unpublished music. Even if a piece was
composed 500 years ago a publisher can claim the "publication
rights" which will, as far as I understand, give
At 9:50 AM +0200 9/4/05, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 5:34 Uhr John Howell wrote:
That is actually not surprising at all. Because U.S. copyright law
was based on date of first publication, and most European law was
based on the lifetime of the composer, a great many works were in
copyright in E
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
[snip]
I realize that, the way you explained things you couldn't make a
photocopy even if the original music is out of copyright.
Absolutely. Are you sure this would be different in the US? If you
brought out a new edition of a work by Bach, could anyone photocopy you
On 13:54 Uhr dhbailey wrote:
But if a person has one of those engraved/copyrighted editions where
no significant editorial additions were made to a public domain work
(e.g. a Bach organ prelude), is a person in Europe legally able to
make their own version using that copyrighted-for-engraving e
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 5:34 Uhr John Howell wrote:
That is actually not surprising at all. Because U.S. copyright law
was based on date of first publication, and most European law was
based on the lifetime of the composer, a great many works were in
copyright in Europe but in the public
On 9:50 Uhr Johannes Gebauer wrote:
In Europe there is also a copyright of the engraving itself, which I
understand is not possible in the US. In Europe it is simply illegal
to reprint an engraved page as long as it is in copyright (75
years?). It makes no difference whether it contains any edi
On 5:34 Uhr John Howell wrote:
That is actually not surprising at all. Because U.S. copyright law
was based on date of first publication, and most European law was
based on the lifetime of the composer, a great many works were in
copyright in Europe but in the public domain in the U.S. Not a
On 3 Sep 2005 at 23:34, John Howell wrote:
> At 10:57 PM -0400 9/3/05, Raymond Horton wrote:
> >David W. Fenton wrote:
> >
> >>The quality of some Kalmus editions is quite
> >>high, because until the last decade or so, they
> >>were all reprints of someone else's edition,
> >>most public domain
At 10:57 PM -0400 9/3/05, Raymond Horton wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
The quality of some Kalmus editions is quite
high, because until the last decade or so, they
were all reprints of someone else's edition,
most public domain, but sometimes including
foreign editions that are arguably stil
23 matches
Mail list logo
