At 2:36 PM -0700 9/8/05, Chuck Israels wrote:
I don't know what the limit is, but I always understood that there
was a certain length of quote that went over the line into
infringement. I have in my faulty memory 4 measures for popular
songs, but that doesn't seem too practical to me.
On Sep 8, 2005, at 5:38 PM, Ken Durling wrote:
Just curious, although I've heard the work [Sinfonia]. I'm not
intimately familiar with it, and I'm only aware of the Mahler 2
Scherzo in there. What else is there? And is/was the Mahler for sure
under copyright?
The Mahler just serves as
On Sep 8, 2005, at 6:55 PM, M. Perticone wrote:
hello mr. stiller and listers,
if i recall well, there's a notice acknowledging permission from
various
publishers. i don't have it at hand, but i'll check it tomorrow at my
studio.
There may be now (and if so, that's very interesting),
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So the Mahler was out of copyright I guess...
Well, it would have been in most European countries. Mahler died in
1911, and in 1969, when the Sinfonia was published, the 50 year rule
still applied most places. There was probably one exceptional country
(possibly
As long as we're talking about this, there's a question I've wondered
about for years that maybe someone on this list knows the answer to:
Is collaging fair usage? Specifically, consider Berio's *Sinfonia*,
which quotes numerous copyrighted works without any notice of written
permission to
I don't know what the limit is, but I always understood that there
was a certain length of quote that went over the line into
infringement. I have in my faulty memory 4 measures for popular
songs, but that doesn't seem too practical to me.
Chuck
On Sep 8, 2005, at 1:51 PM, Andrew
Just curious, although I've heard the work. I'm not intimately
familiar with it, and I'm only aware of the Mahler 2 Scherzo in
there. What else is there? And is/was the Mahler for sure under copyright?
Ken
At 01:51 PM 9/8/2005, you wrote:
As long as we're talking about this, there's a
Andrew,
Significant use of copyrighted material within a new original work
would seem to be in the same spirit as sampling -- which normally
only covers the use of existing _recordings_, but still, the
principle is the same.
http://www.music-law.com/sampling.html
- Darcy
-
[EMAIL
hello mr. stiller and listers,
if i recall well, there's a notice acknowledging permission from various
publishers. i don't have it at hand, but i'll check it tomorrow at my
studio.
regards,
marcelo
From: Andrew Stiller
As long as we're talking about this, there's a question I've wondered
ok, i checked it out. here's what you'll find in the full score of this
masterpiece, written for and commissioned by the new york philharmonic. and
it's dedicated to leaonard bernstein.
-
We would like to express our cordial thanks to the
So the Mahler was out of copyright I guess...
Boy, I really need to go back and listen to that again!
Ken
ok, i checked it out. here's what you'll find in the full score of this
masterpiece, written for and commissioned by the new york philharmonic. and
it's dedicated to leaonard
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
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):
WARNING
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
David W. Fenton wrote:
I had forgotten about the green Kalmus covers -- I never owned any of
those myself, but did use many of them from teachers. Then there are
the newer eggshell green glossy covers (the orchestral score series),
and I'd forgotten about those. I have no memory of brown
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
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,
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 quite
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
Raymond Horton wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
I had forgotten about the green Kalmus covers -- I never owned any of
those myself, but did use many of them from teachers. Then there are
the newer eggshell green glossy covers (the orchestral score series),
and I'd forgotten about those. I have
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
On 4 Sep 2005 at 17:16, dhbailey wrote:
Raymond Horton wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
I had forgotten about the green Kalmus covers -- I never owned any
of those myself, but did use many of them from teachers. Then there
are the newer eggshell green glossy covers (the orchestral
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 right about
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 composers, or folk
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
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,
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
At 9:13 PM -0500 9/2/05, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
When, in response to Johannes' comment;
Just out of curiosity, I am currently wondering whether a printed
edition from 1978 in the US is still under copyright (for the
printed edtion, not for the piece itself, which is from the 19th
century)?
John Howell wrote:
At 9:13 PM -0500 9/2/05, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
When, in response to Johannes' comment;
Just out of curiosity, I am currently wondering whether a printed
edition from 1978 in the US is still under copyright (for the printed
edtion, not for the piece itself, which is
On 3 Sep 2005 at 14:20, dhbailey wrote:
As for those editions with the yellow covers (and green ink?) I recall
looking at many of them and seeing no copyright notice at all. Not
being much of a pianist I don't have a very large library of piano
music, but I have never liked the layout of
Thanks to David for bringing in the name Schirmer. I assumed, but
wasn't sure. Yellow I got, but the green threw me. (more later)
David W. Fenton wrote:
...
And many of those Schirmer editions, ...
Now, if you want a publisher who is dishonest, try the one with the
PINK covers. . .
On 3 Sep 2005 at 17:44, Raymond Horton wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
...
And many of those Schirmer editions, ...
Now, if you want a publisher who is dishonest, try the one with the
PINK covers. . .
Now, for the benefit of anyone besides myself on the list who is
color-blind, does a
David W. Fenton wrote:
That would be Kalmus, of course.
Ray adds:
Thanks for the first part of that sentence, David. The of course was
not appropriate in this instance, of course!
I have played as many or more bad Kalmus editions as any one else on
this list. Take a look at the
On 3 Sep 2005 at 20:58, Raymond Horton wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
That would be Kalmus, of course.
Ray adds:
Thanks for the first part of that sentence, David. The of course
was not appropriate in this instance, of course!
I have played as many or more bad Kalmus editions as any
Raymond Horton wrote:
... it gives me tremendous satisfaction to see those signs there with
all the different shades of green and brown on them, but with GREEN
and BROWN spelled out in the middle for the 20 or 25% percent of males
who are color-deficient.
I meant to check that figure
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 still copyrighted. ...
Kalmus never did that kind
On 3 Sep 2005 at 22:57, Raymond Horton wrote:
I confuse pink with some other colors, but not green, and brown,
which
are some of the Kalmus scores I have in my possesion. I think that,
and the fact that I already stated that two out of two musician
members of my family said they have no
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
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, but sometimes
At 2:51 PM +0200 9/1/05, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Just out of curiosity, I am currently wondering whether a printed
edition from 1978 in the US is still under copyright (for the
printed edtion, not for the piece itself, which is from the 19th
century)?
If it carries a copyright notice, it is.
When, in response to Johannes' comment;
Just out of curiosity, I am currently wondering whether a printed
edition from 1978 in the US is still under copyright (for the printed
edtion, not for the piece itself, which is from the 19th century)?
Dr. Howell writes,
If it carries a copyright
To my comment inspired by this part of Dr. Howell's post,
If it carries a copyright notice, it is.
specifically this bit
my own personal experience prompts me to disagree.
I intended merely to suggest that my experience is that the inclusion of
a copyright notice on any item does not
Just out of curiosity, I am currently wondering whether a printed
edition from 1978 in the US is still under copyright (for the printed
edtion, not for the piece itself, which is from the 19th century)?
Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
At 08:51 AM 09/01/2005, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Just out of curiosity, I am currently wondering whether a printed
edition from 1978 in the US is still under copyright (for the printed
edtion, not for the piece itself, which is from the 19th century)?
Yes. (Disclaimer: I'm not a copyright
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Just out of curiosity, I am currently wondering whether a printed
edition from 1978 in the US is still under copyright (for the printed
edtion, not for the piece itself, which is from the 19th century)?
Johannes
If there was significant editorial input, it would be
A bit more comprehensive answer to what Johannes Gebauer wrote, than
what I've seen thus far:
Just out of curiosity, I am currently wondering whether a printed
edition from 1978 in the US is still under copyright (for the printed
edtion, not for the piece itself, which is from the 19th
52 matches
Mail list logo
