On 01/10/2013 10:24 PM, Graham Percival wrote:
Unless you are planning this as a protest, I doubt that
deliberately setting out to infringe on copyright is a great
strategy. Are you really equipped to deal with a lawsuit from
music publishers -- especially since there's now a public record
of your awareness that you intend to break the law?
Excuse me? Where did I say I planned breaking the law or infringing copyright?
What I actually said was,
Personally I think that I small library of _real_ contemporary musical
examples, compared to the published score, would be an extremely useful
resource for Lilypond. IT SHOULDN'T BE DIFFICULT TO SECURE PUBLISHERS'
PERMISSION FOR SHORT EXTRACTS.
... which I know you read, because you responded to it. It's not breaking the
law or infringing copyright if you secure permission of the copyright holder.
I have never looked at Trevor Baca's or Mike Solomon's scores and
thought "gee, that looks somewhat nice, but I really can't praise
it more because I don't have an existing score to compare it to."
Their work is *absolutely beautiful* by itself.
Whoever said anything about praising it more or less? This is a practical
question -- Lilypond users and developers have gained a great deal out of
comparing Lilypond's output very precisely to professionally-engraved examples
of classical-period works (e.g. the introductory Essay, Janek's Mozart example
in Lilypond Report 26), and there's value in making similar comparisons to
contemporary music examples.
I find it astounding that a group of composers keep on suggesting
that it's impossible to either create nice examples or use
material from their own scores.
My concern isn't about "nice examples" or showing off the beauty of Lilypond's
output, it's about learning and teaching by comparison to published works, and
there's a greater diversity of comparisons to be made by considering scores from
composers outside the Lilypond community.
It isn't precisely hard to find
beautiful material in Mike's work, and most of them are already
available in pdf form! I can't remember off-hand if the ly source
is available, nor whether it's under copyleft, but if not then he
would almost certainly be willing to license a few bars under a
permissive license.
Which is great, but is solving a different problem.
If you truly want to spend a few hours writing letters to
publishers, I would be interested to hear the results.
Happy to do so. If Urs can get permission for his bars of Schoenberg from UE, I
don't see that it will be a problem for other works.
No. "Fair use" would apply in *some* (not all) countries only if
this was a treatise about that particular composer's style. One
of the "smell tests" is whether the educational goal could be
achieved *without* using copywritten material -- which is
certainly could be.
The greater problem is that some countries simply don't _have_ fair use rights
... :-( However, in this case the point is moot as Urs _did_ secure the
copyright holder's permission.
I really don't see why you've let rip on me like this simply for reassuring Urs
that his choice of a contemporary work by a well-known composer actually had
some value. No, it's not suitable for official Lilypond documentation because
of licensing issues, but for a third-party resource there's no legal barrier so
long as publisher permission is secured.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
