On 17 Feb 2006 at 21:21, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > On 17.02.2006 David W. Fenton wrote: > > In this case, the question was how much original contribution is > > required to create a new work that is eligible for copyright > > independent from the original work. It seems to me that this is a > > distinction you continue to miss, Johannes, one that would be easier > > to grasp if you'd read the decisions (both of which are quite > > entertaining reading, seems to me). > > Imo this kind of decision is something a court of law simply cannot > make. One note of originality has to be enough. If the record company > doesn't like that they have plenty of other options.
Well, that may be the way *you* see it, but the appeals court in Britain did not see it that way. And I think it's absurd to use one note as the basis for creating an independent copyright in the work. If that were the case, I could take a composition of yours, change one note and get independent copyright on the basis of that one note. I would agree, though, that a court of law is an improper forum for judging this question. That's why certain musical organizations in the UK have suggested setting up their own boards for considering and mediating these kinds of disputes, composed of people who know music but are also experienced in copyright law. That sounds very sensible to me -- let the ASCAPs and other such rights-management organizations make these determinations as independent tribunals. Of course, there's a political aspect to this, too, as can be seen in the disputes in Hollywood over credit on film scripts (mediated by the screenwriters' guild) and producing credits on films (I forget who mediates that, but there was an article in the NY Times recently about disputes on this subject), but I think it's better than forcing these things directly into a trial court where a judge has to make th edecision. Of course, in the present instance, it had to go to court, because Sawkins was asking for a change in the UK copyright law. Once that change as been made, such disputes could be mediated by a third party organization and go to trial only when the parties refuse to accept the mediator's decision. But, again, I reiterate: this is not about copyright in typographical arrangements, but about copyright in the musical work conveyed in the edition. Ironically, even the typographical arrangement copyright doesn't come from just changing one note -- you can't just reprint an edition under copyright and add one change to the musical text. So, I would think your "one-note" rule makes even less sense for the area of copyright in the work itself. -- 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
