On 15 Feb 2006 at 23:55, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > On 15.02.2006 David W. Fenton wrote: > >> It is also true that sometimes recordings are not being made, when > >> > the company finds out how much the royalties would be to the > >> > editor. I certainly know of one particular instance where this > >> > happened (in the UK, btw), and it is a sad case. But such is the > >> > law. > > > > Sawkins as paid this fee by Hyperion. > > Yes, a fee, but not the royalties. There is a difference. > > > > But he was asking to be paid more still for his work. > > > > Now, if you know that projects are not being recording because of > > editing fees, don't you think that adding in performance royalties > > to editors is going to cause even more projects to be abandoned? > > > > Yes, that is what I said. It's sad for the recording side of things. > It's good for the critical edition side of things. Who has got more > money?
The logic behind your argument escapes me. If the recordings are abandoned because of the fact that the record companies would lose money if they paid the editors the royalties, then where is the extra money going to come from to line the pockets of the editors? If no recordings are made, then there's no recording to sell to generate the revenue to pay the royalties. No egg, no chicken. > Actually, the recording side of things it hardly going to suffer, > since there are so many loopholes to take. All of which Hyperion > obviously missed. . . . I think Hyperion's position on the facts of this particular case was completely correct. Sawkins did not contribute any significant original work in his edition -- his contributions to the edition were controlled in almost all their details by the work of the composer, who is dead, and any editor with the same level of expertise in the musical style would have produced substantially the same results. Indeed, the fact is that a previous editor had already produced an edition that was almost identical to Sawkins's efforts in respect to the aspects of the edition that were found by the judge to constitute original contributions. > . . . But it does mean that if someone really does find > Beethoven's 10th symphony, and publishes it, the labels recording it > will have to pay the editor, too, and that, imo, is a very good thing. This is not about paying the editors. It is about giving editors the equivalent of co-authorship of works by dead composers. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
