Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
John Howell wrote: At 10:31 AM -0800 2/17/06, Carl Dershem wrote: Darcy James Argue wrote: It's like an alto player playing one of Duke's Johnny Hodges features and straightening out all the bent notes. That's where "elevator muzak' comes from. Actually muzak is recorded by some of the best musicians in the business, who can sightread anything and record anything in one take. Or at least that was the case back in the '60s when I was on tour with one of the well-known big band leaders who made a pile of cash writing for muzak. I suspect that the non-imaginative nature of the medium is required by the ad executives so as not to offend anyone--except musicians, of course! I've done a few commercial sessions, and other stuff that probably has ended up as 'muzak', and it's almost always just one take, unimaginative arranging (or perhaps *constrained* arranging, the better to fit the desires of the customer), and then on to the next. Even when the musicians can hear a way to make it work better, they just don't have the time or freedom to do so. But still, the vast majority of it is trying to fit the relatively free-form music that becomes popular into a very constrained box. cd -- http://www.livejournal.com/users/dershem/# ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 18.02.2006 David W. Fenton wrote: Pardon me, but Johannes has been making assertions about the facts involved (UK law, what the relevant statutes were, etc.) and admits he can't be bothered to read the documents that were being discussed. I did not ever do any of that (I didn't even disagree with you in the first place), but this is the end of the discussion for me. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
At 10:31 AM -0800 2/17/06, Carl Dershem wrote: Darcy James Argue wrote: >> He also claims that each out-of-tune note Dylan sings is an integral part of the work, What makes you think it isn't? Though I might have said "an integral part of that rendition," since, as you note, Bob does it differently each time. But there's nothing worse than someone singing a pure-voiced, perfectly in-tune Dylan cover. It's like an alto player playing one of Duke's Johnny Hodges features and straightening out all the bent notes. That's where "elevator muzak' comes from. Actually muzak is recorded by some of the best musicians in the business, who can sightread anything and record anything in one take. Or at least that was the case back in the '60s when I was on tour with one of the well-known big band leaders who made a pile of cash writing for muzak. I suspect that the non-imaginative nature of the medium is required by the ad executives so as not to offend anyone--except musicians, of course! John -- John & Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 18 Feb 2006 at 15:16, Andrew Stiller wrote: > On Feb 18, 2006, at 9:16 AM, Richard Yates wrote: > > > After a long, informative, and civilized thread this one went over > > the edge from evidence, reason, and substance and into personal > > attack through sarcasm. > > I have encountered this phenomenon numerous times, from a variety of > different offenders. Eventually I came to understand that this kind of > reaction (I call it "sputtering") is a kind of acknowledgement by the > offender that he (very seldom she) has lost the argument. That being > so, the only appropriate response is to quietly declare victory and > drop the subject. This is such total fucking bullshit. Johannes never attempted to even address the subject of the discussion because he freely admitted he hadn't read the judicial decisions that were the entire subject of the discussion (all the factual information about the case that I was relating came from there; Johannes offered no factual information about the Sawkins case, nor did he quote any statutes, in UK law or otherwise). When I point out that his assertions have no basis in fact this provokes offense on Johannes' part and I get told that pointing out that Johannes has no facts on his side means that I've lost the argument? You people are ridiculous. I have never become angry from these kinds of meta-discussions of my posts, but this has tipped me over the edge. I was never anything other than cordial. I never used ad hominem attacks, I never misconstrued anyone's argument. I always used facts and pointed out when someone else was mis-stating the facts. For that, I'm offensive. I'm sorry, but if Johannes can't handle the truth, plainly stated, then he shouldn't be participating in a discussion, especially one where the facts were so central to the arguments being made. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 18 Feb 2006 at 6:16, Richard Yates wrote: > > David W. Fenton wrote: > > > But perhaps they were wrong and you, the non-lawyer who lives > > > outside the UK, actually understand the applicable law better than > > > sitting UK judges. > > > > Is there actually any > > way you can have a discussion without getting offensive and out of > > order? Johannes > > I agree. After a long, informative, and civilized thread this one went > over the edge from evidence, reason, and substance and into personal > attack through sarcasm. David, can you recognize this line? Pardon me, but Johannes has been making assertions about the facts involved (UK law, what the relevant statutes were, etc.) and admits he can't be bothered to read the documents that were being discussed. When I point this out in order to demonstrate that his arguments cannot be persuasive (and are irrelevant, being based on his disregard for the facts), *I'm* the one who is at fault? This is ridiculous. I didn't call anyone names. I didn't insult anyone. I pointed out his lack of facts and his errors in regard to assertions of fact. If that's offensive to people on this list, then those people are completely hopeless. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 18 Feb 2006 at 11:08, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > On 17.02.2006 David W. Fenton wrote: > > But perhaps they were wrong and you, the non-lawyer who lives > > outside the UK, actually understand the applicable law better than > > sitting UK judges. > > Here we go again, David Fenton on another crusade. . . . You refuse to read the factual documents on which the discussion is based. You continue to make assertions that don't reflect the facts involved. I have only called you on these acts. Either you're using the relevant facts in your posts or you're not -- you pretty clearly are not, and I'm just saying so explicitly. I haven't called you names, I haven't insulted you. All I have done is point out that you are arguing your side of the discussion without reference to any of the facts involved. > . . . Is there actually any way you can have a discussion without > getting offensive and out of order? I have not done anything at all to cause offense, other than pointing out that you are discussing the issues without having bothered to acquaint yourself with the facts involved. If it's offensive for me to tell the truth about that, well, then I don't know how I could ever post without at some point offending somebody. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On Feb 18, 2006, at 9:16 AM, Richard Yates wrote: After a long, informative, and civilized thread this one went over the edge from evidence, reason, and substance and into personal attack through sarcasm. I have encountered this phenomenon numerous times, from a variety of different offenders. Eventually I came to understand that this kind of reaction (I call it "sputtering") is a kind of acknowledgement by the offender that he (very seldom she) has lost the argument. That being so, the only appropriate response is to quietly declare victory and drop the subject. Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
Richard Yates wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: But perhaps they were wrong and you, the non-lawyer who lives outside the UK, actually understand the applicable law better than sitting UK judges. Is there actually any way you can have a discussion without getting offensive and out of order? Johannes I agree. After a long, informative, and civilized thread this one went over the edge from evidence, reason, and substance and into personal attack through sarcasm. David, can you recognize this line? Maybe David's post got cut off in my mailbox, but I find nothing offensive or in the nature of a personal attack. I read that statement as an indication of his point of view -- that maybe Johannes really did have a clearer view. I know that there are times when I read legal decisions made in US courts that I feel they are totally erroneous and a misreading of the law and that I have a more accurate view of how things should have been decided. I had read David's long and calmly reasoned thread as if he felt the UK judges were in error in their decision. I felt he was supporting Johannes' points, that Johannes had made statements that showed to David that he (Johannes) had a clearer view of how the law should have been interpreted. I didn't read anything sarcastic into David's statement, since he had already made it clear that he disagreed with the UK judges' decisions. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
> David W. Fenton wrote: > > But perhaps they were wrong and you, the non-lawyer who lives outside > > the UK, actually understand the applicable law better than sitting UK > > judges. > > Is there actually any > way you can have a discussion without getting offensive and out of order? > Johannes I agree. After a long, informative, and civilized thread this one went over the edge from evidence, reason, and substance and into personal attack through sarcasm. David, can you recognize this line? Richard Yates ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 17.02.2006 David W. Fenton wrote: But perhaps they were wrong and you, the non-lawyer who lives outside the UK, actually understand the applicable law better than sitting UK judges. > Here we go again, David Fenton on another crusade. Is there actually any way you can have a discussion without getting offensive and out of order? Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
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. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 17 Feb 2006 at 21:17, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > On 17.02.2006 David W. Fenton wrote: > > Unique by one note? Two notes? Three? > > How many notes make it unique enough? 10? 100? "Uniqueness" was not one of the points considered by the judges to be relevant to their determination. There were 50-odd changes by Sawkins in the piece that they threw out as not having sufficient original contributions by Sawkins to merit getting separate copyright. Again, you're discussing the issue in apparent ignorance of the facts, and this makes it quite hard to conduct a reasoned discussion. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
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. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 17 Feb 2006 at 21:14, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > On 17.02.2006 David W. Fenton wrote: > > I don't see how they could have known better, as they were operating > > under the to-then-standard interpretation of the applicable UK > > copyright law. > > I am by no means a lawer, but I believe you do not fully understand > how European law functions. There are aspects of European law which > are above national law. There are other aspects where national law has > to be changed to comply with European standards. And there are aspects > where national law still stands above European law (when it touches > constitutional aspects, but I believe the UK doesn't have a > constitution.) Well, you're right -- I don't know that much about how European law operates. I do know that the UK tries to keep itself somewhat separate from the rest of Europe. I also know that the law considered in the appeals decision was entirely UK law. Indeed, the decision explicitly rejects as a basis for its findings a French decision in Sawkins's favor. That seems to indicate that it's not just me who thinks that European law doesn't apply, but also the judges on the UK appeals court who heard the case. But perhaps they were wrong and you, the non-lawyer who lives outside the UK, actually understand the applicable law better than sitting UK judges. > Whatever the case, it is becoming a little boring now. I've found it quite boring to have to repeatedly reiterate the facts of the case, yes. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
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. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 17.02.2006 David W. Fenton wrote: I don't see how they could have known better, as they were operating under the to-then-standard interpretation of the applicable UK copyright law. I am by no means a lawer, but I believe you do not fully understand how European law functions. There are aspects of European law which are above national law. There are other aspects where national law has to be changed to comply with European standards. And there are aspects where national law still stands above European law (when it touches constitutional aspects, but I believe the UK doesn't have a constitution.) Whatever the case, it is becoming a little boring now. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 17.02.2006 David W. Fenton wrote: Unique by one note? Two notes? Three? How many notes make it unique enough? 10? 100? Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
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? 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. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 16 Feb 2006 at 23:36, Andrew Stiller wrote: > > On Feb 16, 2006, at 3:46 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: > > > In the case of the missing cornet parts, my guess is that it's > > pretty clear that your choices are limited to to 2 or 3 different > > notes within any harmonic context, but the figuration and voicing > > need to be determined with no real information on what they should > > have been. > > I think that's overly optimistic. A "cornet solo" could, within the > style of the composer and his period, be quite elaborate and full of > non-harmonic tones of all kinds. . . . Well, I was assuming accompanimental roles for the cornets, and not any solos. > . . . The guidance from the orchestral > context in such a situation is really very limited, and the variety of > credible solutions immense. . . . If nobody in the rest of the orchestra has the leading part, that might imply that the cornet had it at that point. But if there were a doubling of a cornet solo by another instrument, that could mask the solo role of the cornet, so, yes, you're right -- I was overly optimistic, because I was thinking of a particular kind of cornet part (from my experience with band music, as copyist and arranger). -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 17 Feb 2006 at 1:24, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > On 16.02.2006 David W. Fenton wrote: > > Well, I'm not sure that alone has much utility in drawing the > > distinction. In the de Lalande with the missing viola part, leaving > > it out is going to sound different from having it in, most obviously > > in the parts for strings alone. But whatever one reconstructs is not > > "creative," but implied by all the other available information. > > I don't see the distinction. The reconstructed viola part might still > have been different, no? That means Sawkins solution was unique, and > depended on him. Doesn't that make it creative? Unique by one note? Two notes? Three? There were two editions of the work with the missing viola part, and the Paillard and Sawkins reconstructions overlapped in all but a handful of notes. Hyperion alleged that Sawkins plagiarized, but there was no reason to do that (seems to me that Hyperion didn't have very good musicological advice if they didn't make the argument that any musicologist conversant in the repertory involved would likely have produced a viola part nearly identical to Sawkins's), as it's just a natural result of the highly circumscribed nature of the process of reconstructing an inner part in a piece of this nature. I wouldn't call a part differing by 1 note to be "original". And my argument all along has been that the definition of "original" in the court decision is where things go wrong. They take the literalistic brain-dead approach (which you seem to be adocating with your question) that any exercise of judgment constitutes "creativity" and/or "originality." The court rejected that reading in its decision and required something more than that. They then turned around and accepted the 5 or 6 notes in the viola part as sufficient (this is another example of the court's "heads I win, tails you lose" approach to logic, seems to me). Again, we are not talking here about what is necessary to gain copyright in an edition (a typograhical arrangement). In that context, yes, a handful of alterations are sufficient to create a unique edition. 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). > Bob Levin reconstructed a Mozart concerto for violin and piano (a few > years ago). What came out was something that was one of millions of > possible solutions to the problem. Creative? Of course! But still, in > it's sense, a reconstruction. Have you been reading my messages to the list the last few days, Johannes? If you had been, you would have read me repeatedly giving examples of reconstructive work that would be sufficiently original ("creative" was a word the judges rejected as having no legal meaning) to merit copyright as an independent work (rather than as a mere typographical arrangement). The distinction here that you repeatedly seem to miss is that this case was not about the typographical arrangement but about when an edition of a work includes sufficient original contributions from the editor to merit being treated as a work independent from the original for the purposes of determining eligibility for royalties from performers and recording companies. My understanding of all of this from all the reading I've done is that prior to this case, UK law had no such accomodations in it for editions at all, which were considered to never able to be sufficiently original to justify royalties. This case changed all that by defining a standard of originality that had to be met to merit the copyright in the edition as a work of music (i.e., that the piece of music that the printed edition (which has its own copyright as a typographical arrangement) conveys is itself copyrightable because it is an independent musical expression), which is what is required under UK law to be eligible for the performance/recording royalties that Sawkins demanded (in contradiction to the standard practice and the interpretation of UK copyright law up to the point that Sawkins won his lawsuit). My position is that there are editions that obviously stand as pieces of music independent of the sources they are drawn from (most especially when those editions include major reconstructive work from incomplete sources). I agree that Sawkins edition as described does include some reconstruction. But that reconstructive work is so highly circumscribed by the other existing musical material (in both the case of the viola part and the figures added to the figured bass) that it should not qualify as sufficiently original (in the legal sense of the term in the UK, as described in the text of the two judgments) to merit independent copyright.
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 17 Feb 2006 at 1:06, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > On 16.02.2006 David W. Fenton wrote: > > I'm not calling for editors to not be paid, or to be paid less. I'm > > simply calling for them to not be paid *more* than they have been in > > the past, especially when it's justified by a claim that amounts to > > stealing the compositional work of dead composers. > > And all I said was the law grants royalties, and Hyperion should have > known that. . . . It seems to me that you are simply wrong on this. The law until *this* lawsuit reached its conclusion in the appeals court categorically did *not* grant royalties to the kind of work Sawkins did in editing. The law in the UK is now altered (it's now more like Germany's law, if I understand what you've said about it). > . . . Whether you like it or not, Hyperion played with the fire > and got badly burned. . . . Hyperion was acting in accordance with how the applicable law in the UK had been interpreted up to that point. Sawkins was asking for what amounted to a change in the law. > . . . I repeat what I said in my very first post on > the subject: I am not taking sides on this whole issue (especially as > I am actually part of all sides, musician, editor, and record > company), but I do see this decision as being in line with the law, > and actually not at all surprising. I totally agree that the amount > granted by the court is well over the top, . . I've read both decisions, but I don't know that I recall any numbers for the royalties awarded. The large numbers I *have* read (£1 million) were describing Hyperion's likely legal expenses in fighting the Sawkins suit. > . . . but Hyperion simply should > have known better. . . . I don't see how they could have known better, as they were operating under the to-then-standard interpretation of the applicable UK copyright law. The results of this lawsuit break new ground and give rights to editors that were not there before this lawsuit reached judgment in the appeals court. > . . . I see absolutely no reason for them to consider > themselves as the victim in this case. Then, I don't know many of the > details, but so far I have not heard a single argument in this whole > discussion that would make me believe that the court ruling was wrong, > or out of line. And I don't actually see any impact (other than for > Hyperion). Since you have not read either of the decisions, I think your opinions on these matters do not carry much weight. Likewise, you have repeatedly argued from a position (the one you reiterate in the passages quoted above) that is at odds with the facts, that being that Hyperion was trying to avoid a royalty it was legally required to pay. That is 100% contrafactual, and was the entire issue in dispute in this lawsuit -- before Sawkins vs. Hyperion was concluded in the appeals court, UK record companies were not legally obligated to pay performance/recording royalties to editors. That has now changed, and it means a change in the structuring and financing of all early music recording projects by adding more people to the list of those who receive royalties. Secondly, by refusing to read the decisions, you are missing out on how musically and musicologically (and purely logically) unsound the reasoning of the original trial judge happened to be. While the law can be read in any way that courts choose to read it, the law is more respected when those decisions are based on reasoning that is logical and consistent in the subject areas involved. In this case, the reasoning is pretty much nonsensical, and leads to results that are completely at odds with plain readings of the facts. While it is never wise to think about law as being based in "common sense," it *does* need to be rational in its bases, or it becomes merely arbitrary and capricious. This is a decision that puts the law in a poor light because the judges have repeatedly chosen the less logical readings of almost every aspect of musical fact that they were asked to consider in making their decision. You may not have a problem with the result, and, frankly, I'm not sure I am bothered as a matter of copyright law, but the law in the UK has been changed by this decision on the basis of specious and erroneous interpretation of the musical and musicological evidence that was examined. I think that's a bad thing, especially since a correct and more logical consideration of the evidence would likely have reached the opposite conclusion. And, in fact, Sawkins could have lost this suit and still have changed the law. It's possible for a court to find that there are cases where an editor's contribution is sufficiently original to engender independent copyright in the edition while also finding that Sawkins's work was not sufficient to meet that standard (the first judge did find that only 3 of the 4 pieces Sawkins editing qualified for copyright protection, because the 4th lacked sufficient
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 17 Feb 2006 at 1:19, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > On 16.02.2006 Andrew Stiller wrote: > > The Baroque ensemble Tempesta di Mare has made a name for itself in > > part through its performances and recordings of reconstructed lute > > concertos by Sylvius Leopold Weiss--concertos for which only the > > lute part actually survives. The entire orchestral part had to be > > recreated. The resulting pieces sound very convincing and realistic, > > and are credited to Weiss, but I can't help but thinking, each time > > I hear one of them, that if Handel had done the exact same > > thing--taken a Weiss lute part and added new orchestral > > accompaniments--that we would not hesitate a moment to > > ascribe the resulting work to Handel, not Weiss. Your thoughts? > > Incidentally, the extremely popular disc of Heinichen concerti with > Musica Antiqua Cologne is the exact same situation (for the same > reasons), where Reinhard Goebel "reconstructed" the orchestral parts, > and some argue that it is more in the style of Reinhard Goebel than in > the style of Heinichen. I am sure Goebel got a good royalty > compensation for it...;-) 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? -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
Phil Daley wrote: At 2/17/2006 01:20 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: >On 17 Feb 2006, at 11:12 AM, Christopher Smith wrote: > >> He also claims that each out-of-tune note Dylan sings is an >> integral part of the work, > >What makes you think it isn't? Didn't Cage say that coughing and sneezing during a performance meant that each performance was unique? I personally don't buy it. Cage often pushed the boundaries. But, as a primarily jazz musician, I have to agree that changes in the performance make each performance an unique qork. That said, what the baudience does rarely has any significant effet. (Though the one time the drunk walked through the middle of the band did alter things noticeably). cd -- http://www.livejournal.com/users/dershem/# ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
At 2/17/2006 01:20 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: >On 17 Feb 2006, at 11:12 AM, Christopher Smith wrote: > >> He also claims that each out-of-tune note Dylan sings is an >> integral part of the work, > >What makes you think it isn't? Didn't Cage say that coughing and sneezing during a performance meant that each performance was unique? I personally don't buy it. Phil Daley < AutoDesk > http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
Darcy James Argue wrote: On 17 Feb 2006, at 11:12 AM, Christopher Smith wrote: He also claims that each out-of-tune note Dylan sings is an integral part of the work, What makes you think it isn't? Though I might have said "an integral part of that rendition," since, as you note, Bob does it differently each time. But there's nothing worse than someone singing a pure-voiced, perfectly in-tune Dylan cover. It's like an alto player playing one of Duke's Johnny Hodges features and straightening out all the bent notes. But on the other hand, there's also nothing worse than a singer who sings the same darn note out of tune all the time because that's how Dylan sang it on the record. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
Christopher Smith wrote: [snip]> He gets teased mercilessly, but he thinks his work will go down in the annals of musicology. [snip] Sounds more like he should go down in the "anals" of history! :-o -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
Darcy James Argue wrote: >> He also claims that each out-of-tune note Dylan sings is an integral part of the work, What makes you think it isn't? Though I might have said "an integral part of that rendition," since, as you note, Bob does it differently each time. But there's nothing worse than someone singing a pure-voiced, perfectly in-tune Dylan cover. It's like an alto player playing one of Duke's Johnny Hodges features and straightening out all the bent notes. That's where "elevator muzak' comes from. cd -- http://www.livejournal.com/users/dershem/# ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 17 Feb 2006, at 11:12 AM, Christopher Smith wrote: He also claims that each out-of-tune note Dylan sings is an integral part of the work, What makes you think it isn't? Though I might have said "an integral part of that rendition," since, as you note, Bob does it differently each time. But there's nothing worse than someone singing a pure-voiced, perfectly in-tune Dylan cover. It's like an alto player playing one of Duke's Johnny Hodges features and straightening out all the bent notes. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://secretsociety.typepad.com Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On Feb 16, 2006, at 3:46 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: But, on the other hand, I think we know that in Mozart's time, symphonies in certain keys in certain styles would often add trumpets and drums as a matter of performance practice, improvised by the performers reading from a bass line (Dwight Blazin has done work on this subject in the Salzburg repertory). The military musicians in Salzburg were not actually members of the Capella, but were frequently called in to supplement the orchestra. And there is some question as to the degree of their musical literacy. You bring up a very important point that is often overlooked. While we tend to take every note and indication as gospel in these modern times, many of the musicians of the time were faking it, kind of like a cocktail trio does today. Berlioz, for one, is famous for clamping down on the liberties many musicians (and conductors!) took with music as a matter of course. There's a musicologist I teach with who is nuts about Bob Dylan. He has transcribed many of his recordings meticulously and organised readings of the tunes. He doesn't seem to realise that all those arrangements were improvised off the cuff in the studio, and that if somebody hit a bum note, it stayed in because they didn't have another take that was cleaner. He insists that the musicians play the bum notes in his transcriptions and has ascribed all sorts of meaning to them that Dylan must have meant to put in. He also claims that each out-of-tune note Dylan sings is an integral part of the work, and wants the guitarist to tune his upper E string a little sharp because that's the way it is on the recording. He gets teased mercilessly, but he thinks his work will go down in the annals of musicology. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On Feb 16, 2006, at 11:22 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote: On Feb 16, 2006, at 3:30 PM, Christopher Smith wrote: If Bach had written his "Jesu Joy Of Man's Desiring" today, he would have been credited as "arranged by..." and been eligible for no royalties at all unless the tune (the part with the words) was in the public domain. Everything he wrote - all the most interesting parts that make the piece good - are just the arrangement, by modern standards. Not really true. He would have had to obtain permission from the copyright owner, but could then have copyrighted his own contribution as an original work. Form PA has a place for the creator to designate exactly what aspect of the work is claimed as copyrightable, and another where original and derived portions of the work are clearly distinguished. Berio's _Sinfonia_ is but one example of a work full of qotations of copyrighted material, but considered, both legally and artistically, to be a fully original composition in its own right. Similarly, any composer's "Variations on [X]" is not deemed an arrangement, whether [X] be copyrighted or not. I guess that's where the modern departure occurs; so seldom are modern copyright owners willing to give this sort of permission that any work of this type that ends up being done is done as an arrangement. At least, I've had no luck. If Berio hadn't passed away recently I might have asked him what his trick was... christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On Feb 16, 2006, at 3:46 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: In the case of the missing cornet parts, my guess is that it's pretty clear that your choices are limited to to 2 or 3 different notes within any harmonic context, but the figuration and voicing need to be determined with no real information on what they should have been. I think that's overly optimistic. A "cornet solo" could, within the style of the composer and his period, be quite elaborate and full of non-harmonic tones of all kinds. The guidance from the orchestral context in such a situation is really very limited, and the variety of credible solutions immense. The tuba part is much less problematic, because this composer always used the tuba very sparingly (his main brass bass was the ophicleide). There's also the question of whether the parts were left out of the score because of no room, or because the work was originally intended not to include them. In this case, the composer helpfully says as much (no room) at the head of the score, and refers the reader/conductor to the "accompanying separate parts"--which are now missing. Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On Feb 16, 2006, at 3:30 PM, Christopher Smith wrote: If Bach had written his "Jesu Joy Of Man's Desiring" today, he would have been credited as "arranged by..." and been eligible for no royalties at all unless the tune (the part with the words) was in the public domain. Everything he wrote - all the most interesting parts that make the piece good - are just the arrangement, by modern standards. Not really true. He would have had to obtain permission from the copyright owner, but could then have copyrighted his own contribution as an original work. Form PA has a place for the creator to designate exactly what aspect of the work is claimed as copyrightable, and another where original and derived portions of the work are clearly distinguished. Berio's _Sinfonia_ is but one example of a work full of qotations of copyrighted material, but considered, both legally and artistically, to be a fully original composition in its own right. Similarly, any composer's "Variations on [X]" is not deemed an arrangement, whether [X] be copyrighted or not. Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 16.02.2006 Andrew Stiller wrote: The Baroque ensemble Tempesta di Mare has made a name for itself in part through its performances and recordings of reconstructed lute concertos by Sylvius Leopold Weiss--concertos for which only the lute part actually survives. The entire orchestral part had to be recreated. The resulting pieces sound very convincing and realistic, and are credited to Weiss, but I can't help but thinking, each time I hear one of them, that if Handel had done the exact same thing--taken a Weiss lute part and added new orchestral accompaniments--that we would not hesitate a moment to ascribe the resulting work to Handel, not Weiss. Your thoughts? Incidentally, the extremely popular disc of Heinichen concerti with Musica Antiqua Cologne is the exact same situation (for the same reasons), where Reinhard Goebel "reconstructed" the orchestral parts, and some argue that it is more in the style of Reinhard Goebel than in the style of Heinichen. I am sure Goebel got a good royalty compensation for it...;-) Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 16.02.2006 David W. Fenton wrote: Well, I'm not sure that alone has much utility in drawing the distinction. In the de Lalande with the missing viola part, leaving it out is going to sound different from having it in, most obviously in the parts for strings alone. But whatever one reconstructs is not "creative," but implied by all the other available information. I don't see the distinction. The reconstructed viola part might still have been different, no? That means Sawkins solution was unique, and depended on him. Doesn't that make it creative? Bob Levin reconstructed a Mozart concerto for violin and piano (a few years ago). What came out was something that was one of millions of possible solutions to the problem. Creative? Of course! But still, in it's sense, a reconstruction. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 16.02.2006 David W. Fenton wrote: I'm not calling for editors to not be paid, or to be paid less. I'm simply calling for them to not be paid *more* than they have been in the past, especially when it's justified by a claim that amounts to stealing the compositional work of dead composers. And all I said was the law grants royalties, and Hyperion should have known that. Whether you like it or not, Hyperion played with the fire and got badly burned. I repeat what I said in my very first post on the subject: I am not taking sides on this whole issue (especially as I am actually part of all sides, musician, editor, and record company), but I do see this decision as being in line with the law, and actually not at all surprising. I totally agree that the amount granted by the court is well over the top, but Hyperion simply should have known better. I see absolutely no reason for them to consider themselves as the victim in this case. Then, I don't know many of the details, but so far I have not heard a single argument in this whole discussion that would make me believe that the court ruling was wrong, or out of line. And I don't actually see any impact (other than for Hyperion). Enough said. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 16 Feb 2006 at 15:13, Andrew Stiller wrote: > On Feb 15, 2006, at 10:27 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: > > > If you're > > reconstructing 2 parts of a 4-part texture, it's probably > > recomposition (unless it's a strictly contrapuntal style where the > > possibilities are highly circumscribed and clearly implied by the > > remaining two voices). > > > > If, on the other hand, you're supplying a viola part in a work with > > choral parts, basso continuo and two violin parts, then the > > reasonable possibilities for the viola are pretty narrow, and in > > that case, it would be reconstruction. > > Just out of curiosity (no ax to grind): I am working on a 19th-c. > orchl. score that is missing its cornet and tuba parts (they wouldn't > fit on the page), Aside from a few verbal cues in the MS (such as > "cornet solo" or "tuba furthers doubling of basses etc.") I have > nothing to go on but the composer's general style, including the way > he handles these instruments in other pieces. Is what I am doing a > reconstruction or a recomposition? > > To me, I think the line should be drawn based on whether the new > material changes the character of the piece as a whole. Well, I'm not sure that alone has much utility in drawing the distinction. In the de Lalande with the missing viola part, leaving it out is going to sound different from having it in, most obviously in the parts for strings alone. But whatever one reconstructs is not "creative," but implied by all the other available information. In the case of the missing cornet parts, my guess is that it's pretty clear that your choices are limited to to 2 or 3 different notes within any harmonic context, but the figuration and voicing need to be determined with no real information on what they should have been. Obviously, you can look at the composer's other cornet parts in similar works and attempt to write in the same style of figuration, but there's no guarantee that the composer had not departed from his usual practice in the missing parts. There's also the question of whether the parts were left out of the score because of no room, or because the work was originally intended not to include them. Mozart has a couple of symphonies that were written without trumpets and timpani, and he added them in on separate paper later. That means there are two versions of those symphonies, without trumpets and drums and with them. In Mozart's case, if the added parts had not been saved with the autograph scores, we'd never have known that it was appropriate to have added them. But, on the other hand, I think we know that in Mozart's time, symphonies in certain keys in certain styles would often add trumpets and drums as a matter of performance practice, improvised by the performers reading from a bass line (Dwight Blazin has done work on this subject in the Salzburg repertory). The military musicians in Salzburg were not actually members of the Capella, but were frequently called in to supplement the orchestra. And there is some question as to the degree of their musical literacy. My point is that the absence of certain things in the autograph score or authentic sources does not guarantee that the composer did not assume these things would be added by performers cognizant of the oral traditions surrounding the performance of such works. In that respect, adding trumpets and drums to D Major symphonies in extroverted style might very well be almost obligatory, even if we lack any actual evidence that the instruments were used in performance of that particular piece at the time. So, in the case of Mozart, I think we'd be reconstructing trumpet and drum parts. In the case of more complex musical styles and more versatile instruments (mid-19th century cornets and tubas were far more capable than the trumpets and timpani of Mozart's day, which were basically limited to tonic and dominant and a handful of other notes for the trumpets), it seems to me that one is reconstructing lost music but one may have to exercise significant compositional skill to do so. So, I'm hedging my bets! :) > The Baroque ensemble Tempesta di Mare has made a name for itself in > part through its performances and recordings of reconstructed lute > concertos by Sylvius Leopold Weiss--concertos for which only the lute > part actually survives. The entire orchestral part had to be > recreated. The resulting pieces sound very convincing and realistic, > and are credited to Weiss, but I can't help but thinking, each time I > hear one of them, that if Handel had done the exact same thing--taken > a Weiss lute part and added new orchestral accompaniments--that we > would not hesitate a moment to ascribe the resulting work to Handel, > not Weiss. Your thoughts? I think I would agree that the orchestral versions are a recomposition, and basically a new work, and worthy of copyright independent from Weiss's work. They may be an attempt to reconstruct someth
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On Feb 16, 2006, at 3:13 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote: The Baroque ensemble Tempesta di Mare has made a name for itself in part through its performances and recordings of reconstructed lute concertos by Sylvius Leopold Weiss--concertos for which only the lute part actually survives. The entire orchestral part had to be recreated. The resulting pieces sound very convincing and realistic, and are credited to Weiss, but I can't help but thinking, each time I hear one of them, that if Handel had done the exact same thing--taken a Weiss lute part and added new orchestral accompaniments--that we would not hesitate a moment to ascribe the resulting work to Handel, not Weiss. Your thoughts? You are right in pointing out an important modern distinction. If Bach had written his "Jesu Joy Of Man's Desiring" today, he would have been credited as "arranged by..." and been eligible for no royalties at all unless the tune (the part with the words) was in the public domain. Everything he wrote - all the most interesting parts that make the piece good - are just the arrangement, by modern standards. I can only shrug and suggest that the world is not the same place any more. Women can vote, slavery is frowned upon, we have freedom of religion (such as it is), and citizens are not routinely imprisoned or killed for criticising the government - at least not as much as before. And of course, a fine musician can make an unforgettable contribution to music and get no proper credit or compensation beyond journeyman's fees. Oh well. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 16 Feb 2006 at 14:56, Andrew Stiller wrote: > On Feb 15, 2006, at 5:08 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: > > > On 15 Feb 2006 at 10:35, Andrew Stiller wrote: > > > >> Editions are prepared all the time for reasons > >> irrelevant to or even in direct opposition to the composer's > >> intent. Simplified versions. Cut or excerpted versions. Modernized > >> versions. Speculative reconstructions. . . . > > > > Except for the latter, these are not "musicological editions." > > So, for example, Denis Stevens' edition of Monteverdi's 1610 Vespers, > which omits more than half of the piece under the theory that this > material was not part of the work as envisioned by Monteverdi, is not > a musicological edition? . . . No, it is a musicological edition based on the methods used in producing it, not based on what kind of editorial decisions have been made. All your different types of versions could be musicological, but that is a parameter separate from the type of version. No musicology is needed to make those versions. All collies are dogs, but not all dogs are collies. > . . . An orchestral edition that substitutes tuba > for serpent on practical grounds, and says so, is not musicological no > matter what other standards are applied? You may say they are not, but > if so the world disagrees with you! I think it depends on the reasons for the changes and the methods used in preparing the edition. Performing editions that simply produce a practical performing text are not, in my opinion, musicological editions -- their aims are not to reproduce the composer's original work or intentions. They may intend to translate those intentions to modern conventions, and musicological methods may be used in the production of the edition, but the mere substitution of modern instrumetns for the old does not define the edition as "musicological." At least, not for any meaning of the term that I'm aware of, nor for the meaning I was clearly using when you replied to my comment about musicological editions. > >> The US experience simply does not bear that out. That edited > >> versions of old music are entitled to performance and mechanical > >> royalties is long established here (as, e.g., when Hildegarde Press > >> about 10 years ago successfully sued recording companies that used > >> its editions of Hildegarde von Bingen w.o credit or compensation) > >> and has put no crimp in performance or recording. > > > > For the gazillionth time, Sawkins was paid a fee for the use of his > > edition. > > If so, forgive me. However I was under the distinct impression that > the issue was not about use, but about ownership. The balance of your > reply to me (snipped) seems to confirm that. I'm not entirely certain I understand your disctinction about use and ownership. Sawkins was asking for payment for use because he said he had a claim of ownership. They are not separable issues. I think anyone who has been interested enough in this subject to have participated in the discussion would really be better served by reading the two decisions -- they are actually quite interesting reading, full of actual musical discussion (though often cringeworthy in the way that terms are misconstrued). The original decision is here: http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j2636/sawkins-v- hyperion.htm And the decision from the appeal is here: http://www.bailii.org/cgi- bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/565.html You really have to read both decisions, as (with all appeals) the findings of fact from the first decision were accepted in their entirety by the appeals court, and it is precisely the huge errors in the findings of fact that, I believe, were what forced the appeals court to reach its decision on the law. If the facts had been correctly determined in regard to the question of "originality" I believe that Hyperion would have won the case. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On Feb 15, 2006, at 10:27 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: If you're reconstructing 2 parts of a 4-part texture, it's probably recomposition (unless it's a strictly contrapuntal style where the possibilities are highly circumscribed and clearly implied by the remaining two voices). If, on the other hand, you're supplying a viola part in a work with choral parts, basso continuo and two violin parts, then the reasonable possibilities for the viola are pretty narrow, and in that case, it would be reconstruction. Just out of curiosity (no ax to grind): I am working on a 19th-c. orchl. score that is missing its cornet and tuba parts (they wouldn't fit on the page), Aside from a few verbal cues in the MS (such as "cornet solo" or "tuba furthers doubling of basses etc.") I have nothing to go on but the composer's general style, including the way he handles these instruments in other pieces. Is what I am doing a reconstruction or a recomposition? To me, I think the line should be drawn based on whether the new material changes the character of the piece as a whole. The Baroque ensemble Tempesta di Mare has made a name for itself in part through its performances and recordings of reconstructed lute concertos by Sylvius Leopold Weiss--concertos for which only the lute part actually survives. The entire orchestral part had to be recreated. The resulting pieces sound very convincing and realistic, and are credited to Weiss, but I can't help but thinking, each time I hear one of them, that if Handel had done the exact same thing--taken a Weiss lute part and added new orchestral accompaniments--that we would not hesitate a moment to ascribe the resulting work to Handel, not Weiss. Your thoughts? Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On Feb 15, 2006, at 5:08 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: On 15 Feb 2006 at 10:35, Andrew Stiller wrote: Editions are prepared all the time for reasons irrelevant to or even in direct opposition to the composer's intent. Simplified versions. Cut or excerpted versions. Modernized versions. Speculative reconstructions. . . . Except for the latter, these are not "musicological editions." So, for example, Denis Stevens' edition of Monteverdi's 1610 Vespers, which omits more than half of the piece under the theory that this material was not part of the work as envisioned by Monteverdi, is not a musicological edition? An orchestral edition that substitutes tuba for serpent on practical grounds, and says so, is not musicological no matter what other standards are applied? You may say they are not, but if so the world disagrees with you! The US experience simply does not bear that out. That edited versions of old music are entitled to performance and mechanical royalties is long established here (as, e.g., when Hildegarde Press about 10 years ago successfully sued recording companies that used its editions of Hildegarde von Bingen w.o credit or compensation) and has put no crimp in performance or recording. For the gazillionth time, Sawkins was paid a fee for the use of his edition. If so, forgive me. However I was under the distinct impression that the issue was not about use, but about ownership. The balance of your reply to me (snipped) seems to confirm that. Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 16 Feb 2006 at 8:13, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > On 16.02.2006 David W. Fenton wrote: > >> 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. > > > > With the same argumentation you could also argue that musicians should > not be paid because this stops concerts from being put on. Very silly, > if you asked me. Do you also think that concerts should only be given > as a hobby for no money? Perhaps the same should apply to composers? > After all, if they didn't ask for any money they might get performed > more often. This is an absolutely ludicrous response to my post. I have never said that editors should not be paid. I have only said that they should not be paid as the creators of the work. That is, they should be compensated for the use of their edition (which is copyrighted), but not as though they are an author of the work they edited. I'm not calling for editors to not be paid, or to be paid less. I'm simply calling for them to not be paid *more* than they have been in the past, especially when it's justified by a claim that amounts to stealing the compositional work of dead composers. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 16.02.2006 David W. Fenton wrote: In Europe the law does actually guarantee royalties to editors of, in > particular, critical editions. . . . How many times must I post that this issue is irrelevant to the Hyperion decision? Sawkins was paid a fee for use of his edition in the recording. The lawsuit was about royalties, not about the customary fees paid for the use of editions in performance and in recordings. > How many times must I post that it is _royalties_ which are guaranteed, regardless of whether a fee was paid or not? The fee he was paid has nothing to do with what he is guaranteed by law. You also pay for an edition you buy, that doesn't mean you don't have to pay royalties. Oh well. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 16.02.2006 David W. Fenton wrote: 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. With the same argumentation you could also argue that musicians should not be paid because this stops concerts from being put on. Very silly, if you asked me. Do you also think that concerts should only be given as a hobby for no money? Perhaps the same should apply to composers? After all, if they didn't ask for any money they might get performed more often. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
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. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 15 Feb 2006 at 23:40, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > On 15.02.2006 David W. Fenton wrote: > > One of the incentives for recording early music is that the music is > > public domain and that one doesn't have to pay for rights or pay > > royalties to the composer. One may pay fees to the owners of the > > editions used, but that's not the same thing as the kinds of fees > > that non-public domain projects require. > > In Europe the law does actually guarantee royalties to editors of, in > particular, critical editions. . . . How many times must I post that this issue is irrelevant to the Hyperion decision? Sawkins was paid a fee for use of his edition in the recording. The lawsuit was about royalties, not about the customary fees paid for the use of editions in performance and in recordings. > . . . It makes no difference whether the > music is in the public domain, since what is to be compensated is not > the composition itself, but the work which the editor invested in it. > I realize that you think this work should be done as a sort of social > donation, but personally I sympathize with the editors. No, I don't think anything of the sort, and I've said repeatedly that I don't believe that. Editors should be compensated for their work by being paid editorial fees. Sawkins received those fees. Editors should not be entitled to the kinds of recording or performance royalties that are reserved for the authors of the performed music. *That* is what the Sawkins lawsuit was about, a claim on royalties that editors have historically not been paid. > If the recording label doesn't want to pay royalties . . . Keep in mind that hire fees for an edition and editing fees are not the same as royalties, which are paid on the volume of sales. > . . . they can always > go and find the original print or ms themselves. They may still get > into trouble if no printed edition other than the one which demands > royalties exists, since it is almost 100% sure that the publisher (or > even the individual) holds the publication license, which also grants > royalties, and can even prevent recordings or performances. . . . In this case, there was an existing edition of at least some of the works that Sawkins edited. If I'm remembering correctly, the performers decided that the existing edition was unsatisfactory and specifically asked Sawkins to re-edit the music (if I'm remembering correctly, the existing edition did not account for all the avaliable sources). Sawkins was paid a fee for the use of this edition that he'd prepared at the request of the performers. > . . . This is > actually a great thing for us performers, because when we find a > previously unpublished piece of music, we can secure the performance > and publication rights for us, and take our time doing the work > without fearing that someone else might beat us at it. This has just > recently been relevant again, with the recently discovered, previously > unknown, aria by Bach. You cannot stage a performance or recording of > this piece at this time - at least in Europe, because the library, who > owns the publication and performance rights for the next few years, > has decided that Gardiner will record it (? at least if I remember > correctly). Owning copyright on an edition does give you the right to not allow just anyone to have a copy. If the original sources are not available for others to create their own editions, yes, that means that the work is controlled by its modern publishers, and I think that's really a very bad thing. > Imagine you find Beethoven's 10th symphony. You want to bring out the > first edition of it, conduct the first performance, and make the first > CD. It's your lottery tickey. But it requires some investment and > time. Without protection someone with more resources will undoubtedly > beat you at it. Leaving you nothing. Under German (and I assume > European law) you can get protection by securing the rights for, I > believe, 2 or 3 years. The owner of the MS controls access to it, and recent US copyright law allows them to assert copyright on any unpublished MS, even if the author is dead. This, too, is a bad thing, in my opinion. But you're talking about copyright in editions. The Sawkins case is about recording and performance royalties, which are an entirely different issue, and historically not applicable to works in the public domain under any copyright laws, so far as I'm aware. That's precisely why the Hyperion case was such a thunderclap, in that it changed the rules, allowing editors to take works out of the public domain, and thus increase the costs of recordings. I strongly doubt that the monetary rewards to be had from such additional fees for editors is sufficient (assuming recording companies would be able to pay them in any case) to entice musical editors that would otherwise not be contemplating editing music into producing editions. There is no way possible for the amou
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 15 Feb 2006 at 23:21, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > On 15.02.2006 David W. Fenton wrote: > >> Of course he can: I am working on a piece where the middle parts > >> are > >> > missing. They need to be recomposed. (Not by me though, but by > >> > the editor). > > > > Recomposed or reconstructed? > > Well, in this case, what is the difference? Since it is not there, > there isn't much you can reconstruct. All you can do is guess what it > looked like and recompose it. It depends entirely on how much you have to go on. If you're reconstructing 2 parts of a 4-part texture, it's probably recomposition (unless it's a strictly contrapuntal style where the possibilities are highly circumscribed and clearly implied by the remaining two voices). If, on the other hand, you're supplying a viola part in a work with choral parts, basso continuo and two violin parts, then the reasonable possibilities for the viola are pretty narrow, and in that case, it would be reconstruction. My viol consort spent some time recently playing a 4-part piece with a reconstructed top part, but it was imitative and in a strict style contrapuntally, so my guess is that the added top part was probably 80% accurate or better (in terms of recreating what the original was). That would probably fall somewhere in between Sawkins's reconstructed viola part and the recomposed 2 parts of the 4-part piece. It also depends on which parts are missing. Inner parts are going to be more limited in the possibilities than the outer parts. And it also depends on how much doubling there is and what's typical of the style of the period and of the particular composer. I'm not at all discounting the possibility that an editor would contribute original material sufficient to reasonably assert co- authorship. I'm only arguing that in the Sawkins case, it wasn't even close, and that the evidence presented to the judge made this pretty clear to anyone who understands the process. It was obviously not clear to the judge, which is the criticism of the original decision that I've registered all along, that the final decision makes a hash of the editing process as practiced by musicologists, and as practiced in this case by Sawkins himself. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
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? 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. 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. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 15.02.2006 David W. Fenton wrote: One of the incentives for recording early music is that the music is public domain and that one doesn't have to pay for rights or pay royalties to the composer. One may pay fees to the owners of the editions used, but that's not the same thing as the kinds of fees that non-public domain projects require. In Europe the law does actually guarantee royalties to editors of, in particular, critical editions. It makes no difference whether the music is in the public domain, since what is to be compensated is not the composition itself, but the work which the editor invested in it. I realize that you think this work should be done as a sort of social donation, but personally I sympathize with the editors. If the recording label doesn't want to pay royalties they can always go and find the original print or ms themselves. They may still get into trouble if no printed edition other than the one which demands royalties exists, since it is almost 100% sure that the publisher (or even the individual) holds the publication license, which also grants royalties, and can even prevent recordings or performances. This is actually a great thing for us performers, because when we find a previously unpublished piece of music, we can secure the performance and publication rights for us, and take our time doing the work without fearing that someone else might beat us at it. This has just recently been relevant again, with the recently discovered, previously unknown, aria by Bach. You cannot stage a performance or recording of this piece at this time - at least in Europe, because the library, who owns the publication and performance rights for the next few years, has decided that Gardiner will record it (? at least if I remember correctly). Imagine you find Beethoven's 10th symphony. You want to bring out the first edition of it, conduct the first performance, and make the first CD. It's your lottery tickey. But it requires some investment and time. Without protection someone with more resources will undoubtedly beat you at it. Leaving you nothing. Under German (and I assume European law) you can get protection by securing the rights for, I believe, 2 or 3 years. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 15.02.2006 David W. Fenton wrote: Of course he can: I am working on a piece where the middle parts are > missing. They need to be recomposed. (Not by me though, but by the > editor). Recomposed or reconstructed? Well, in this case, what is the difference? Since it is not there, there isn't much you can reconstruct. All you can do is guess what it looked like and recompose it. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 15 Feb 2006 at 17:14, Johannes Gebauer 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. 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? -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 15 Feb 2006 at 10:35, Andrew Stiller wrote: > On Feb 14, 2006, at 3:03 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: > > > The musicological endeavor by definition is *not* compositional. > > The editor of an edition is BY DEFINITION a slave to the original > > composer's intentions. > > As a composer, I would certainly like it if this were so, but it > very plainly is not. Editions are prepared all the time for reasons > irrelevant to or even in direct opposition to the composer's intent. > Simplified versions. Cut or excerpted versions. Modernized versions. > Speculative reconstructions. . . . Except for the latter, these are not "musicological editions." And the latter, as in the case of, say, a reconstruction of Mahler's 10th, should be deserving of the recording royalties, in my opinion. But what Sawkins was doing was the purely musicological type of edition where you're trying to reconstruct the best text from imperfect sources, in an effort to recover the original intention of the composer. > . . . I could go on and on. The line between > editing and arrangement is an extremely blurry one, and in US > copyright law it is not and as far as I know never has been drawn. It may be as a general issue. But in the case of Sawkins's editions, as outlined in detail in the judgment from the original case (I can't find the appeal decision), it's quite clear that Sawkins was not doing anything creative or original at all. > > Finding that this act is worthy of performance royalties will have > > only one result: fewer new editions will be prepared for > > recordings, or the editions will be prepared by performers instead > > of scholars. Or, the recordings won't happen at all if a > > performance royalty must be paid to the editor. > > > > The Hyperion decision is a Pyrrhic victory that will ultimately be > > a disaster for recording companies, performing groups and editors. > > The US experience simply does not bear that out. That edited > versions of old music are entitled to performance and mechanical > royalties is long established here (as, e.g., when Hildegarde Press > about 10 years ago successfully sued recording companies that used > its editions of Hildegarde von Bingen w.o credit or compensation) > and has put no crimp in performance or recording. For the gazillionth time, Sawkins was paid a fee for the use of his edition. > The notion that composers and scholars should be good socialists > while > everybody else has their hand out is deeply ingrained in the > classical community--but that don't make it right. He was compensated for his editorial work in an amount that was within the realm of the customary and usual fees for use of an edition (indeed, I'd say he was fairly well compensated in comparison to a lot of editors who never get one red cent). The issue here is not about copyright in his edition, or performance rights for his edition. It's whether or not the construction of the edition included sufficient original material to justify paying him royalties on the recording. His work in editing was *not* original -- it was almost entirely circumscribed by the existing materials composed by de Lalande. If de Lalande were alive, he'd deserve the royalties that Sawkins is getting. That's the crucial difference that it seems to me most of you who are commenting in this thread are completely missing -- that this is not about Sawkins edition, but about the concept of authorship and how its defined as related to the payment of recording royalties. Sawkins has gotten himself a judgment that de facto declares him co- composer of de Lalande's works. While I can conceive of musicological reconstructive work that would merit that determination, the work described in the judicial decision clearly doesn't come close to meriting that at all. Read the decision and decide for yourself whether or not the judge's reasoning is musicologically specious or not: http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j2636/sawkins-v- hyperion.htm -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 15 Feb 2006 at 10:32, John Howell wrote: > The point is that in order to earn a new copyright, the editorial > work must be sufficient in and of itself to be considered > copyrightable intellectual property, since once in the public domain > the original music may never be recopyrighted (at least under U.S. > law). In the Sawkins case, that seems to be the point of > contention: what did he do that constitutes copyrightable new > intellectual property. No, that issue is completely orthogonal to the Sawkins/Hyperion dispute. No one disputed Sawkins copyright in his edition. Hyperion paid him an editing fee for the use of his edition. The dispute is whether the edition he created constitutes the equivalent of a newly composed work from the standpoint of whether or not the editor should be paid recording royalties. For instance, it seems clear to me that someone who turns his hand to writing a new completion Mozart's Requiem has a clear claim to "co- authorship," and recording and performance royalties. Likewise with a completion of Mahler's 10th. But Sawkins's contributions to his editions of de Lalande were orders of magnitude less significant than either of those cases. He made no choices about instrumentation, no choices about voicing, he added no new material nor new measures to the work. All he did was reconstruct an inner part (viola) in one piece and supply figures in the figured bass where there were none in the original (and there probably didn't need to be, but even if there did, there's nothing creative in looking at the string and voice parts and deciding what figures belong in the figured bass) and in correcting certain obvious erroneous notes. He also collated readings from multiple sources into his performing edition. He also realized the figured bass, but since the organist for the recording used his own realization and not Sawkins's, this was not found by the judge to qualify for royalties. These activities of Sawkins are the bread and butter of the editor of critical editions. While it takes a certain level of cleverness and knowledge to do these things well, and certainly has its creative aspects, the results are not original contributions to the work, but simply reconstructions of what was in the original, imperfect sources. And he was already compensated for making his edition, which is more than can be said for an awful lot of editors. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 15 Feb 2006 at 8:25, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > On 15.02.2006 David W. Fenton wrote: > > Sawkins has broken the code of scholarship, in my estimation. He's > > transgressed the ground rules of the musical economy. He may have > > badly broken the system in doing so -- a valuable record label may > > go under entirely because of his actions. Others may have to scale > > back their production as a result of Hyperion's failed defense of > > the present system. > > What you are saying is, the record companies can make lots of money, What evidence do you have that record companies like Hyperion that record early music are making lots of money? I strongly doubt it -- they don't sell enough recordings to be rolling in dough. Hyperion has 12 employees (or had them at the time the appeals court found in Sawkins's favor) -- that doesn't exactly sound like a huge rich media company to me. It sounds like a small business, one that we know was operating on relatively small margins, margins that may not be large enough to compensate the editors with performance royalties. > partly from your work as musicologist, but musicologists (that > includes me) have to do that work for nothing. . . . How many times does this have to be repeated? Sawkins was PAID a fee for his EDITION. It may not have been a very big fee, but he wasn't providing his edition for nothing -- he was compensated for it. > . . . In my opinion that's > ridiculous. In fact, the more I think about it the more I think that > Sawkins has a point. Your argument here makes sense only if Hyperion had no intention of paying Sawkins anything at all. Sawkins had already been paid his editing fee (my memory is that it was £1,300 or so, clearly not a very high hourly rate, but still probably a decent portion of the recording project's budget) for his work. The choice for Sawkins was not between having his work used for no compensation and suing, the choice was between having his work used for an agreed-upon editing fee and suing for more money than the original agreed-upon fee. > It is not as though the money he was asking for came from his > publisher. So your point about if you asked for more money it > wouldn't get published is completely irrelevant. Hyperion obviously > needed Sawkins work to do the recording. . . . I am very annoyed when people engage in discussions like this without having acquainted themselves with the facts. Sawkins was compensated for his edition with an editing fee. Sawkins asked for something beyond the usual and customary fee -- he asked for performance royalties on the grounds that his editing constituted a contribution to the work that was substantially original. His contributions were *not* original at all -- they were completely circumscribed in almost all details by the framework of de Lalande's composition. > . . . They should then keep to the law in > compensating him. . . . They did. Sawkins sued for something to which the law did *not* entitle him, as it had been previously interpreted. The decision that was handed down has changed the interpretation of that law so that now editors get editing fees *and* performance royalties (though it's not clear to me if this means that all editors can now demand performance royalties, or if it only applies to editors who've reconstructed or recomposed parts of the work; I actually don't have a problem with a case of real recomposing, where there is not enough of the original work in the sources to clearly circumscribe the reconstruction of the lost part; I would certainly allow someone who finished the Mozart Requiem to get performance royalties). > . . . If that includes royalties, . . . Before this lawsuit, it did not. >. . . then I am all for it, > for the benefit of the editor, because otherwise the editor will > always be the greatest loser in the chain of music publishing. Does it change your mind to know the *fact* that Sawkins *was* actually compensated for the use of his edition, before the lawsuite was even filed? -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 15 Feb 2006 at 11:59, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > On 15.02.2006 David W. Fenton wrote: > > Sawkins didn't deserve performance royalties. No musicologist > > acting as an editor as Sawkins was deserves performance royalties. > > that may perhaps be your personal opinion, but it is certainly not > what the law is in Europe. Perhaps I'm using the wrong term. Sawkins was paid a fee for the use of his edition. What he sued for was royalties form the recording based on the assertion that the original contributions he made in his edition were similar to those of a composer, who would automatically receive royalties from the recordings. This is quite different. Hyperion was not trying to cheat Sawkins of compensation for his work or for the use of his edition -- they paid him for that. Sawkins wanted more than that. And, he got it -- unfortunately in my opinion. I don't know the exact magnitude of the royalty he demanded, but it means that Hyperion has to sell more copies of this recording in order to break even, or they have to pay less to the other parties involved in it. One of the incentives for recording early music is that the music is public domain and that one doesn't have to pay for rights or pay royalties to the composer. One may pay fees to the owners of the editions used, but that's not the same thing as the kinds of fees that non-public domain projects require. This decision basically takes all such editions out of the public domain, for purposes of recording royalties, and adds a cost to the business model of recording companies that put out lots of early music. The result will be either more expensive recordings or fewer recordings, or the elimination of anything unusual from the catalogs of these labels that do so much to record early music. And it's based on a musicologically fraudulent claim -- Sawkins was not the composer. All his actions in editing the work were in slavish service of de Lalande's original intentions. In short, Sawkins is collecting de Lalande's royalties. And that's just WRONG. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 15 Feb 2006 at 8:19, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > On 15.02.2006 David W. Fenton wrote: > > 2. the legal reasoning behind the decision is specious. Sawkins > > cannot be both a musicological editor and a co-composer of the > > works, > > Of course he can: I am working on a piece where the middle parts are > missing. They need to be recomposed. (Not by me though, but by the > editor). Recomposed or reconstructed? Sawkins constructed one viola part in one piece, and supplied figures to an incompletely figured bass in another case. He also supplied corrections of erroneous notes. Reconstructing multiple missing parts does, in fact, seem to me like recomposing. But reconstructing a single inner part and supplying figures for a bass line seem to me to not be composing at all, because the choices are very highly circumscribed, and in the case of the figured bass, not in any way creative (you need only look at the harmonies in the other parts to decide the exact figures, and very frequently, missing figures were understood in context without needing to be figured at all; adding figures to the bass line is no more "composing" than adding roman numerals on a harmonic analysis exercise for a theory class). The case even considered a different edition of the piece with the reconstructed viola part and observed that the two reconstructed parts were identical in almost all respects. But rather than concluding the obvious (that this was natural, since both editors were acting in service of de Lalande's original inspiration), the judge instead took the very few differences between the two reconstructed parts as evidence of compositional creativity and declared that the half dozen or so different notes entitled Sawkins to be considered as de facto co-composer of the work. If the editor's goal is to reconstruct the composer's original, how can the editor be anything but the slave of the original composer? The case of reconstructing several missing parts is quite different, though, especially in Baroque music where the outer voices might be missing. With a viola part in an orchestral and choral work with continuo, there really isn't any "composing" going on at all, seems to me. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 15 Feb 2006 at 8:15, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > On 15.02.2006 David W. Fenton wrote: > > The issue of published critical editions is not involved -- > > Sawkins made a private edition for the use of the performing group > > that Hyperion was recording. > > I really am not an expert on the law side of all this, but in which > way is Sawkins edition so clearly not a critical one? . . . I expect that it was basically a critical edition. The distinction I was trying to make was between an edition prepared for an individual and an edition published in a large-scale critical edition, like the NBA or NMA, for instance. The cost basis for these productions is completely different, so I would expect the fees involved for using the editions to be completely different. > . . . I don't think > the law differentiates between private or public in this matter. And > from that point of view the court decision may be in line with > European law, and could have been similar in any other European > country. Sawkins was compensated for the use of his printed edition by being paid an editing fee. > The point is that a critical edition can receive royalties. A one > off fee may not be enough. In that sense Sawkins may only have sued > them for something which he is indeed guaranteed by law, and which > he would have been guaranteed by law in any other EU member state. I think it's quite obviously the case that what he was asking for was *not* guaranteed him by law. If it had been then there would have been no point in Hyperion's disputing it. My understand is that the judgment in this case has *changed* the law in this regard, by re- interpreting it to include the kind of work Sawkins did in the group of people who are entitled to performance royalties. > For those interested and reading German, here is the web page with > the relevant information: > > http://www.vg-musikedition.de/ > > They also keep a list of music, for which they deal with perfomance > rights. Interestingly, NBA does not seem to be part of it (perhaps > they simply haven't bothered?). But the Beethoven complete edition, > Haydn complete edition etc. Performance rights are not the same thing as performance royalties. You might pay a flat fee for the rights to record an edition, but my understanding is that performance royalties on recordings are paid proportional to the number of copies sold. My understanding was the the editing fee paid to Sawkins entitled Hyperion to record using his edition, and that Sawkins was asking for something more than the usual edition hire fee. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
Ton Koopman when he was performing the Mozart Symphonies (complete cycle that alas was not ever recorded on CD or DVD) in Japan many years ago, mentioned in the notes, that he was unable to order copies of the NMA. They had to resort to finding copies in libaries and Xeroxing them. I wonder if he still paid the fees to Barenreiter? ;) On 2/15/06, Johannes Gebauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 15.02.2006 John Howell wrote:>> The point is that a critical edition can receive royalties. >> Actually that isn't quite true under U.S. law, and I suspect (but certainly do not know) that the same might hold true for EU law.I thought we had already agreed that European law is not the same as US law in this respect.>> A *copyrighted* edition can receive royalties. It does not have to be critical (i.e. a complete scholarly study). It can simply be a performing edition. (That is happening yearly in the U.S. as the marches and other works by John Phillip Sousa come into the public domain, and some idiot obtained a new copyright on Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue" simply by putting back in the measures that Gershwin himself had cut out! I can't wait for the fights to break out over the "new edition" of "Porgy & Bess" that incorporates the changes Gershwin made AFTER the score had been published.) The situation is definitely more complicated than that in Germany. Aperforming edition can only receive royalties, if it is more than justfingerings, ie if it qualifies as an arrangement of some sort, or if it is the very first edition of the work (including any print in the pieceshistory, even a printed edition from 1500, or in special cases a widelyavailable manuscript will count as the first edition). A critical edition _can_ receive royalties anyway, as there are _special_regulations. However, in practice I believe this is rarely the case,because for most pieces where the critical edition qualification has anyimpact there exist older editions, which are not even under normal copyright any longer.Why do you think Gardiner made his own "performing edition" for the Bachcantatas? I am convinced the reason was _not_ that NBA was not accurateenough (this may perhaps be the case for some cantatas, but is complete nonsense for others), but that the recording company would have had topay a substancial amount in royalties to NBA. It worked out cheaper toget some cheap musicologists hired and prepare a "performing edition". And for the uninformed it added some marketing hype, as well. "Gardineris such a responsible scholar, he even had his own edition prepared forthe cantatas, correcting all the mistakes in the existing editions". Bach like he has never been performed before. Not.I have taken part in many recordings where either we had to play fromancient, out-of-copyright parts, or where a performing edition wasespecially prepared. All because of royalties to the publishers/editors. It is also true that sometimes recordings are not being made, when thecompany finds out how much the royalties would be to the editor. Icertainly know of one particular instance where this happened (in the UK, btw), and it is a sad case. But such is the law.Johannes--http://www.musikmanufaktur.comhttp://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___Finale mailing listFinale@shsu.eduhttp://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale -- Kim Patrick Clow"There's really only two types of music: good and bad." ~ Rossini ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 15.02.2006 John Howell wrote: The point is that a critical edition can receive royalties. Actually that isn't quite true under U.S. law, and I suspect (but certainly do not know) that the same might hold true for EU law. I thought we had already agreed that European law is not the same as US law in this respect. A *copyrighted* edition can receive royalties. It does not have to be critical (i.e. a complete scholarly study). It can simply be a performing edition. (That is happening yearly in the U.S. as the marches and other works by John Phillip Sousa come into the public domain, and some idiot obtained a new copyright on Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue" simply by putting back in the measures that Gershwin himself had cut out! I can't wait for the fights to break out over the "new edition" of "Porgy & Bess" that incorporates the changes Gershwin made AFTER the score had been published.) The situation is definitely more complicated than that in Germany. A performing edition can only receive royalties, if it is more than just fingerings, ie if it qualifies as an arrangement of some sort, or if it is the very first edition of the work (including any print in the pieces history, even a printed edition from 1500, or in special cases a widely available manuscript will count as the first edition). A critical edition _can_ receive royalties anyway, as there are _special_ regulations. However, in practice I believe this is rarely the case, because for most pieces where the critical edition qualification has any impact there exist older editions, which are not even under normal copyright any longer. Why do you think Gardiner made his own "performing edition" for the Bach cantatas? I am convinced the reason was _not_ that NBA was not accurate enough (this may perhaps be the case for some cantatas, but is complete nonsense for others), but that the recording company would have had to pay a substancial amount in royalties to NBA. It worked out cheaper to get some cheap musicologists hired and prepare a "performing edition". And for the uninformed it added some marketing hype, as well. "Gardiner is such a responsible scholar, he even had his own edition prepared for the cantatas, correcting all the mistakes in the existing editions". Bach like he has never been performed before. Not. I have taken part in many recordings where either we had to play from ancient, out-of-copyright parts, or where a performing edition was especially prepared. All because of royalties to the publishers/editors. 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. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On Feb 14, 2006, at 11:44 PM, John Howell wrote: Under ASCAP, publishers and composers split performance royalties. Not quite correct. All incoming royalties go into a common pot, which is split up among the various composers and publishers according to what things of theirs have been performed where and by whom. An unpublished composer does not lose royalties by becoming published; rather, the amount of royalties for a given performance *doubles,* with the additional amount going to the publisher. Nor does the performer pay any more for the right to perform a published work than an unpublished one. The royalties picked up by a composer or publisher are not a 1-on-1 match for those paid by the performer. Arrangers are working for hire, unless they have signed a contract with a publisher that says otherwise. This used to be so, decades ago, but after a series of highly publicized cases in which poorly-educated songwriters had been rooked out of any share of popular songs that earned millions for publishers and the recording industry, the law was changed. Nowadays, any copyrighted music, whether arranged, composed, or edited (the copyright form makes no fundamental distinction among these) is assumed *not* to be "work made for hire" unless a box is checked that specifically asserts that it is. Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On Feb 14, 2006, at 3:03 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: The musicological endeavor by definition is *not* compositional. The editor of an edition is BY DEFINITION a slave to the original composer's intentions. As a composer, I would certainly like it if this were so, but it very plainly is not. Editions are prepared all the time for reasons irrelevant to or even in direct opposition to the composer's intent. Simplified versions. Cut or excerpted versions. Modernized versions. Speculative reconstructions. I could go on and on. The line between editing and arrangement is an extremely blurry one, and in US copyright law it is not and as far as I know never has been drawn. Finding that this act is worthy of performance royalties will have only one result: fewer new editions will be prepared for recordings, or the editions will be prepared by performers instead of scholars. Or, the recordings won't happen at all if a performance royalty must be paid to the editor. The Hyperion decision is a Pyrrhic victory that will ultimately be a disaster for recording companies, performing groups and editors. The US experience simply does not bear that out. That edited versions of old music are entitled to performance and mechanical royalties is long established here (as, e.g., when Hildegarde Press about 10 years ago successfully sued recording companies that used its editions of Hildegarde von Bingen w.o credit or compensation) and has put no crimp in performance or recording. The notion that composers and scholars should be good socialists while everybody else has their hand out is deeply ingrained in the classical community--but that don't make it right. Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
At 8:15 AM +0100 2/15/06, Johannes Gebauer wrote: The point is that a critical edition can receive royalties. Actually that isn't quite true under U.S. law, and I suspect (but certainly do not know) that the same might hold true for EU law. A *copyrighted* edition can receive royalties. It does not have to be critical (i.e. a complete scholarly study). It can simply be a performing edition. (That is happening yearly in the U.S. as the marches and other works by John Phillip Sousa come into the public domain, and some idiot obtained a new copyright on Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue" simply by putting back in the measures that Gershwin himself had cut out! I can't wait for the fights to break out over the "new edition" of "Porgy & Bess" that incorporates the changes Gershwin made AFTER the score had been published.) The point is that in order to earn a new copyright, the editorial work must be sufficient in and of itself to be considered copyrightable intellectual property, since once in the public domain the original music may never be recopyrighted (at least under U.S. law). In the Sawkins case, that seems to be the point of contention: what did he do that constitutes copyrightable new intellectual property. John -- John & Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 15.02.2006 David W. Fenton wrote: Sawkins didn't deserve performance royalties. No musicologist acting as an editor as Sawkins was deserves performance royalties. David, that may perhaps be your personal opinion, but it is certainly not what the law is in Europe. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
Kim Patrick Clow wrote: [snip]> I am just curious why is it the profit model is ok for publishers, or orchestras, or record labels, or video productions, or the record chains, that make profits from music that's in the public domain is somehow "OK." But when an editor makes his case in court (and wins), he's seen as the Antichrist for doing it? [snip] Not by me -- if some people can make money from the recording, then others who had a hand in making the music available for the recording should also be able to make money from it. After all, they didn't have to use his edition, did they? They could have hired some work-for-hire scholar to prepare the music for recording in an edition that Hyperion then would control the rights to. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 15.02.2006 David W. Fenton wrote: 2. the legal reasoning behind the decision is specious. Sawkins cannot be both a musicological editor and a co-composer of the works, Of course he can: I am working on a piece where the middle parts are missing. They need to be recomposed. (Not by me though, but by the editor). Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 15.02.2006 David W. Fenton wrote: Sawkins has broken the code of scholarship, in my estimation. He's transgressed the ground rules of the musical economy. He may have badly broken the system in doing so -- a valuable record label may go under entirely because of his actions. Others may have to scale back their production as a result of Hyperion's failed defense of the present system. What you are saying is, the record companies can make lots of money, partly from your work as musicologist, but musicologists (that includes me) have to do that work for nothing. In my opinion that's ridiculous. In fact, the more I think about it the more I think that Sawkins has a point. It is not as though the money he was asking for came from his publisher. So your point about if you asked for more money it wouldn't get published is completely irrelevant. Hyperion obviously needed Sawkins work to do the recording. They should then keep to the law in compensating him. If that includes royalties, then I am all for it, for the benefit of the editor, because otherwise the editor will always be the greatest loser in the chain of music publishing. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 15.02.2006 David W. Fenton wrote: The issue of published critical editions is not involved -- Sawkins made a private edition for the use of the performing group that Hyperion was recording. I really am not an expert on the law side of all this, but in which way is Sawkins edition so clearly not a critical one? I don't think the law differentiates between private or public in this matter. And from that point of view the court decision may be in line with European law, and could have been similar in any other European country. The point is that a critical edition can receive royalties. A one off fee may not be enough. In that sense Sawkins may only have sued them for something which he is indeed guaranteed by law, and which he would have been guaranteed by law in any other EU member state. For those interested and reading German, here is the web page with the relevant information: http://www.vg-musikedition.de/ They also keep a list of music, for which they deal with perfomance rights. Interestingly, NBA does not seem to be part of it (perhaps they simply haven't bothered?). But the Beethoven complete edition, Haydn complete edition etc. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
At 3:03 PM -0500 2/14/06, David W. Fenton wrote: Er, he *was* compensated for his editing. That is the main thing that, in my experience, most people miss -- they think Sawkins was not paid for his edition. But he was already paid an editing fee. He was asking for performance royalties, which generally go only to performers, arrangers and composers. Excellent point, David, but I can't agree with your last sentence. Under ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers unless I remember wrongly), publishers and composers split performance royalties. Arrangers are working for hire, unless they have signed a contract with a publisher that says otherwise. And performers (or their sponsors or producers) PAY performance royalties, they don't collect them. You may be thinking of publication royalties, but again that depends on the wording of your contract. John -- John & Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
David W. Fenton wrote: "If you're in musicology for the money, then I think you've made abad, bad mistake." I have two friends, one has her Ph.D. pending. Currently she's doing data entry for an insurance agency. Another friend who has his Ph.D., is frantically looking for an academic position in the United States; and his prospects are very slim. For my part, I have no desire to make any profit from what I do. What I do, I do for the love of the art. Additionally, I plan on donating any money I may gain to either charity, or to the library that holds the source manuscripts I publish from. I asked about the protections editors should look for in copyright law, because I don't want to be taken advantage of. While my intententions are good, I am old enough to know that other's may not share my personal convictions about music. On 2/14/06, David W. Fenton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 14 Feb 2006 at 19:40, Kim Patrick Clow wrote:> I am just curious why is it the profit model is ok for publishers, or > orchestras, or record labels, or video productions, or the record> chains, that make profits from music that's in the public domain is> somehow "OK." But when an editor makes his case in court (and wins), > he's seen as the Antichrist for doing it?1. I have never objected to contracts agreed to by two parties. IfHyperion wants to pay Sawkins, that's fine. If they don't, that'stheir right, too, within the law, which has not been changed by Sawkins's lawsuit.2. the legal reasoning behind the decision is specious. Sawkinscannot be both a musicological editor and a co-composer of the works,which is de facto what he asked to be considered. It is bad for legal precedents to be set on grounds that are nonsensical for the area ofreal life on which they impinge.3, I'm a musicologist. I make editions. I'd love to see thempublished. But I don't expect to ever gain any fair compensation for the time it has taken me to prepare them, because if I were paid thatmuch, then the publisher could never make any money. But I wouldstill be thrilled to see my editions published and performed.Why? Because they contribute to a community of musicians and scholars.They provide information that allows the music to live again.In the open source software world, they have the idea of the "gifteconomy," where individuals do a huge amount of work for no compensation and then share the fruits of that labor with others. Isee my role as an editor in the musical world as similar. My gift isnot performing and my reward is not monetary -- my reward is havingdone something that gets the music performed. If you're in musicology for the money, then I think you've made abad, bad mistake.Sawkins has broken the code of scholarship, in my estimation. He'stransgressed the ground rules of the musical economy. He may have badly broken the system in doing so -- a valuable record label may gounder entirely because of his actions. Others may have to scale backtheir production as a result of Hyperion's failed defense of thepresent system. Somehow, I doubt that Sawkins was ultimately motivated by greed,though. I think it's much more likely that his motivation wasentirely ego-driven, that he felt he'd done something so incrediblyimportant and significant that it deserved recognition beyond what he was getting in the liner notes, the apprecation of the people forwhom he prepared the editions, and the editing fee.And worst of all, he's a hypocrite for asking to be considered "co-composer" while doing nothing more than every musicologist does every day when they prepare editions from flawed sources. The task of themusicologist in editing is to recover as much of the intended musicaltext from the flawed and incomplete sources available. If that is the goal, it is one that cannot be reconciled with being paid for"originality" in that process, as the controlling conception is thatof the composer, who is long dead.Sawkins is being paid for being de Lalande's centuries-removed secretary.And all the disastrous results of this for the early music worldaside, that is what most disgusts me -- he's stealing credit forconceptions that are someone else's.It's cheating. And to me as an academic, misrepresenting someone else's work as yourown is perhaps the highest crime.--David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.comDavid Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/___Finale mailing listFinale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale-- Kim Patrick Clow"There's really only two types of music: good and bad." ~ Rossini ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 14 Feb 2006 at 19:40, Kim Patrick Clow wrote: > I am just curious why is it the profit model is ok for publishers, or > orchestras, or record labels, or video productions, or the record > chains, that make profits from music that's in the public domain is > somehow "OK." But when an editor makes his case in court (and wins), > he's seen as the Antichrist for doing it? 1. I have never objected to contracts agreed to by two parties. If Hyperion wants to pay Sawkins, that's fine. If they don't, that's their right, too, within the law, which has not been changed by Sawkins's lawsuit. 2. the legal reasoning behind the decision is specious. Sawkins cannot be both a musicological editor and a co-composer of the works, which is de facto what he asked to be considered. It is bad for legal precedents to be set on grounds that are nonsensical for the area of real life on which they impinge. 3, I'm a musicologist. I make editions. I'd love to see them published. But I don't expect to ever gain any fair compensation for the time it has taken me to prepare them, because if I were paid that much, then the publisher could never make any money. But I would still be thrilled to see my editions published and performed. Why? Because they contribute to a community of musicians and scholars. They provide information that allows the music to live again. In the open source software world, they have the idea of the "gift economy," where individuals do a huge amount of work for no compensation and then share the fruits of that labor with others. I see my role as an editor in the musical world as similar. My gift is not performing and my reward is not monetary -- my reward is having done something that gets the music performed. If you're in musicology for the money, then I think you've made a bad, bad mistake. Sawkins has broken the code of scholarship, in my estimation. He's transgressed the ground rules of the musical economy. He may have badly broken the system in doing so -- a valuable record label may go under entirely because of his actions. Others may have to scale back their production as a result of Hyperion's failed defense of the present system. Somehow, I doubt that Sawkins was ultimately motivated by greed, though. I think it's much more likely that his motivation was entirely ego-driven, that he felt he'd done something so incredibly important and significant that it deserved recognition beyond what he was getting in the liner notes, the apprecation of the people for whom he prepared the editions, and the editing fee. And worst of all, he's a hypocrite for asking to be considered "co- composer" while doing nothing more than every musicologist does every day when they prepare editions from flawed sources. The task of the musicologist in editing is to recover as much of the intended musical text from the flawed and incomplete sources available. If that is the goal, it is one that cannot be reconciled with being paid for "originality" in that process, as the controlling conception is that of the composer, who is long dead. Sawkins is being paid for being de Lalande's centuries-removed secretary. And all the disastrous results of this for the early music world aside, that is what most disgusts me -- he's stealing credit for conceptions that are someone else's. It's cheating. And to me as an academic, misrepresenting someone else's work as your own is perhaps the highest crime. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
Just to refresh here for a moment-- I asked a question about the issue ofcopyrights - legal rights for an editor; and how to procede when his editionsare published in another country. Since my scores could be published in the UK, I cited the Sawkins case as specific example of the thorny nature of the law in this regard. I don't think the issue is as simple as Dr. Sawkin's being a greedy monster.He approached Hyperion many times, and they ignored him. He took them to court.That's his right legally. He won the first trial; and he won on appeal. I doubt that there are that many stupid judges in law in the UK, or that the Hyperion attornies were unable to give the court the basic explanation of what's involved in preparing a musical edition. I am just curious why is it the profit model is ok for publishers, or orchestras,or record labels, or video productions, or the record chains, that make profitsfrom music that's in the public domain is somehow "OK." But when an editor makes his case in court (and wins), he's seen as the Antichrist for doing it? Kim Patrick Clow On 2/14/06, David W. Fenton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 14 Feb 2006 at 22:30, Johannes Gebauer wrote:> I am not taking sides on this, but I do actually see some > justification for editor's royalties. Whether the Hyperion case is> somewhat more complicated is another matter (and I don't know enough> about it)The Orff situation is the case of a publisher having inherited the copyright for a work from its original composer, no? Indeed, the workis still under copyright, no?The Hyperion case is about music that is clearly in the publicdomain.The issue of published critical editions is not involved -- Sawkins made a private edition for the use of the performing group thatHyperion was recording.Sawkins was paid a fee for the use of his edition.He sued for performance royalties in addition to his editing fee. I really think it's better not to discuss this case without havingread the decisions involved, because it's a very specific set offacts.I can't see how Sawkins had any claim to original contribution of the kind that is usually required to justify the payment of performanceroyalties.In my experience, most people who get indignant on Sawkins' behalfeither ignore or are completely unaware that he received the customary editing fee up front, and that what he asked for was to betreated as equal to a composer.It is in the consideration of this latter issue that the judge made acomplete hash of musical and musicological issues. --David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.comDavid Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/___ Finale mailing listFinale@shsu.eduhttp://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale -- Kim Patrick Clow"There's really only two types of music: good and bad." ~ Rossini ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 14 Feb 2006 at 22:30, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > I am not taking sides on this, but I do actually see some > justification for editor's royalties. Whether the Hyperion case is > somewhat more complicated is another matter (and I don't know enough > about it) The Orff situation is the case of a publisher having inherited the copyright for a work from its original composer, no? Indeed, the work is still under copyright, no? The Hyperion case is about music that is clearly in the public domain. The issue of published critical editions is not involved -- Sawkins made a private edition for the use of the performing group that Hyperion was recording. Sawkins was paid a fee for the use of his edition. He sued for performance royalties in addition to his editing fee. I really think it's better not to discuss this case without having read the decisions involved, because it's a very specific set of facts. I can't see how Sawkins had any claim to original contribution of the kind that is usually required to justify the payment of performance royalties. In my experience, most people who get indignant on Sawkins' behalf either ignore or are completely unaware that he received the customary editing fee up front, and that what he asked for was to be treated as equal to a composer. It is in the consideration of this latter issue that the judge made a complete hash of musical and musicological issues. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 14 Feb 2006 at 16:11, Kim Patrick Clow wrote: [quoting me throughout, without attribution] > >>Perhaps, but the original decision itself was musicological > nonsensical > > There is NO perhaps in this matter. Had Hyperion simply given Dr. > Sawkins a residual for each CD sold, as he asked at the start of the > project, none of this would have gone to court. No bad decisions would > have been issued. You mean Hyperion should have acquiesced to blackmail, i.e., pay me now or I'm going to sue you? Sawkins didn't deserve performance royalties. No musicologist acting as an editor as Sawkins was deserves performance royalties. > And this wasn't an outlandish request: ASV Records had paid such > royalities before. . .. I'm not sure why Hyperion or any record company should be bound by the policies of another record company. They could certainly choose to pay Sawkins for whatever they liked, but they chose not to, and were on quite firm ground, musicologically speaking, when considered in light of any reasonable definition of "original composition." > . . . What's different in this circumstance, is that a > court agreed with the editor, that he IS entitled and REQUIRED to be > paid royalities. . . . The court's reasoning was entirely specious, based on invalid determinations of what constitutes originality in the field of editing. The judge didn't understand the highly circumscribed nature of what Sawkins was doing, the fact that there were virtually no actual choices to be made in regard to the contributions he made to the edition -- the original work of de Lalande controlled the very small number of possible reailizations because de Lalande is the author and composer of the work in question. > . . . The issue isn't that Dr Sawkins is making himself to > be the composer, he simply wants compensation for the intellectual > property he created, i.e. his performing edition. . . . He received the standard editing fee from Hyperion, which never ever tried to deny him that. What Sawkins sued for was something that editors do not get, except in the rarest of circumstances, which is performance royalties. > . . . Without his > contributions, the piece could not have been published or performed. > It's that simple. Without the contributions of the janitor who sweeps the floors in the recording studio the recording could not have been made. Should we thus pay him performance royalties, too? The work of a large number of people is required to get works performed and recorded, but that doesn't give them a claim to authorship in the work being performed. That is de facto what Sawkins was claiming, that he is the author of the work that was performed. > Dr. Sawkins has over 12,000 manhours invested in his editions. > Hyperion owed $3,000.00 in royalities from CD sales), that nets him > an hourly wage of about $4.00. When Hyperion was producing the CD, Dr. > Sawkins states that he "repeatedly [offered] to negotiate a single sum > in lieu of royalties, without any response." Instead, Hyperion stood > by its principles, and recorded without Sawkin's approval. Hyperion > was the one being unreasonable in this case, not Dr. Sawkins. Sawkins was compensated for the preparation of his edition in the usual fashion, by being paid an editing fee. This is a fact that many people defending Sawkins seem to be completely unaware of. SAWKINS GOT PAID FOR HIS EDITING. What he sued for was something beyond that. > >>>The Hyperion decision is a Pyrrhic victory that will ultimately be > >>>a > disaster for recording companies, performing groups and editors. > > Maybe. Maybe not. > > "Marc Perlman imagines that royalties for musicologists could make > some projects more feasible. A company could tell a musicologist that > in exchange for higher royalties, the musicologist will share more of > the risk of the project. The upfront editing fee will be treated as an > advance on royalties, not a payment. . . . Oh, great, so musicologists could end up along with all the other people involved in the project waiting in line for the royalties after all the creative accounting tricks that are used by music publishers to avoid paying royalties. I know of an author of a Norton Critical Score that was published in the 1980s who has not yet received one penny in actual royalties from his work because Norton continues to bill the fees paid for reprinting sections from other works that are part of the structure of Norton Scores (the material at the back). > . . . The risk is moved away from the > company and to the musicologist. . . . Given the history of how record companies have behaved in the past with those who get performance royalties, the exchange of hard money for the promise of royalties seems to me to be no improvement at all, and probably quite the opposite. Of course, Sawkins is receiving both, because he was greedy and wasn't happy with the editing fee that he was paid. I could u
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
I don't know anything about the Hyperion case, but as a matter of fact, there is something similar to royalties for editors in Germany, too, which includes performance rights of all sorts. The best example I can think of is the recently (well several years ago) found fragment of Offenbach's "Hoffmann's Tales" (or was it something else?) which two European Publisher's fought over the publication _and_ performance rights. But this does not only extend to previously unpublished music, although the situation does get a little nebulous. Critical Editions have some special protection, and that includes basically all complete editions. If you record a Bach cantata, and use the text of NBA, then you would have to pay royalties to NBA. However, in reality this hardly ever happens, I guess, since you can always use the old Bach edition, and correct it yourself from the manuscripts. Even if in reality hardly anyone will do this in any detail, they can always claim to do so, and Bärenreiter would have a very hard case to fight. The idea behind this is that critical editions involve a lot of work which can not usually be paid for with the income from selling the music itself (especially with critical editions of large orchestral works, which has a very small market). Did you know that Schott still owns the copyright, publication and performing rights for Carmina Burana (at least they did a few years back)? I know first hand from a friend, that not only does the royalty fee depend on whether you simply perform in concert of record a CD (in this case done by a school, with sales only to people in the close circle of the school itself), but it also depends on whether you do the orchestral version, or version with piano accompaniment. In the end they had to do the piano version for the CD, simply because they couldn't afford the orchestral version. At least a few years ago Schott made a substancial part of their turnover only with Carmina Burana. I am not taking sides on this, but I do actually see some justification for editor's royalties. Whether the Hyperion case is somewhat more complicated is another matter (and I don't know enough about it). Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
>>Perhaps, but the original decision itself was musicological nonsensical There is NO perhaps in this matter. Had Hyperion simply given Dr. Sawkins a residual for each CD sold, as he asked at the start of the project, none of this would have gone to court. No bad decisions would have been issued. And this wasn't an outlandish request: ASV Records had paid such royalities before. What's different in this circumstance, is that a court agreed with the editor, that he IS entitled and REQUIRED to be paid royalities. The issue isn't that Dr Sawkins is making himself to be the composer, he simply wants compensation for the intellectual property he created, i.e. his performing edition. Without his contributions, the piece could not have been published or performed. It's that simple. Dr. Sawkins has over 12,000 manhours invested in his editions. Hyperion owed $3,000.00 in royalities from CD sales), that nets him an hourly wage of about $4.00. When Hyperion was producing the CD, Dr. Sawkins states that he "repeatedly [offered] to negotiate a single sum in lieu of royalties, without any response." Instead, Hyperion stood by its principles, and recorded without Sawkin's approval. Hyperion was the one being unreasonable in this case, not Dr. Sawkins. >>>The Hyperion decision is a Pyrrhic victory that will ultimately be a disaster for recording companies, performing groups and editors. Maybe. Maybe not. "Marc Perlman imagines that royalties for musicologists could make some projects more feasible. A company could tell a musicologist that in exchange for higher royalties, the musicologist will share more of the risk of the project. The upfront editing fee will be treated as an advance on royalties, not a payment. The risk is moved away from the company and to the musicologist. Reducing the upfront cost of the project could in this case lead to more projects being undertaken. Or perhaps it would leave the recording schedules pretty much the same, merely changing the ways in which musicologists receive what will still be a pittance." I throughly disagree with your view that none of this has importance for an editor creating a modern PERFORMING edition; and then publishing it. There's no case that clearly illustrates the thorny nature of all this. Kim Patrick Clow Perhaps, but the original decision itself was musicologicalnonsensical, however it may have conformed to the UK copyright law. > And while I am fearful of what this will do to Hyperion, Dr. Sawkin's> was hardly a Simon LeGreed in this matter. He was asking for modest> compensation early on.Er, he *was* compensated for his editing. That is the main thing that, in my experience, most people miss -- they think Sawkins wasnot paid for his edition. But he was already paid an editing fee. Hewas asking for performance royalties, which generally go only toperformers, arrangers and composers. He basically argued that he was a de facto co-composer with de Lalande, which is nonsensical, even ifthe judge did agree with it.> But this case illustrates exactly the thorny issues involved in> preparing music editions of older music; and the editor's rights. No, it involves nothing of the sort. The Sawkins case was *not* aboutcopyright in a printed edition. It was about performance/recordingroyalties.The musicological endeavor by definition is *not* compositional. The editor of an edition is BY DEFINITION a slave to the originalcomposer's intentions. Sawkins was doing nothing more than trying torecover the original intentions of the composer from sources thatimperfectly conveyed the original work. Finding that this act is worthy of performance royalties will haveonly one result: fewer new editions will be prepared for recordings,or the editions will be prepared by performers instead of scholars. Or, the recordings won't happen at all if a performance royalty mustbe paid to the editor.The Hyperion decision is a Pyrrhic victory that will ultimately be adisaster for recording companies, performing groups and editors. --David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.comDavid Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/___ Finale mailing listFinale@shsu.eduhttp://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 14 Feb 2006 at 8:36, Kim Patrick Clow wrote: > Had Hyperion settled with Dr Sawkins at the onset, they would have > paid him 3000.00 UK Sterling Pounds, versus 3 million they lost after > going to trial --and then losing on appeal. And the issue isn't a > single judge's 'bad decision' ( Hyperion lost in the first trial and > then on appeal). The statue itself needs modification. Perhaps, but the original decision itself was musicological nonsensical, however it may have conformed to the UK copyright law. > And while I am fearful of what this will do to Hyperion, Dr. Sawkin's > was hardly a Simon LeGreed in this matter. He was asking for modest > compensation early on. Er, he *was* compensated for his editing. That is the main thing that, in my experience, most people miss -- they think Sawkins was not paid for his edition. But he was already paid an editing fee. He was asking for performance royalties, which generally go only to performers, arrangers and composers. He basically argued that he was a de facto co-composer with de Lalande, which is nonsensical, even if the judge did agree with it. > But this case illustrates exactly the thorny issues involved in > preparing music editions of older music; and the editor's rights. No, it involves nothing of the sort. The Sawkins case was *not* about copyright in a printed edition. It was about performance/recording royalties. The musicological endeavor by definition is *not* compositional. The editor of an edition is BY DEFINITION a slave to the original composer's intentions. Sawkins was doing nothing more than trying to recover the original intentions of the composer from sources that imperfectly conveyed the original work. Finding that this act is worthy of performance royalties will have only one result: fewer new editions will be prepared for recordings, or the editions will be prepared by performers instead of scholars. Or, the recordings won't happen at all if a performance royalty must be paid to the editor. The Hyperion decision is a Pyrrhic victory that will ultimately be a disaster for recording companies, performing groups and editors. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
Had Hyperion settled with Dr Sawkins at the onset, they would have paid him 3000.00 UK Sterling Pounds, versus 3 million they lost after going to trial --and then losing on appeal. And the issue isn't a single judge's 'bad decision' ( Hyperion lost in the first trial and then on appeal). The statue itself needs modification. And while I am fearful of what this will do to Hyperion, Dr. Sawkin's was hardly a Simon LeGreed in this matter. He was asking for modest compensation early on. But this case illustrates exactly the thorny issues involved in preparing music editions of older music; and the editor's rights. On 2/13/06, David W. Fenton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 14 Feb 2006 at 0:01, Johannes Gebauer wrote:> On 13.02.2006 Kim Patrick Clow wrote:> > I'm publishing my performing edition of 18th century baroque music. > > None of what I have prepared has never been published.>> I can only tell you what is true in Germany, but I assume that Europe> is very similar: As long as you note the copyright in the edition, > there is nothing else you have to do. The music itself obviously> cannot be copyrighted, nor can you (or do you have to) get the sole> publication rights (since the music had been published before, it > makes no difference when this was).>> Don't take my word for it, I don't know the UK laws, nor am I an> expert on music copyrights, but I don't think there is anything else> you need to do. The UK is a different animal after the conclusion of theSawkins/Hyperion case, where an editor was given rights in therecording equal to a composer (more or less). I'm not sure how thiseffects printed copyright, but it definitely shows that things in the UK are not like elsewhere in regard to copyright law.Personally, even as a musicologist, I think the Sawkins decision waswoefully misguided. The judge really didn't understand the issues,seems to me, and Sawkins seemed to want to have his cake and eat it, too. If his goal was to recover the composer's original (lost) text,how could he claim authorship in it? And the judge took evidenceabout a different edition of the same work where the reconstructedparts differed from Sawkins's parts by only a few notes, and took these tiny differences as evidence of Sawkins's right to authorship!The commonsense conclusion from my point of view is that the near-identical reconstructions demonstrate precisely how much the noteswere dictated by the original composer's work. I have a long article posted in a different forum that criticises theSawkins decision in some detail. I'll send it to anyone who'sinterested.--David W. Fenton http://dfenton.comDavid Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/___Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.eduhttp://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale-- Kim Patrick Clow"There's really only two types of music: good and bad." ~ Rossini ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 14.02.2006 David W. Fenton wrote: The UK is a different animal after the conclusion of the Sawkins/Hyperion case, where an editor was given rights in the recording equal to a composer (more or less). I'm not sure how this effects printed copyright, but it definitely shows that things in the UK are not like elsewhere in regard to copyright law. On the other hand, there have been European Court decisions on printed music copyrights, and I am sure the UK is also bound to these. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 14 Feb 2006 at 0:01, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > On 13.02.2006 Kim Patrick Clow wrote: > > I'm publishing my performing edition of 18th century baroque music. > > None of what I have prepared has never been published. > > I can only tell you what is true in Germany, but I assume that Europe > is very similar: As long as you note the copyright in the edition, > there is nothing else you have to do. The music itself obviously > cannot be copyrighted, nor can you (or do you have to) get the sole > publication rights (since the music had been published before, it > makes no difference when this was). > > Don't take my word for it, I don't know the UK laws, nor am I an > expert on music copyrights, but I don't think there is anything else > you need to do. The UK is a different animal after the conclusion of the Sawkins/Hyperion case, where an editor was given rights in the recording equal to a composer (more or less). I'm not sure how this effects printed copyright, but it definitely shows that things in the UK are not like elsewhere in regard to copyright law. Personally, even as a musicologist, I think the Sawkins decision was woefully misguided. The judge really didn't understand the issues, seems to me, and Sawkins seemed to want to have his cake and eat it, too. If his goal was to recover the composer's original (lost) text, how could he claim authorship in it? And the judge took evidence about a different edition of the same work where the reconstructed parts differed from Sawkins's parts by only a few notes, and took these tiny differences as evidence of Sawkins's right to authorship! The commonsense conclusion from my point of view is that the near- identical reconstructions demonstrate precisely how much the notes were dictated by the original composer's work. I have a long article posted in a different forum that criticises the Sawkins decision in some detail. I'll send it to anyone who's interested. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
Kim Patrick Clow wrote: There is a good chance I may have some editions published in the UK; but I am a US citizen. If these editions are being published by an entity domiciled in the UK, let them handle it. Also, read circular 38a published by the U.S. copyright office. I know to copyright my own editions, I just dash off a copy to the Library of Congress. No. To _claim_ a copyright your own editions, you put them in fixed form; to _register_ your copyright in the U.S., you send a copy to the Library of Congress, and pay the registration fee. In the UK, there is a "typographical copyright", which provides your edition with 25 years of protection from duplication of appearance (I may not make a photocopy of your edition), but not content (I can take your edition, and hand copy the music) without respect to whether your edition contains new content, or not. If your edition corrects numerous errors, updates notational conventions, restores omitted sections, etc., then you would have a claim of original copyright in the U.S. and based upon the findings in the Hyperion case, in the UK. If you have merely re-engraved, correcting a few obvious errors in the process, then you might not have enough new material to sustain your copyright in the event of a challenge in the U.S. Just my informed personal opinion, I am not a lawyer in any jurisdiction, either in real life, or on the internet. ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
PS: You may have to send copies to the British Library and other complete book archives (I believe the Cambridge University Library may have this status, and perhaps also the Bodleian Library in Oxford? Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 13.02.2006 Kim Patrick Clow wrote: I'm publishing my performing edition of 18th century baroque music. None of what I have prepared has never been published. I can only tell you what is true in Germany, but I assume that Europe is very similar: As long as you note the copyright in the edition, there is nothing else you have to do. The music itself obviously cannot be copyrighted, nor can you (or do you have to) get the sole publication rights (since the music had been published before, it makes no difference when this was). Don't take my word for it, I don't know the UK laws, nor am I an expert on music copyrights, but I don't think there is anything else you need to do. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
I'm publishing my performing edition of 18th century baroque music. None of what I have prepared has never been published. On 2/13/06, Johannes Gebauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 13.02.2006 Kim Patrick Clow wrote:> There is a good chance I may have some editions published in the UK; but I am a US citizen. >> I'm curious if anyone has suggestions or tips about doing this. The Hyperion case illustrates how differently UK laws are versus what we have in the United States. I know to copyright my own editions, I just dash off a copy to the Library of Congress. >> But if you have any pointers or thoughts, please feel free to let me know. I am very green in this area. I would rather learn now than find out painfully at a later date.>Are you publishing your own music, or someone else's? If the latter, when was the music composed, and has it _ever_ been published before?Johannes--http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de___Finale mailing listFinale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale-- Kim Patrick Clow"There's really only two types of music: good and bad." ~ Rossini ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
On 13.02.2006 Kim Patrick Clow wrote: There is a good chance I may have some editions published in the UK; but I am a US citizen. I'm curious if anyone has suggestions or tips about doing this. The Hyperion case illustrates how differently UK laws are versus what we have in the United States. I know to copyright my own editions, I just dash off a copy to the Library of Congress. But if you have any pointers or thoughts, please feel free to let me know. I am very green in this area. I would rather learn now than find out painfully at a later date. Are you publishing your own music, or someone else's? If the latter, when was the music composed, and has it _ever_ been published before? Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Editions and Publishing Rights
There is a good chance I may have some editions published in the UK; but I am a US citizen.I'm curious if anyone has suggestions or tips about doing this. The Hyperion case illustrates how differently UK laws are versus what we have in the United States. I know to copyright my own editions, I just dash off a copy to the Library of Congress. But if you have any pointers or thoughts, please feel free to let me know. I am very green in this area. I would rather learn now than find out painfully at a later date. Thanks so much! ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale