Re: [Finale] US copyright question
At 2:36 PM -0700 9/8/05, Chuck Israels wrote: I don't know what the limit is, but I always understood that there was a certain length of quote that went over the line into infringement. I have in my faulty memory 4 measures for popular songs, but that doesn't seem too practical to me. Doesn't appear in the copyright law nor in the Fair Use Guidelines. I think this is just an urban legend, like mailing yourself a copy of your song rather than registering it properly. 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] US copyright question
On Sep 8, 2005, at 5:38 PM, Ken Durling wrote: Just curious, although I've heard the work [Sinfonia]. I'm not intimately familiar with it, and I'm only aware of the Mahler 2 Scherzo in there. What else is there? And is/was the Mahler for sure under copyright? The Mahler just serves as the backbone for a movement that consists almost entirely of quotations from Debussy, Hindemith, Stravinsky, Berg, Schoenberg... Many of these were most definitely under copyright at the time (1968) and some still are. What is particularly striking is that some of these composers and their estates were and are very, very vigilant of their copyrights and would never have allowed an unattributed use if it were within their power to enforce it. I know that in the graphic arts collaging has been protected in Europe following the precedent of a nearly century-old case in which a newspaper unsuccessfully sued Bracque (I think it was) for using a fragment of their paper in a cubist painting. But recent developments in music, esp. in the US, seem to go counter to that, and I'm very puzzled. 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] US copyright question [ot]
On Sep 8, 2005, at 6:55 PM, M. Perticone wrote: hello mr. stiller and listers, if i recall well, there's a notice acknowledging permission from various publishers. i don't have it at hand, but i'll check it tomorrow at my studio. There may be now (and if so, that's very interesting), but there most certainly was not in the original 1969 publication. Believe me, I looked hard for it! 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] US copyright question
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So the Mahler was out of copyright I guess... Well, it would have been in most European countries. Mahler died in 1911, and in 1969, when the Sinfonia was published, the 50 year rule still applied most places. There was probably one exceptional country (possibly Spain, IIRC, but my wife remembers Germany), because the extension to 70 years was explained by a spokesman for the EU as harmonization to the longest copyright period of any member country. If it was Spain, I don't suppose Berio had much expectation of performances under the Franco régime, which continued to 1975. -- Ken Moore Musician and engineer ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question
As long as we're talking about this, there's a question I've wondered about for years that maybe someone on this list knows the answer to: Is collaging fair usage? Specifically, consider Berio's *Sinfonia*, which quotes numerous copyrighted works without any notice of written permission to use any of them. I'm not talking about outright parody, wh. is definitely fair usage in the US, but merely the use of recognizable fragments of copyrighted works in a patchwork to make something new. The various court cases involving sampling would strongly suggest that such practices are *not* fair usage--but then how explain the Berio? 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] US copyright question
I don't know what the limit is, but I always understood that there was a certain length of quote that went over the line into infringement. I have in my faulty memory 4 measures for popular songs, but that doesn't seem too practical to me. Chuck On Sep 8, 2005, at 1:51 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote: As long as we're talking about this, there's a question I've wondered about for years that maybe someone on this list knows the answer to: Is collaging fair usage? Specifically, consider Berio's *Sinfonia*, which quotes numerous copyrighted works without any notice of written permission to use any of them. I'm not talking about outright parody, wh. is definitely fair usage in the US, but merely the use of recognizable fragments of copyrighted works in a patchwork to make something new. The various court cases involving sampling would strongly suggest that such practices are *not* fair usage--but then how explain the Berio? Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question
Just curious, although I've heard the work. I'm not intimately familiar with it, and I'm only aware of the Mahler 2 Scherzo in there. What else is there? And is/was the Mahler for sure under copyright? Ken At 01:51 PM 9/8/2005, you wrote: As long as we're talking about this, there's a question I've wondered about for years that maybe someone on this list knows the answer to: Is collaging fair usage? Specifically, consider Berio's *Sinfonia*, which quotes numerous copyrighted works without any notice of written permission to use any of them. I'm not talking about outright parody, wh. is definitely fair usage in the US, but merely the use of recognizable fragments of copyrighted works in a patchwork to make something new. The various court cases involving sampling would strongly suggest that such practices are *not* fair usage--but then how explain the Berio? Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Ken Durling Composition and Music Services Berkeley, CA [510] 843-4419 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question
Andrew, Significant use of copyrighted material within a new original work would seem to be in the same spirit as sampling -- which normally only covers the use of existing _recordings_, but still, the principle is the same. http://www.music-law.com/sampling.html - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 08 Sep 2005, at 4:51 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote: As long as we're talking about this, there's a question I've wondered about for years that maybe someone on this list knows the answer to: Is collaging fair usage? Specifically, consider Berio's *Sinfonia*, which quotes numerous copyrighted works without any notice of written permission to use any of them. I'm not talking about outright parody, wh. is definitely fair usage in the US, but merely the use of recognizable fragments of copyrighted works in a patchwork to make something new. The various court cases involving sampling would strongly suggest that such practices are *not* fair usage--but then how explain the Berio? Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question [ot]
hello mr. stiller and listers, if i recall well, there's a notice acknowledging permission from various publishers. i don't have it at hand, but i'll check it tomorrow at my studio. regards, marcelo From: Andrew Stiller As long as we're talking about this, there's a question I've wondered about for years that maybe someone on this list knows the answer to: Is collaging fair usage? Specifically, consider Berio's *Sinfonia*, which quotes numerous copyrighted works without any notice of written permission to use any of them. I'm not talking about outright parody, wh. is definitely fair usage in the US, but merely the use of recognizable fragments of copyrighted works in a patchwork to make something new. The various court cases involving sampling would strongly suggest that such practices are *not* fair usage--but then how explain the Berio? Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question
ok, i checked it out. here's what you'll find in the full score of this masterpiece, written for and commissioned by the new york philharmonic. and it's dedicated to leaonard bernstein. - We would like to express our cordial thanks to the following publishers and persons for allowing the use of quotations: Boosey Hawkes Ltd., London (Stravinsky Agon, Sacre du Printemps, Strauss Der Rosenkavalier for all countries with the exception of Germany, Italy, Portugal and USSR); Durand Cie., Paris (Debussy La mer, Ravel Dapnis et Cloe, La valse); Furstner Ltd., London (Strauss Der Rosenkavalier for the territories of Germany, Italy, Portugal and USSR); B. Schott's Sohne, Mainz (Hindemith Kammermusik IV) Dr. Franz Strauss Igor Strawinsky We also thank Mr. Claude Levi-Strauss for permitting the use of an excerpt from his work Le cru et le cuit. - hope this helps, best, marcelo Is collaging fair usage? Specifically, consider Berio's *Sinfonia*, which quotes numerous copyrighted works without any notice of written permission to use any of them. I'm not talking about outright parody, wh. is definitely fair usage in the US, but merely the use of recognizable fragments of copyrighted works in a patchwork to make something new. The various court cases involving sampling would strongly suggest that such practices are *not* fair usage--but then how explain the Berio? Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question
So the Mahler was out of copyright I guess... Boy, I really need to go back and listen to that again! Ken ok, i checked it out. here's what you'll find in the full score of this masterpiece, written for and commissioned by the new york philharmonic. and it's dedicated to leaonard bernstein. - We would like to express our cordial thanks to the following publishers and persons for allowing the use of quotations: Boosey Hawkes Ltd., London (Stravinsky Agon, Sacre du Printemps, Strauss Der Rosenkavalier for all countries with the exception of Germany, Italy, Portugal and USSR); Durand Cie., Paris (Debussy La mer, Ravel Dapnis et Cloe, La valse); Furstner Ltd., London (Strauss Der Rosenkavalier for the territories of Germany, Italy, Portugal and USSR); B. Schott's Sohne, Mainz (Hindemith Kammermusik IV) Dr. Franz Strauss Igor Strawinsky We also thank Mr. Claude Levi-Strauss for permitting the use of an excerpt from his work Le cru et le cuit. - hope this helps, best, marcelo Is collaging fair usage? Specifically, consider Berio's *Sinfonia*, which quotes numerous copyrighted works without any notice of written permission to use any of them. I'm not talking about outright parody, wh. is definitely fair usage in the US, but merely the use of recognizable fragments of copyrighted works in a patchwork to make something new. The various court cases involving sampling would strongly suggest that such practices are *not* fair usage--but then how explain the Berio? Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question - now editions
On 2:44 Uhr Noel Stoutenburg wrote: I think it was supposed to, but has not completely succeeded. For example, while Germany, and I presume, France, appears (based upon Johannes statements) to treat typographical copyrights the same as the copyright to the composition Don't base it on my statements, it is quite possible that it only lasts 25 years in Germany, too. 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] US copyright question - now editions
On 10:57 Uhr dc wrote: I've never heard of anything like a typographical copyright in France, but I'm no expert on these questions. By the way, I'm very intrigued by Swiss law on copyright, after reading in a _facsimile_ of a public domain work (Rousseau's Dictionnaire de musique): WARNING This publication is protected by Swiss law on copyright. Any reproduction or transcription [!] - even partial - by any means would constitute a counterfeiting punished by articles 42 ff of said law. PHOTOCOPY PROHIBITED. So here's a publishers who reproduces an 18th-century edition and prohibits anyone from even transcribing part of it. Obviously any publisher can write anything into their edition, right or wrong. However, although I am convinced that there is no way this can be fought through in court, from a restricted legal point of view they may indeed be correct, and the same will apply in Germany, too. The reprint itself of that admittedly public domain work may well be copyrightable. I wouldn't be surprised if even the cleaning of spots and ink marks may qualify this for copyright, indeed even bringing it out as a bound book may constitute reason for copyright, any kind of work that has gone into the new publication might be enough to make this a copyrightable publication. Of course this wouldn't stop anyone from getting a copy of the original book elsewhere (including a public library) and make a photocopy. German (photo-)copying laws for music and books are extremely rigid. Again, I am not really competent enough in copyright laws to make any claims to being right with any of this. If anyone knows otherwise please let me know. 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] US copyright question - now editions
On 5:34 Uhr John Howell wrote: That is actually not surprising at all. Because U.S. copyright law was based on date of first publication, and most European law was based on the lifetime of the composer, a great many works were in copyright in Europe but in the public domain in the U.S. Not a grey area at all, just a matter of geography. In Europe there is also a copyright of the engraving itself, which I understand is not possible in the US. In Europe it is simply illegal to reprint an engraved page as long as it is in copyright (75 years?). It makes no difference whether it contains any editorial additions at all. 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] US copyright question - now editions
On 9:50 Uhr Johannes Gebauer wrote: In Europe there is also a copyright of the engraving itself, which I understand is not possible in the US. In Europe it is simply illegal to reprint an engraved page as long as it is in copyright (75 years?). It makes no difference whether it contains any editorial additions at all. Furthermore I'd like to add: there are special copyrights in Europe for publishing previously unpublished music. Even if a piece was composed 500 years ago a publisher can claim the publication rights which will, as far as I understand, give him the sole right for publication, and indeed performance (this is usually regulated through a special agency, where standard rates apply for performance). Similar regulations apply to critical editions, though obviously it is more complicated to extend this to performance (but it has been done). These regulations led to a court case over the rights of Offenbach's Hoffmann's tales, where some extra autograph material was found a few years ago and the German publisher Schott and a French publisher fought about the rights, not just the publication rights, but also the performance rights (which means substancial income for the publisher over the next 25 years). These publication and performance rights are also the main reason we are still seeing so little of the Kiev CPE Bach Nachlass being published and performed, since two organizations fight over who actually owns it (there are two Singakademien today, a former East and a former West Berlin). The most recent case where these regulations played a role is the very recent discovery of a JS Bach aria (I believe in Leipzig) which had never been published. These kind of things can provide major income to publishers. I am not criticising these regulations, on the contrary, they are largely responsible for a lot of editorial activity in Europe for publishing previously unpublished material or making critical editions. The previously not published regulation was recently (a few weeks ago) tried in court. I think the outcome was that it really only applies to works which were not circulated to a wider audience at the time. In the particular case tried the court decided that because the music was widely circulated in manuscript there was no case to claim publication rights on it, and anyone can publish it. It is worth noting that _any_ previous edition will make it impossible to claim publication rights. Even if back in the 18th century someone engraved a piece of music and made three prints of it which are lost today, there is no way to claim publication rights (other than with a critical edition, but that is a slightly different story). 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] US copyright question - now editions
Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 5:34 Uhr John Howell wrote: That is actually not surprising at all. Because U.S. copyright law was based on date of first publication, and most European law was based on the lifetime of the composer, a great many works were in copyright in Europe but in the public domain in the U.S. Not a grey area at all, just a matter of geography. In Europe there is also a copyright of the engraving itself, which I understand is not possible in the US. In Europe it is simply illegal to reprint an engraved page as long as it is in copyright (75 years?). It makes no difference whether it contains any editorial additions at all. Johannes But if a person has one of those engraved/copyrighted editions where no significant editorial additions were made to a public domain work (e.g. a Bach organ prelude), is a person in Europe legally able to make their own version using that copyrighted-for-engraving edition? Using Finale or Sibelius or whatever, is it legal for you to make your own engraving using someone else's engraving as the original, as long as your page design is different from the original? I realize that, the way you explained things you couldn't make a photocopy even if the original music is out of copyright. (I hope I asked this question clearly enough.) -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question - now editions
On 13:54 Uhr dhbailey wrote: But if a person has one of those engraved/copyrighted editions where no significant editorial additions were made to a public domain work (e.g. a Bach organ prelude), is a person in Europe legally able to make their own version using that copyrighted-for-engraving edition? That is the question, isn't it? To be honest, I am not even sure whether there is one answer to that. The answer, as so often the case, is it depends. Problem is, it might be enough to just make a decision on the reading of a manuscript. However, I don't think in reality there would be much of a case if someone did indeed use an existing edition, unless the publisher of that existing edition can make a clear case that his edition either included editorial decisions or qualifies as a critical edition. Using Finale or Sibelius or whatever, is it legal for you to make your own engraving using someone else's engraving as the original, as long as your page design is different from the original? I don't think the page design has much to do with it. It probably really depends on the nature of the original edition, and whether any decisions were made that qualify as an editorial effort. I realize that, the way you explained things you couldn't make a photocopy even if the original music is out of copyright. Absolutely. Are you sure this would be different in the US? If you brought out a new edition of a work by Bach, could anyone photocopy your edition and sell that? (I hope I asked this question clearly enough.) Sure, it's just a question of whether there are clear answers... 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] US copyright question - now editions
Johannes Gebauer wrote: [snip] I realize that, the way you explained things you couldn't make a photocopy even if the original music is out of copyright. Absolutely. Are you sure this would be different in the US? If you brought out a new edition of a work by Bach, could anyone photocopy your edition and sell that? Thanks for the quick response -- that was what I had imagined things to be. As for this final question, in the U.S., page appearance isn't covered by copyright law, so if I bring out a new printing of a public domain work and have added no editorial content (added my own phrasing, altered some chords, corrected some misprints) I can't make a valid claim for copyright simply because my new edition is more legible or laid out with better page turns. Anybody could photocopy that and I would be unable to stop them. However, if I had made editorial changes (simply adding my name as Edited By: would not qualify, as far as I have been able to ascertain) I would have a valid copyright claim and could initiate a lawsuit for damages. But the simple appearance on the page would not qualify in the U.S. as copyrightable. However, as is usually the case, it is often the party with the deepest pockets which wins such copyright cases, not necessarily the person with the valid claim. For instance, Hal Leonard has brought out a couple of fake books of obviously public domain material, either material old enough to be public domain but with known composers, or folk songs with no known composer and also old enough to be public domain, and on each song in each book they have a copyright claim such as copyright © 2000 by Hal Leonard Corporation -- I realize there could be a valid copyright claim on the entire collection of songs within that book, such that nobody could simply photocopy the entire book and sell it as their own, but there is no valid copyright claim in any of the individual songs. But should they bring a lawsuit against someone such as me, they would win simply because I couldn't afford to pay a lawyer to defend me through all the hearings and delays and filings and appeals. The old age-of-chivalry concept that might makes right. I would have hoped we had grown beyond that, but it still rears its ugly head in most aspects of modern life, and the intellectual property area is no different. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question - now editions
At 9:50 AM +0200 9/4/05, Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 5:34 Uhr John Howell wrote: That is actually not surprising at all. Because U.S. copyright law was based on date of first publication, and most European law was based on the lifetime of the composer, a great many works were in copyright in Europe but in the public domain in the U.S. Not a grey area at all, just a matter of geography. In Europe there is also a copyright of the engraving itself, which I understand is not possible in the US. In Europe it is simply illegal to reprint an engraved page as long as it is in copyright (75 years?). It makes no difference whether it contains any editorial additions at all. That is correct. This graphic copyright has never existed in U.S. law, which may explain why the reprint houses like Kalmus, Dover, and Luck's are all located in the U.S. One can trademark a graphic such as a recognizable logo, but not copyright it. I am curious whether the E.U. has regularized differences in copyright law among its various countries, or whether that was already accomplished through Berne, etc. 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] US copyright question - now editions
At 11:29 AM +0200 9/4/05, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Furthermore I'd like to add: there are special copyrights in Europe for publishing previously unpublished music. Even if a piece was composed 500 years ago a publisher can claim the publication rights which will, as far as I understand, give him the sole right for publication, and indeed performance (this is usually regulated through a special agency, where standard rates apply for performance). There is something similar under U.S. law, although I've never read a clear explanation of it. There is also the matter of private ownership of unique objects, which normally applies to works of graphic or plastic art but may also apply to musical unica. This has nothing to do with copyright per se, but strictly involves the right of the owner to grant or forbid access to the objects. In the case of music, then, while the music on the page may properly be in the public domain, the page itself is privately owned. My understanding is that this is the case with some (much?) of the music of Fanny Mendelssohn Henzle, which is owned and therefore controlled by a single individual in unique copies which he will not make available to scholars, let alone publishers. Under the special provisions Johannes cites above, if he were to publish them he would presumably control their copyrights for ... hmm, how long, I wonder? 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] US copyright question - now OT color-coding unfairness
David W. Fenton wrote: I had forgotten about the green Kalmus covers -- I never owned any of those myself, but did use many of them from teachers. Then there are the newer eggshell green glossy covers (the orchestral score series), and I'd forgotten about those. I have no memory of brown Kalmus scores. I couldn't say if there are any. Dark green looks like brown to me, while light brown looks like green, so I often guess wrong. I have brown in my memory, but my wife and daughter said Kalmus was mostly green in their minds, so we are almost certainly thinking of the same covers. ... But you're right -- Kalmus was not limited to to one color of cover. I just associate pink with Kalmus (although there's some German publisher that uses it, too). ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question - now editions
Ray Horton wrote: The only parts they dislike more are the old french parts with the backward quarter rests for eighth rests and other difficulties. John Howell wrote: Actually it's backward eight rests for quarter rests. We ran into that with the Saint-Saëns A Minor Cello Concerto last spring. Ray: You are correct, of course! My mistake. We mainly read them by the spacing. If the spacing is off, we put tails on them. And in point of fact, the French rests are more true to the original Franconian rests from the 13th century (which is still no excuse!!). Very interesting, and no excuse whatsoever! RBH ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question - now editions
On 4 Sep 2005 at 9:31, dhbailey wrote: For instance, Hal Leonard has brought out a couple of fake books of obviously public domain material, either material old enough to be public domain but with known composers, or folk songs with no known composer and also old enough to be public domain, and on each song in each book they have a copyright claim such as copyright © 2000 by Hal Leonard Corporation -- I realize there could be a valid copyright claim on the entire collection of songs within that book, such that nobody could simply photocopy the entire book and sell it as their own, but there is no valid copyright claim in any of the individual songs. If there are chords in there, it constitutes an arrangement, as every melody can be harmonized in more than one way. So, I see no problem with their copyright claim at all. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question - now editions
On 4 Sep 2005 at 10:17, John Howell wrote: This graphic copyright has never existed in U.S. law, which may explain why the reprint houses like Kalmus, Dover, and Luck's are all located in the U.S. One can trademark a graphic such as a recognizable logo, but not copyright it. I don't quite understand the inclusion of Dover in that list. They are a very different operation. They sometimes reprint editions that are under copyright outside the US, and when they do so, they do it with permission (I assume that means they've made a financial arrangement of some sort). Anyone, even in European countries, can reprint the old Britkopf Härtel complete editions done in the 19th century, and a lot of Dover's offerings come from those public domain sources. But Dover then adds enough new material to qualify their edition for independent copyright. I don't see the other reprint houses as being at all on the same level -- they add nothing, and reprint without permission, as long as it's not copyrighted in the US. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question - now editions
At 2:37 PM -0400 9/4/05, David W. Fenton wrote: I don't see the other reprint houses as being at all on the same level -- they add nothing, and reprint without permission, as long as it's not copyrighted in the US. You may be quite right about Dover. I included them because they are, in fact, a reprint house, and not all their publications claim new copyrights. But I don't quite understand your last comment. Anything not covered by copyright in the U.S. is, by definition, in the public domain IN THE U.S. No permission is required and no financial arrangements are required to reprint it IN THE U.S. It cannot be sold in countries in which it is still under copyright, of course, but publishers do that all the time. 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] US copyright question - now OT color-coding unfairness
Raymond Horton wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: I had forgotten about the green Kalmus covers -- I never owned any of those myself, but did use many of them from teachers. Then there are the newer eggshell green glossy covers (the orchestral score series), and I'd forgotten about those. I have no memory of brown Kalmus scores. I couldn't say if there are any. Dark green looks like brown to me, while light brown looks like green, so I often guess wrong. I have brown in my memory, but my wife and daughter said Kalmus was mostly green in their minds, so we are almost certainly thinking of the same covers. I think I've seen some brown Kalmus covers -- I think it depends on the instrument the music was for. All my Kalmus recorder music has green covers, but I have a book of trumpet trios with a dark blue cover. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question - now editions
David W. Fenton wrote: On 4 Sep 2005 at 9:31, dhbailey wrote: For instance, Hal Leonard has brought out a couple of fake books of obviously public domain material, either material old enough to be public domain but with known composers, or folk songs with no known composer and also old enough to be public domain, and on each song in each book they have a copyright claim such as copyright © 2000 by Hal Leonard Corporation -- I realize there could be a valid copyright claim on the entire collection of songs within that book, such that nobody could simply photocopy the entire book and sell it as their own, but there is no valid copyright claim in any of the individual songs. If there are chords in there, it constitutes an arrangement, as every melody can be harmonized in more than one way. So, I see no problem with their copyright claim at all. Chord progressions, according to all I've read and heard, can't be copyrighted. Who would own the blues? Neither can titles. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question - now OT color-coding unfairness
On 4 Sep 2005 at 17:16, dhbailey wrote: Raymond Horton wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: I had forgotten about the green Kalmus covers -- I never owned any of those myself, but did use many of them from teachers. Then there are the newer eggshell green glossy covers (the orchestral score series), and I'd forgotten about those. I have no memory of brown Kalmus scores. I couldn't say if there are any. Dark green looks like brown to me, while light brown looks like green, so I often guess wrong. I have brown in my memory, but my wife and daughter said Kalmus was mostly green in their minds, so we are almost certainly thinking of the same covers. I think I've seen some brown Kalmus covers -- I think it depends on the instrument the music was for. All my Kalmus recorder music has green covers, but I have a book of trumpet trios with a dark blue cover. I'm remembering now that there are some choral editions that have kind of an olive green cover that verges on brown. It's close enough that even someone who has no difficulty distinguishing colors would have a time deciding between brown or green. Those covers are rough texture, unlike the green ones, which are polished paper (though not as polished as the mint green conductor score series). -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question - now editions
On 4 Sep 2005 at 16:35, John Howell wrote: At 2:37 PM -0400 9/4/05, David W. Fenton wrote: I don't see the other reprint houses as being at all on the same level -- they add nothing, and reprint without permission, as long as it's not copyrighted in the US. You may be quite right about Dover. I included them because they are, in fact, a reprint house, and not all their publications claim new copyrights. But I don't quite understand your last comment. Anything not covered by copyright in the U.S. is, by definition, in the public domain IN THE U.S. No permission is required and no financial arrangements are required to reprint it IN THE U.S. It cannot be sold in countries in which it is still under copyright, of course, but publishers do that all the time. Well, I know for a fact that Dover reprints certain European editions with permission of the European copyright holders (some of the Mozart operas are in this class). And I also know that Dover has withdrawn certain editions after changes in copyright law. I don't know the exact timeframe, nor can I recall the exact repertory involved, but I distinctly remember finding that Dover had once published an edition of Mendelssohn's complete piano chamber music, but that the edition was withdrawn. I was told it was because of copyright changes, which would suggest that the original Dover reprint predated 1978. I don't have any facts on that one, just vague memories and suppositions. But I definitely know that some of Dover's reprints are with permission of copyright holders (I believe the Dpver Debussy reprints are, too, but I don't own any of those, because I have the original Durands). -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question - now editions
On 4 Sep 2005 at 17:18, dhbailey wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: On 4 Sep 2005 at 9:31, dhbailey wrote: For instance, Hal Leonard has brought out a couple of fake books of obviously public domain material, either material old enough to be public domain but with known composers, or folk songs with no known composer and also old enough to be public domain, and on each song in each book they have a copyright claim such as copyright © 2000 by Hal Leonard Corporation -- I realize there could be a valid copyright claim on the entire collection of songs within that book, such that nobody could simply photocopy the entire book and sell it as their own, but there is no valid copyright claim in any of the If there are chords in there, it constitutes an arrangement, as every melody can be harmonized in more than one way. So, I see no problem with their copyright claim at all. Chord progressions, according to all I've read and heard, can't be copyrighted. Who would own the blues? Neither can titles. But it's not a chord progression that's being copyrighted, but a melody harmonized with a particular succession of chords. That's an arrangement, to me, and seems fully worthy of the same copyright protection as any arrangement would have. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question - now editions
On 04.09.2005 23:56 Uhr David W. Fenton wrote: Well, I know for a fact that Dover reprints certain European editions with permission of the European copyright holders (some of the Mozart operas are in this class). I have got the Dover Score of the Marriage of Figaro here. Taken from a Peters edition of 1941. It says: For legal reasons this title cannot be offered or sold in the Federal Republic of Germany or West Berlin. (Not disagreeing with you, just adding information) -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question - now editions
John Howell wrote: I am curious whether the E.U. has regularized differences in copyright law among its various countries, or whether that was already accomplished through Berne, etc. I think it was supposed to, but has not completely succeeded. For example, while Germany, and I presume, France, appears (based upon Johannes statements) to treat typographical copyrights the same as the copyright to the composition, the UK at present does not; a typographical copyright in the UK is twenty five years, instead of the duration of seventy years after the death of the composer. Thus, all of C. V. Stanford's work is in the public domain, but OUP, which produced a volume of a collection of choral works a couple of years ago, entitled Weddings for Choirs or some such, which contained a re-engraving of Stanford's Op. 38 #3, Beati quorum via, claims copyright on the typography of that work in that volume, based upon the re-engraving. One may re-engrave the work oneself, even using the OUP edition as a basis, one may not, however (at least in the EU, where the copyright has meaning), simply photocopy the edition. ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question - now editions
David W. Fenton wrote: I don't quite understand the inclusion of Dover in that list. They are a very different operation. They sometimes reprint editions that are under copyright outside the US, and when they do so, they do it with permission (I assume that means they've made a financial arrangement of some sort). The printed Dover catalogs (I have one from several years ago here someplace) are interesting, in that in the vicinity of the masthead, or price information is a key to alphabetic abbreviations for applied to each edition, detailing where the editions bearing that key are available. An item with an A suffixed to the price may be available only in the U.S.; B, only in the U.S. and Canada; C, in the U.S. and British Commonwealth; D in the U.S. and British commonwealth except the UK, c. ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question
At 9:13 PM -0500 9/2/05, Noel Stoutenburg wrote: When, in response to Johannes' comment; Just out of curiosity, I am currently wondering whether a printed edition from 1978 in the US is still under copyright (for the printed edtion, not for the piece itself, which is from the 19th century)? Dr. Howell writes, If it carries a copyright notice, it is. my own personal experience prompts me to disagree. I own copies of two editions of the same item, one in the public domain in the U.S. by virtue of its age, the other a published, with a copyright notice from the early 1980's. A note by note, expression by expression comparison of the two editions shows that the copyright notice from the 1980's is most likely fraudulent, as the only difference between the two editions is the name of the arranger below the name of the original composer. I do not mean to suggest that this was a common practice, but I do mean to suggest that, in the case of older works, it may be prudent to take the time and effort to verify that the claim of copyright notice is, in fact, legitmately made. Noel is, of course, exactly right. The most egregious example of this kind of behavior I'm aware of is the fraudulent claim of copyright by a certain publisher in an enormous amount of 19th century piano music. I won't name the publisher, but think of yellow covers! But when a local composer wrote a musical version of The Prisoner of Zenda, a few years ago, I checked the book out of the library to read it, and discovered an entirely spurious copyright notice on it since the book was clearly public domain by its date of original publication. So let me amend my response: If it carries a legitimate copyright notice, it is! 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] US copyright question
John Howell wrote: At 9:13 PM -0500 9/2/05, Noel Stoutenburg wrote: When, in response to Johannes' comment; Just out of curiosity, I am currently wondering whether a printed edition from 1978 in the US is still under copyright (for the printed edtion, not for the piece itself, which is from the 19th century)? Dr. Howell writes, If it carries a copyright notice, it is. my own personal experience prompts me to disagree. I own copies of two editions of the same item, one in the public domain in the U.S. by virtue of its age, the other a published, with a copyright notice from the early 1980's. A note by note, expression by expression comparison of the two editions shows that the copyright notice from the 1980's is most likely fraudulent, as the only difference between the two editions is the name of the arranger below the name of the original composer. I do not mean to suggest that this was a common practice, but I do mean to suggest that, in the case of older works, it may be prudent to take the time and effort to verify that the claim of copyright notice is, in fact, legitmately made. Noel is, of course, exactly right. The most egregious example of this kind of behavior I'm aware of is the fraudulent claim of copyright by a certain publisher in an enormous amount of 19th century piano music. I won't name the publisher, but think of yellow covers! But when a local composer wrote a musical version of The Prisoner of Zenda, a few years ago, I checked the book out of the library to read it, and discovered an entirely spurious copyright notice on it since the book was clearly public domain by its date of original publication. So let me amend my response: If it carries a legitimate copyright notice, it is! John As for those editions with the yellow covers (and green ink?) I recall looking at many of them and seeing no copyright notice at all. Not being much of a pianist I don't have a very large library of piano music, but I have never liked the layout of much of the music from that publisher and so have tended to buy other editions. Thus I can't lay my hands on any of them. But I do recall having looked at some and not seen any copyright claim at all, other than on the cover design. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question
On 3 Sep 2005 at 14:20, dhbailey wrote: As for those editions with the yellow covers (and green ink?) I recall looking at many of them and seeing no copyright notice at all. Not being much of a pianist I don't have a very large library of piano music, but I have never liked the layout of much of the music from that publisher and so have tended to buy other editions. Thus I can't lay my hands on any of them. But I do recall having looked at some and not seen any copyright claim at all, other than on the cover design. By modern standards, in which significant editorial intervention in an edition of public domain music allows you to have copyright on the edited edition, Schirmer would have justly claimed copyright on any number of their editions (most of which date from around 1900, so far as I can tell). There is significant editorial intervention in many of them, including added fingering, altered phrasing, and even recomposed figuration. And the Beethoven edition includes significant footnotes detailing the alterations to the text and suggestions for performance. Likewise with the Grieg Piano Concerto, for instance. Even their Bach editions have significant editorial intervention. I can't say if they stole the fingerings/slurrings/etc. from another publisher (someone would have to do a collation of the existing editions at the time), but the editions seem to me, barring being complete recreations of someone else's edition, to be fully deserving of copyright protection under our modern standards. Now, the law at the time they were printed was quite different, but I don't know exactly how it was different. And many of those Schirmer editions, precisely because of the performance-oriented editing, are extremely interesting documents for recovering evidence about late-19th-century performance practice and pedagogy. I think they're quite valuable documents and somebody should study them in detail. Now, if you want a publisher who is dishonest, try the one with the PINK covers. . . -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question
Thanks to David for bringing in the name Schirmer. I assumed, but wasn't sure. Yellow I got, but the green threw me. (more later) David W. Fenton wrote: ... And many of those Schirmer editions, ... Now, if you want a publisher who is dishonest, try the one with the PINK covers. . . Now, for the benefit of anyone besides myself on the list who is color-blind, does a third party want to link a name, unofficially of course, to this part of the discussion? There are a lot of us males, and more than a few females, who have various color deficiencies, and FAR more things in the world are color-coded than need to be. RBH ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question
On 3 Sep 2005 at 17:44, Raymond Horton wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: ... And many of those Schirmer editions, ... Now, if you want a publisher who is dishonest, try the one with the PINK covers. . . Now, for the benefit of anyone besides myself on the list who is color-blind, does a third party want to link a name, unofficially of course, to this part of the discussion? That would be Kalmus, of course. There are a lot of us males, and more than a few females, who have various color deficiencies, and FAR more things in the world are color-coded than need to be. Well, I don't think there was any purpose served in color-encoding the references to publishers -- I was just following the practice already established, for humor's sake. Of course, Kalmus has actually changed its ways and is engraving its own editions, some of them actually respectable new editions and not stolen from anyone else. This has been the case for about the last 10 years, at least. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question - now OT color-coding unfairness
David W. Fenton wrote: That would be Kalmus, of course. Ray adds: Thanks for the first part of that sentence, David. The of course was not appropriate in this instance, of course! I have played as many or more bad Kalmus editions as any one else on this list. Take a look at the bass trombone part to the Shostakovitch 1st for a real crime - whole passeges left out, and others written in the wrong octave by someone who couldn't figure out how to convert alto clef into bass. Why he/she didn't leave the passage in alto, I don't know. I never associated with Kalmus the color pink. My color-OK family members in the other room say they see other colors on the covers they have - green, etc. Well, I don't think there was any purpose served in color-encoding the references to publishers -- I was just following the practice already established, for humor's sake. Yes, I realized that. I really did not mean to sound like I was criticizing you in this instance, as the pink reference was very much in context (more in context if it was corrrect, I suppose, but, whatever...). It just that there are too many things in the world that are color-coded that don't have to be. A number of years ago, when my orchestra would do some rehearsals at the local large university (U. of Louisville) they would give us these parking passes that would have one shade of a color, supposedly green, on them. I would drive around until and hold the parking pass up next to sign until I found one that looked the same color, as far as I could tell. Then I would come back and find a ticket on my car because that wasn't green, it was brown or something. The supposedly green signs looked NOTHING like the shade of green on the parking pass they'd given me. I'd go to the parking office and complain until they would excuse the ticket. The problem was, they'd say, the parking passes and the signs are printed by two different companies and they're color greens don't match. I suggested that they paint their colors on the sign and the parking pass if they want, but right in the middle put a box with the word GREEN. They said they'd think about it - and did nothing. The next year - same damn thing happened. (I tried my best, believe me.) This time I went to the parking office and screamed louder, making the same suggestion. They said they'd think about it - and did it! I don't know if I'm the only one who had the problem (I doubt it) or the only one who made the suggestion, but it gives me tremendous satisfaction to see those signs there with all the different shades of green and brown on them, but with GREEN and BROWN spelled out in the middle for the 20 or 25% percent of males who are color-deficient. Of course, Kalmus has actually changed its ways and is engraving its own editions, some of them actually respectable new editions and not stolen from anyone else. This has been the case for about the last 10 years, at least. Yes, the Master Music catalog has put out some nice, low-cost, quality editions of works that were formerely available only from high priced foreign sources. One dealer told me it was Kalmus's son, and he was interested in input as to what pieces to bring out. That was several years back, though. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question - now OT color-coding unfairness
On 3 Sep 2005 at 20:58, Raymond Horton wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: That would be Kalmus, of course. Ray adds: Thanks for the first part of that sentence, David. The of course was not appropriate in this instance, of course! I have played as many or more bad Kalmus editions as any one else on this list. . . . The quality of some Kalmus editions is quite high, because until the last decade or so, they were all reprints of someone else's edition, most public domain, but sometimes including foreign editions that are arguably still copyrighted. Kalmus purposely chose to occupy a gray area in regard to copyright, quite unlike Dover, who makes a point of acquiring permission when necessary and of explicitly acknowledging that they are reprinting an out-of-print and/or public domain edition, while also providing value added in the form of short commentaries, translation of supplementary matter and, in the cases of songs, often providing translations of the texts. Kalmus never did that kind of thing -- they just did photographic reprints. But now they do their own engraving and are becoming respectable. . . . Take a look at the bass trombone part to the Shostakovitch 1st for a real crime - whole passeges left out, and others written in the wrong octave by someone who couldn't figure out how to convert alto clef into bass. Why he/she didn't leave the passage in alto, I don't know. I never associated with Kalmus the color pink. My color-OK family members in the other room say they see other colors on the covers they have - green, etc. Well, that's not so much Kalmus's fault as the fault of the editors of whatever edition Kalmus reproduced. My guess it that Kalmus probably reprinted a Soviet edition, because for years Soviet copyrights were not respected in the West. I don't know the exact reasons for that -- perhaps the Soviet Union simply didn't sign the global copyright treaties. But the normal Kalmus edition did have pink covers, just as Peters/Hinrichsen has green covers and Schirmer the yellow covers with dark green ink. Well, I don't think there was any purpose served in color-encoding the references to publishers -- I was just following the practice already established, for humor's sake. Yes, I realized that. I really did not mean to sound like I was criticizing you in this instance, as the pink reference was very much in context (more in context if it was corrrect, I suppose, but, whatever...). Kalmus used pink covers, unquestionably. What's incorrect about it? It just that there are too many things in the world that are color-coded that don't have to be. As a computer programmer, I find color encoding extremely useful as a shorthand method for conveying useful information. I've never had any color-blind clients, so have never had any objections. A number of years ago, when my orchestra would do some rehearsals at the local large university (U. of Louisville) they would give us these parking passes that would have one shade of a color, supposedly green, on them. I would drive around until and hold the parking pass up next to sign until I found one that looked the same color, as far as I could tell. Then I would come back and find a ticket on my car because that wasn't green, it was brown or something. The supposedly green signs looked NOTHING like the shade of green on the parking pass they'd given me. I'd go to the parking office and complain until they would excuse the ticket. The problem was, they'd say, the parking passes and the signs are printed by two different companies and they're color greens don't match. I suggested that they paint their colors on the sign and the parking pass if they want, but right in the middle put a box with the word GREEN. They said they'd think about it - and did nothing. Well, that was a design error -- information conveyed by color ought to be also duplicated in text readable by those with difficulty distinguishing certain colors. [] Of course, Kalmus has actually changed its ways and is engraving its own editions, some of them actually respectable new editions and not stolen from anyone else. This has been the case for about the last 10 years, at least. Yes, the Master Music catalog has put out some nice, low-cost, quality editions of works that were formerely available only from high priced foreign sources. One dealer told me it was Kalmus's son, and he was interested in input as to what pieces to bring out. That was several years back, though. I know someone who did a lot of their engraving (using Score), and the results were quite beautiful (he had been an experienced hand copyist before taking up computer engraving and so the results he got were quite good). -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Re: [Finale] US copyright question - now OT color-coding unfairness
Raymond Horton wrote: ... it gives me tremendous satisfaction to see those signs there with all the different shades of green and brown on them, but with GREEN and BROWN spelled out in the middle for the 20 or 25% percent of males who are color-deficient. I meant to check that figure before I shot off the send button, because it sounded high even though it was the one rattling around in my head. In a quick Google the figure seems to hover at around 7% of men, ranging from a low of 5% to a high of 10%, but the 7% came from what looked like a more accurate source in a quick glance. I suddenly feel more lonely. RBH ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question - now OT color-coding unfairness
David W. Fenton wrote: The quality of some Kalmus editions is quite high, because until the last decade or so, they were all reprints of someone else's edition, most public domain, but sometimes including foreign editions that are arguably still copyrighted. ... Kalmus never did that kind of thing -- they just did photographic reprints. I was told by a teacher of mine, who was old enough to know ( whether he had any other qualifications I don't know), that Kalmus got his start by picking up huge quantities of music amid the destruction of WWII. He never engraved, only photographed. This was great, and terrible. It made huge libraries of great music available at low cost to us Yanks, but which was often reproduced at such small size, and at poor quality, with pencil markings left in for permanant posterity, etc. . The old, traditional Kalmus editions are looked on as one of those problems that orchestral players have to deal with. The only parts they dislike more are the old french parts with the backward quarter rests for eighth rests and other difficulties. . . . Take a look at the bass trombone part to the Shostakovitch 1st for a real crime - whole passeges left out, and others written in the wrong octave by someone who couldn't figure out how to convert alto clef into bass. Why he/she didn't leave the passage in alto, I don't know. ... Well, that's not so much Kalmus's fault as the fault of the editors of whatever edition Kalmus reproduced. My guess it that Kalmus probably reprinted a Soviet edition, because for years Soviet copyrights were not respected in the West... In this case, I believe it WAS Kalmus's fault. It appeared to me that K. had only snatched up the score and had the parts badly hand-copied on this side of the pond. (This would be an EXCELLENT candidate for Masters to issue.) But the normal Kalmus edition did have pink covers, just as Peters/Hinrichsen has green covers and Schirmer the yellow covers with dark green ink. David, you may realize at this point I don't really give a flying F what color the covers are. It doesn't help ID them for millions of us. Kalmus used pink covers, unquestionably. What's incorrect about it? I confuse pink with some other colors, but not green, and brown, which are some of the Kalmus scores I have in my possesion. I think that, and the fact that I already stated that two out of two musician members of my family said they have no recollection of pink being a dominant color of Kalmus scores, might start to add up. But have it your way, it if makes you happier - pink for Kalmus. My point is that calling out a color for a publisher wasn't an efficient way of ID'ing it, IMHO, especially if it isn't universal, and especially if millions of people wouldn't recognize the color, even if it was! It just that there are too many things in the world that are color-coded that don't have to be. As a computer programmer, I find color encoding extremely useful as a shorthand method for conveying useful information. I've never had any color-blind clients, so have never had any objections. Bully for you. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question - now OT color-coding unfairness
On 3 Sep 2005 at 22:57, Raymond Horton wrote: I confuse pink with some other colors, but not green, and brown, which are some of the Kalmus scores I have in my possesion. I think that, and the fact that I already stated that two out of two musician members of my family said they have no recollection of pink being a dominant color of Kalmus scores, might start to add up. But have it your way, it if makes you happier - pink for Kalmus. I had forgotten about the green Kalmus covers -- I never owned any of those myself, but did use many of them from teachers. Then there are the newer eggshell green glossy covers (the orchestral score series), and I'd forgotten about those. I have no memory of brown Kalmus scores. The pink Kalmus covers I had were all of Bach organ music, but only one of those volumes is on the bookshelf in the proper location. *sigh* I don't know how I manage to lose so much music over the years! But you're right -- Kalmus was not limited to to one color of cover. I just associate pink with Kalmus (although there's some German publisher that uses it, too). -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question - now editions
At 10:57 PM -0400 9/3/05, Raymond Horton wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: The quality of some Kalmus editions is quite high, because until the last decade or so, they were all reprints of someone else's edition, most public domain, but sometimes including foreign editions that are arguably still copyrighted. ... That is actually not surprising at all. Because U.S. copyright law was based on date of first publication, and most European law was based on the lifetime of the composer, a great many works were in copyright in Europe but in the public domain in the U.S. Not a grey area at all, just a matter of geography. And their new series of piano-vocal scores of Bach Cantatas is superbly done, beautiful illustration of good modern engraving, with updated and very fine English translations. Don't know whether they offer newly engraved orchestral parts, though. The old, traditional Kalmus editions are looked on as one of those problems that orchestral players have to deal with. The only parts they dislike more are the old french parts with the backward quarter rests for eighth rests and other difficulties. Actually it's backward eight rests for quarter rests. We ran into that with the Saint-Saëns A Minor Cello Concerto last spring. And in point of fact, the French rests are more true to the original Franconian rests from the 13th century (which is still no excuse!!). My guess it that Kalmus probably reprinted a Soviet edition, because for years Soviet copyrights were not respected in the West... ... which, as I understand it, was because the Soviet Union did not recognize or respect the copyright protection of other countries. Actually I don't think there were such things as Soviet copyrights, since nothing belonged to individuals but to the people (but were, of course, administered by party members representing the people!). 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] US copyright question - now editions
On 3 Sep 2005 at 23:34, John Howell wrote: At 10:57 PM -0400 9/3/05, Raymond Horton wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: The quality of some Kalmus editions is quite high, because until the last decade or so, they were all reprints of someone else's edition, most public domain, but sometimes including foreign editions that are arguably still copyrighted. ... That is actually not surprising at all. Because U.S. copyright law was based on date of first publication, and most European law was based on the lifetime of the composer, a great many works were in copyright in Europe but in the public domain in the U.S. Not a grey area at all, just a matter of geography. When the US joined the Berne convention, several Dover editions had to be discontinued. And their new series of piano-vocal scores of Bach Cantatas is superbly done, beautiful illustration of good modern engraving, with updated and very fine English translations. Don't know whether they offer newly engraved orchestral parts, though. The friend of mine was engraving piano music for them, so I don't know about orchestral music. [] My guess it that Kalmus probably reprinted a Soviet edition, because for years Soviet copyrights were not respected in the West... ... which, as I understand it, was because the Soviet Union did not recognize or respect the copyright protection of other countries. Actually I don't think there were such things as Soviet copyrights, since nothing belonged to individuals but to the people (but were, of course, administered by party members representing the people!). But I seem to remember that this changed in the early 70s or 80s, did it not? Because a lot of stuff that had previously been available suddenly became unavailable. Hmm, that time frame would suggest a connection to the US joining of the Berne Convention, which was 1978. I just know that there were things that had been available in inexpensive American editions that ended up being withdrawn and went out of print. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question
At 2:51 PM +0200 9/1/05, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Just out of curiosity, I am currently wondering whether a printed edition from 1978 in the US is still under copyright (for the printed edtion, not for the piece itself, which is from the 19th century)? If it carries a copyright notice, it is. From January 1,1978, copyright came automatically, like the dove descending, the moment a work existed in fixed form. And as of the same date, the length of protection changed from a fixed period from publication to life plus 50 years which has since been extended to almost obscene lengths. The copyright notice is not, strictly speaking still a legal requirement, so the failure to afix it does not mean that there is no copyright, but if it is there, copyright protection is in effect. However, even if the 1978 edition has its own new copyright, you are correct in assuming that the 19th century original remains in the public domain, and any number of new editions or arrangements may be made of it. 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] US copyright question
When, in response to Johannes' comment; Just out of curiosity, I am currently wondering whether a printed edition from 1978 in the US is still under copyright (for the printed edtion, not for the piece itself, which is from the 19th century)? Dr. Howell writes, If it carries a copyright notice, it is. my own personal experience prompts me to disagree. I own copies of two editions of the same item, one in the public domain in the U.S. by virtue of its age, the other a published, with a copyright notice from the early 1980's. A note by note, expression by expression comparison of the two editions shows that the copyright notice from the 1980's is most likely fraudulent, as the only difference between the two editions is the name of the arranger below the name of the original composer. I do not mean to suggest that this was a common practice, but I do mean to suggest that, in the case of older works, it may be prudent to take the time and effort to verify that the claim of copyright notice is, in fact, legitmately made. ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question
To my comment inspired by this part of Dr. Howell's post, If it carries a copyright notice, it is. specifically this bit my own personal experience prompts me to disagree. I intended merely to suggest that my experience is that the inclusion of a copyright notice on any item does not necessarily mean that the copyright notice is legitimate, or that it has been tested. In a court test, th copyright on the item I own almost not be sustained. ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] US copyright question
Just out of curiosity, I am currently wondering whether a printed edition from 1978 in the US is still under copyright (for the printed edtion, not for the piece itself, which is from the 19th century)? 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] US copyright question
At 08:51 AM 09/01/2005, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Just out of curiosity, I am currently wondering whether a printed edition from 1978 in the US is still under copyright (for the printed edtion, not for the piece itself, which is from the 19th century)? Yes. (Disclaimer: I'm not a copyright lawyer.) The best quick reference to US copyright is here: http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question
Johannes Gebauer wrote: Just out of curiosity, I am currently wondering whether a printed edition from 1978 in the US is still under copyright (for the printed edtion, not for the piece itself, which is from the 19th century)? Johannes If there was significant editorial input, it would be copyrighted. If it was originally copyrighted in 1978, it will remain copyrighted until 70 years following the death of the person who registered the copyright. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question
A bit more comprehensive answer to what Johannes Gebauer wrote, than what I've seen thus far: Just out of curiosity, I am currently wondering whether a printed edition from 1978 in the US is still under copyright (for the printed edtion, not for the piece itself, which is from the 19th century)? While there is, in Europe, the concept of a typgraphical copyright, wherein the layout of a work on the page is eligible for a separate, and generally shorter copyright, than the composer's right, there is no such concept in the U.S. Only content is eligible for copyright protection. A piece published in the 19th century is in the public domain. If, however, an editor in 1978 added new content to the work, correcting printer's errors, or other obvious errors in the original, or by adding performance indications, for example, adding the indications needed to adapt a work originally conceived for a three manual organ, to a two manual one, of by arranging it for a novel combination of instruments, as for example, by adapting the a Bach Prelude and Fugue for organ for brass quartet. So, if you have access to an original of the edition, and can determine what editorial content may have been added and restore the original, there is no copyright, and in the U.S., if you make a different arrangement, (taking the same Bach PF and arranging it for woodwind quartet, instead of Brass quartet), you can claim a copyright on that for yourself. There is little case or statutory law to define how much editorial content justifies a new copyright; I've seen copyright claimed for eliminating one stanza of a hymn text, I've seen it claimed for re-voicing a single chord, as for example, in a C major chord, where the tenors sang middle c, and the altos, the e third above, exchanging the notes. I am inclined to think that neither of these claims to copyright would withstand a legal challenge. ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
