Re: OT: How to become a mutopia-writer

[Hans Forbrich]

On Monday 22 March 2004 06:29, Erik Sandberg wrote:

(note:  my comments are my interpretation and not confirmed by any legal 
authority .  While I believe it is accurate and useful information, you are 
encouraged to verify the information with copyright and legal specialists in 
your area or country.  I've been known to make mistakes.)

> > All published work, including music, has several 'copyrights' that need
> > to be respected.  Some of the copyrights belong to:
> >
> > - the music composer;
> > - the poet or libretist;
> > - the typeset 'editor';
>
> I'm quite interested in this: Exactly what does the editor own? If it is an
<snip>

My understanding: if the editor has in any way contributed to the development 
of the work being delivered, such as finding an interline spacing that is 
pleasing to the eye or moving a slur, then the editor would have ownership of 
that and would therefore be entitled to a say in the redistribution.  
However, in many cases an editor has simply reassigned his/her right to the 
publishing company through the employment contract.

> Now, the question is whether anyone else than Bach himself can have a
> copyright on the fact that the first note of Bach's 1st cello suite (1CS)
> is g,16.

This is exactly why there is a list of contributers.  Bach created the 
sequence of notes and their durations starting with a g,16, and likely also 
encouraged specific duration, tempo and dynamics variants at certain points.   
One could say this was the extent of his contribution to the "xyz-Verlag" 
edition published in 1947.  (Not an insignificant contribution, to be sure.)

> Suppose that an editor A finds the manuscript of Bach's 1st cello suite and
> determines that the first note is a g,16, the second a d16, etc. Suppose he
> publishes this information in a pure form, adding no extra information (say
> he writes it as a lilypond \notes block). Now suppose that he copyrights
> this \notes block in a very restrictive way. And suppose that some other
> editor B independently finds the same manuscript and does the very same
> transcription to a \notes block, and releases his work to Public Domain.
> The file is identical to the copyrighted one. If now somebody would have a
> copy of A:s .ly file, this would be illegal, while if he would have a copy
> of B:s identical .ly file, this would be perfectly legal. To me this really
> feels weird; that the same piece of information can belong to different
> persons depending on who gave it to you.

The embellishments, articulations, fonts (which needed to be designed), even 
the decision to use 4 measures on the 3rd system, are the 'creative' work of 
someone.   The term for extensions is 'derived work' and they can also be 
copyright.  However - as far as I know - some derivations are easy to defeat, 
simply by changing the placement of articulation or the font.  The challenges 
and the counter-challenges to that argument are the joy of the legal 
profession.

The key here is to get an authoritative copy that is in the public domain and 
be able to prove the copy was the source of the new transcription.

From my reading - In your example, the difficulty lies in how one can prove 
ownership and that needs an immutable published copy.  (AFAIK, this is the 
argument being used by SCO in their anti-Linux suits.)

You can rest assured publishers watch 'their' property closely.  They look for 
ways to retain 'ownership' of popular works.  By simply adding a new 
foreword, changing a sentance in the middle, providing a revised translation, 
or introducing a character/composer history or analysis, they have created a 
new work that can be copyright.  And they do not need to identify what part 
is in, or out of, copyright. 

> So my question now is: was it be possible for A to take this copyright?
> Which really boils down to: Is it the information itself that is
> copyrighted, or is it a particular instance of the information?

I have worked for some (enterprise) software companies where the lawyers have 
actually debated the idea that "you purchase a copy of the software and put 
it on the hard drive.  A second copy is then placed into memory to be able to 
run it, and therefore you should need to license 2 copies."  Standby systems, 
failover and even tape backups caused them some real heartburn ....

It gets even worse - what is the 'information'?  For the people on this list, 
it can be argued that the .ly file is actually the more important piece of 
information and is the actual 'creative work'.  The argument continues:  
translation to something useable by musicians, being entirely automated, is 
secondary and irrelevant (other than it is simply beautiful!)

> > Each country has their own copyright laws.   You must become familiar
> > with the copyright law in your country before you start publishing using
> > Lilypond. (Copyright lawyers have a nasty habit of sneaking up behind a
> > person.)
>
> Suppose that you have an Urtext edition X, which is copyrighted in one
> country A, and has expired to PD in another country B, and that you live in
> country A. Will it be possible for you to bring a copy of X to your friend
> in country B, and let him transcribe it to Lilypond, and upload to, say,
> Mutopia, as PD? What will happen legally when you go home to country A and
> download it?

In the country where the copyright is still in force, someone downloading the 
document is breaking the law.  That's why both Project Gutenberg and Mutopia 
are careful about what they store and distribute.

That is actually happening.  I have a few manuscripts, based on German music 
but published in the United States, that state 'Only valid for sale in the 
United States and Canada'.  I've been told that copying them in Germany is 
illegal, and even simply taking them to Germany could result in confiscation 
and possibly legal action by the current copyright holders.

<rant>
One of the most frustrating things I've seen recently is the publishing of new 
church hymnals, where the majority of pieces are 'reworked and modernized' 
and therefore copyright.  In some cases the rework amounts to a chord changed 
and a few notes in the harmony moved.  But that's enough to enforce copyright 
and require church groups to pay annual fees - based on congregation size - 
to the copyright holder.   (The original music of some of these are Martin 
Luther & J.S. Bach.  I'm sure they're spinning in their graves!)  This stuff 
is big business!!!
</rant>

/Hans