On 4 January 2011 09:17, Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 01:28:29PM -0500, Michael Ellis wrote: >> I've also >> added a couple paragraphs explaining my understanding of U.S. copyright >> law and urging users to accept the CC license with commercial restriction >> in honor of Margaret GreenTree's patient labor while acknowledging that >> patient labor in itself may not create copyrightable work and therefore >> offering also the Free Art option. > > I think you are wrong. I think that this Margaret person has > created works that are under copyright, and you are taking those > works and claiming to offer them under a license that she did not > consent to. > >> I've still not heard from her. Hopefully she's just on vacation and will >> eventually reply. > > A lack of response should never be construed as permission to do > whatever you want. > > - Graham >
A quick comment.There are two (linked) types of copyright. If you originate a work - in this context compose some music - you have copyright control over any production of that work. Once that copyright has lapsed, a third party can reproduce the work in, for example, a book. They then get typograpghical copyright: which means, in effect, that you cannot reproduce the book, but you could reset the music into a work of your own. For music, there is a further complication. If someone arranges music, e.g. by adding chords, they gain a copyright on the arrangement, but not on the original music. For example, I am produciong a book of tradition British folk tunes from a music worksshop some years go. The tunes are traditional, and thus out of copyright, but the chords/arrangements are copyright, and I had to get permission from the family. -- Mark Austin ---------- For Whigs admit no force but argument ---------- _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user