On 17 Feb 2006 at 21:16, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > On 17.02.2006 David W. Fenton wrote: > > As he should have. > > > > Do you really think that the argument against Sawkins has been an > > argument against royalties for all editions, no matter the degree of > > original work included in them? > > So where is the line? . . .
Seeing as how we're talking about music here, the answer is that it depends entirely on the context and the facts of the individual case. That was, in fact, the way the judges in the decision approached it. They had to consider the specifics of the particular edition before making their determination, so there is no blanket requirement that royalties be paid, only when there is sufficient original contribution by the editor to justify it. > . . . Two missing viola parts? Three? All the strings? > Does an oboe part count more than a viola part? Is a bass line more > valuable in baroque music than in late clssical? This is precisely the > problem the court faced. I addressed this at length in another post. -- 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
