Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
>>> Yeah, but that's what gives our mailing lists this particular >>> charming je-ne-sais-quoi isn't it? :-) >> >> That's what you get when you-know-who starts it. :-) > > I didn't. :-) Werner ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
Jan Nieuwenhuizen writes: > Op woensdag 24-02-2010 om 01:08 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Valentin > Villenave: >> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Graham Percival >> wrote: > >> Yeah, but that's what gives our mailing lists this particular charming >> je-ne-sais-quoi isn't it? :-) > > That's what you get when you-know-who starts it. :-) I didn't. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
Op woensdag 24-02-2010 om 01:08 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Valentin Villenave: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Graham Percival > wrote: > Yeah, but that's what gives our mailing lists this particular charming > je-ne-sais-quoi isn't it? :-) That's what you get when you-know-who starts it. :-) Greetings, Jan. -- Jan Nieuwenhuizen | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter Avatar®: http://AvatarAcademy.nl| http://lilypond.org ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
Valentin Villenave wrote: > Indeed. Similarly, WWI is said to have ended in 1921... go figure. Another amusing tale here. I'm from a part of Wales called Monmouthshire; but this is border country, and historically there was an extended period of ambiguity (from about the 1600s to the 20th century) about whether it was considered part of Wales or of England. It was quite common for laws to be declared as applying to 'Wales and Monmouthsire'. Anyway, allegedly, the text of the declaration of war in 1914 referred to 'England, Wales, and Monmouthsire', while the peace treaty signed at Versailles only referred to England and Wales -- technically leaving Monmouthshire and Germany still at war. A friend in the local town council tells me that this oversight was finally rectified only in 1998. When I was at school there (pre-1998...) we used to have a regular exchange with a German gymnasium, where the school orchestra would go over and perform concerts for them. If this wasn't a continuation of hostilities, I don't know what was ... I just hope this doesn't mean that copyright in Monmouthshire is 80 years behind the times ... :-) ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 9:31 AM, Arthur Reutenauer wrote: > Plus, maybe, ten years for WWII? Which, for some reason, French copyright > law believes to have started on January 1st, 1939, and ended on December 31st, > 1948... Indeed. Similarly, WWI is said to have ended in 1921... go figure. Cheers, Valentin ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
> In addition to the death of the author, one have to take the editior's > year into account. Plus, maybe, ten years for WWII? Which, for some reason, French copyright law believes to have started on January 1st, 1939, and ended on December 31st, 1948... Arthur ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
Valentin Villenave wrote: > US-printed scores where still illegal in France when I was a student > (that means less than a decade ago). Our teachers had to smuggle these > when they went on holiday in the US... 1918 + 90 years = 2008, so makes sense ... > In addition to the death of the author, one have to take the editior's > year into account. Debussy might well be legally usable now, but we > certainly do not want to take any chances (let alone *truly* > contemporary composers such as Satie or Ravel, these guys you > definitely don't want to mess with). It's been interesting watching the things that have been happening with Henle Urtext, who have been bringing out editions of relatively contemporary works in the last few years (Berg Piano Sonata and Four Pieces for Clarinet); of course, in Europe, 1935 + 70 years = ... Alas for them, their Finale-engraved score of the latter is far less attractive than the old-style engraving of the edition still published by UE. :-P Amusingly, they have also brought out an edition of Debussy's Etudes, complete with a beautiful trilingual print of the foreword where Debussy explains very wittily why fingerings are not provided in the work, and the benefits of finding one's own fingerings; and then you turn the page and see the work itself -- an Urtext edition, a faithful reproduction of the composer's intended text! -- replete with editorially-added fingerings as per Henle's house style. ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Joseph Wakeling wrote: > Oh Gawd. Really? Where on earth is he still in copyright? US-printed scores where still illegal in France when I was a student (that means less than a decade ago). Our teachers had to smuggle these when they went on holiday in the US... > Even in the US (90 years after death) copyright should have expired by > now, no? Or is the worry that another 10+ year extension will be put in > place before the decade is out? In addition to the death of the author, one have to take the editior's year into account. Debussy might well be legally usable now, but we certainly do not want to take any chances (let alone *truly* contemporary composers such as Satie or Ravel, these guys you definitely don't want to mess with). Cheers, Valentin ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
Graham Percival wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Hans Aberg wrote: >> RMS says he thinks it is better using artificial examples, not risking a >> lawsuit when it is so easy to avoid and still have good results. > > 1) I don't care what RMS says. Though in this case his comment is apt, and provides a good justification for your points (2) and (3) :-) ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
Valentin Villenave wrote: > Certainly not. Even Debussy got banned from our docs, for GNU's sake! Oh Gawd. Really? Where on earth is he still in copyright? Even in the US (90 years after death) copyright should have expired by now, no? Or is the worry that another 10+ year extension will be put in place before the decade is out? ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Graham Percival wrote: > 1) I don't care what RMS says. You know you do :) > 2) We were *never* going to use a Stockhausen example in the lilypond > docs anyway. Certainly not. Even Debussy got banned from our docs, for GNU's sake! > 3) This whole thread is stupid and pointless and stupid. Yeah, but that's what gives our mailing lists this particular charming je-ne-sais-quoi isn't it? :-) Cheers, Valentin ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
Lilyponds marketing-strategy is "It looks better than any other computergenerated notation" so people want to see this in the examples. Whatever the examples are, artifical, public domain or latest hollywood soundtrack, the way these examples get meaning is to show them between Finale, Sibelius, Capella, NtEd, Noteedit and Canorus screenshots to show that they look better. If not make it better :) Nils On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:27:31 -0500 Kieren MacMillan wrote: > > 3) This whole thread is stupid and pointless and stupid. > > Ah... but was it also pointless? > um... the second time... > > ;) > Kieren. > > > ___ > lilypond-devel mailing list > lilypond-devel@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel > ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
> 3) This whole thread is stupid and pointless and stupid. Ah... but was it also pointless? um... the second time... ;) Kieren. ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Hans Aberg wrote: > RMS says he thinks it is better using artificial examples, not risking a > lawsuit when it is so easy to avoid and still have good results. 1) I don't care what RMS says. 2) We were *never* going to use a Stockhausen example in the lilypond docs anyway. 3) This whole thread is stupid and pointless and stupid. - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
RMS says he thinks it is better using artificial examples, not risking a lawsuit when it is so easy to avoid and still have good results. Hans ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
On 23 Feb 2010, at 03:08, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote: Sorry, guys, but isn't this discussion drifting into the wrong direction? The original post was about the GERMAN wikipedia example, so I don't see where Canadian copyright law comes into play. He is worrying about what happens when he views it in Canada. With German pages, one can argue that they are intended for a German- speaking audience[*], so at most Austrian, Swiss and German copyright law is relevant. ([*] That's what the copyright lawyer told us in the law course (for law students!) on austrian copyright law, which I took last year...) Strictly speaking it depends on were the server is, because for example the Austrian authorities can do nothing about it if it is in say the US. The situation is complicated if the server has is distributed, having automated mirrors in different countries, and it may difficult and impossible to know from where the stuff was downloaded. They can go after Austrians, but in is not practical in police enforcing terms. Hans ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
On 23 Feb 2010, at 02:15, Graham Percival wrote: You have the law here: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-42/page-3.html#anchorbo-ga:l_III- gb:s_29 ... How seriously have you read the act? So I have at least checked the relevant section. Unless the government of Canada webservers are giving me a different HTML file than you, your "checking" is flawed. In that location, I see: Research or private study 29. Criticism or review 29.1 News reporting 29.2 then there are additional exemptions for education institutions, libraries, archives, and museums, etc. We are not doing research or private study. We are not doing criticism or review. We are not doing news reporting. We are not an educational institution or library. What's so hard to understand? You need to interpret it. If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing#Canada the Supreme Court says in 1 that "lawyers carrying on the business of law for profit are conducting research" It is your interpretation that providing examples for private study - learning the works of LilyPond - ins't private study. The normal thing is to interpret copyright law as a business law - there has to be some kind of real or potential infringement. Laws of free communication are precedes. The law itself says nothing about that. But you can see that in points 6 and 5. Hans ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
Am Dienstag, 23. Februar 2010 02:15:55 schrieb Graham Percival:
> Unless the government of Canada webservers are giving me a
> different HTML file than you, your "checking" is flawed.
[...]
> We are not doing research or private study. We are not doing
> criticism or review. We are not doing news reporting. We are not
> an educational institution or library.
Sorry, guys, but isn't this discussion drifting into the wrong direction? The
original post was about the GERMAN wikipedia example, so I don't see where
Canadian copyright law comes into play.
With German pages, one can argue that they are intended for a German-speaking
audience[*], so at most Austrian, Swiss and German copyright law is relevant.
([*] That's what the copyright lawyer told us in the law course (for law
students!) on austrian copyright law, which I took last year...)
In Austrian Copyright law (UrhG) there is a section concerning quotations, and
one can very well argue that the use on wikipedia fulfills the requirements:
"§ 46. Zulässig sind die Vervielfältigung und die Verbreitung sowie der
öffentliche Vortrag, die Rundfunksendung und die öffentliche
Zurverfügungstellung:
1. wenn einzelne Stellen eines veröffentlichten Sprachwerkes angeführt
werden;"
translated:
"§ 46. Permitted are the reproduction and dissemination as well as the
public lecture, the broadcasting and public provision:
1. when individual short passages of a published literary work are
given;"
("einzelne Stellen" ~ "single spots" means only some short passages, not whole
chapters, etc. The Stockhausen example is definitely a "einzelne Stelle")
Unfortunately, §2 of the UrhG doesn't explicitly say that music counts as
"literary work", but the headline says that the law is for literary works,
music, fine arts and for films. §2 then goes on to define "literary works",
"fine arts" and "films", but leaves out musical art. However, one can also
well argue that music art does not fulfill the definitions of fine arts and
films, and thus best fits into "literary works" (which includes even computer
programs, as the law explicitly mentions!).
So, according to Austrian law, I would tend to say that the Stockhausen
excerpt is okay. I don't know any particularities of German copyright law,
though. And German law is definitely more important for the German wikipedia
than Austrian law.
Cheers,
Reinhold
--
--
Reinhold Kainhofer, reinh...@kainhofer.com, http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/
* Financial & Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria
* http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886
* LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 03:59:04PM +0100, Hans Aberg wrote: > On 22 Feb 2010, at 15:26, Graham Percival wrote: > >>> Read it yourself. Does the use affect the market of the original >>> work? >>> That would suffice, as copyright law is essentially a business law. >> >> No. Fair dealing under Canadian law is not a matter of "satisfy >> any one requirement". It's "satisfy all requirements". > > You have the law here: > http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-42/page-3.html#anchorbo-ga:l_III- > gb:s_29 ... >> How seriously have you read the act? > > So I have at least checked the relevant section. Unless the government of Canada webservers are giving me a different HTML file than you, your "checking" is flawed. In that location, I see: Research or private study 29. Criticism or review 29.1 News reporting 29.2 then there are additional exemptions for education institutions, libraries, archives, and museums, etc. We are not doing research or private study. We are not doing criticism or review. We are not doing news reporting. We are not an educational institution or library. What's so hard to understand? - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
On 22 Feb 2010, at 15:26, Graham Percival wrote: "The fair dealing clauses[1] of the Canadian Copyright Act allow users to engage in certain activities relating to research, private study, criticism, review, or news reporting." Read it yourself. Does the use affect the market of the original work? That would suffice, as copyright law is essentially a business law. No. Fair dealing under Canadian law is not a matter of "satisfy any one requirement". It's "satisfy all requirements". You have the law here: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-42/page-3.html#anchorbo-ga:l_III- gb:s_29 You do not have to qualify for all conditions, in my reading. Your reading is incorrect. Or possibly the wikipedia page is incorrect. The law lists some exceptions; if one is met, this section applies. Then the Supreme Court gives a ruling as an input how to evaluate those. These are though not legal rules or conditions that must all be met - the page does not specify how the evaluation should take place, and also notes that other factors may be relevant. It belongs to the interpretation of the law. I've spent about 10 hours reading the Canadian copyright act (in addition to about 20 hours reading commentary on webpages). No, that's not a lot -- but at least that gives me *some* first-hand knowledge of it. The problem is that the law must be interpreted, and that is done against priniples that may not be in the law. How seriously have you read the act? So I have at least checked the relevant section. Hans ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 01:49:24PM +0100, Bertalan Fodor (LilyPondTool) wrote: > Why not ask for rights from Stockhausen's copyright owner? If you want to ask them to place it under the GNU FDL or creative commons -- both of which imply **unlimited and unhindered** distribution -- go ahead. I can't imagine that they would accept, though. But why would you bother?! I mean, is the lilypond community seriously so uncreative that we cannot add colors to an existing example!?!? If true, that's pretty sad. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 12:55:01PM +0100, Hans Aberg wrote: > On 22 Feb 2010, at 11:50, Graham Percival wrote: > >> "The fair dealing clauses[1] of the Canadian Copyright Act allow users >> to engage in certain activities relating to research, private study, >> criticism, review, or news reporting." > > Read it yourself. Does the use affect the market of the original work? > That would suffice, as copyright law is essentially a business law. No. Fair dealing under Canadian law is not a matter of "satisfy any one requirement". It's "satisfy all requirements". > You do not have to qualify for all conditions, in my reading. Your reading is incorrect. Or possibly the wikipedia page is incorrect. I've spent about 10 hours reading the Canadian copyright act (in addition to about 20 hours reading commentary on webpages). No, that's not a lot -- but at least that gives me *some* first-hand knowledge of it. How seriously have you read the act? Here's the official version: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/index.html - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
Why not ask for rights from Stockhausen's copyright owner? I would try: m...@stockhausen.org Anyway, the fact that the example is an SVG is not too good: it has problems displaying the tuplet numbers, and a pp. ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
On 22 Feb 2010, at 13:32, Johannes Schindelin wrote: I repeat: there is no way that our use of Stockhausen would qualify as "fair dealing" under Canadian copyright law. I cannot speak to copyright law in Germany, Sweden, or other jurisdictions. So what makes you so sure. Is that what a copyright lawyer has told you? Hans, are you a copyright lawyer, ... No. ...willing to give legal advice here, for free? But I haven't made a claim what I think has that status. I sent an meial, trying to clarify with those that do. Whatever your answer, I think that settles that. So your claim is that copyright issues should only be discussed by copyright lawyers? Then it will be hard to write copyright notices and such, and even for the general public to take it into account. Hans ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
Hi, On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Hans Aberg wrote: > On 22 Feb 2010, at 11:50, Graham Percival wrote: > > >I repeat: there is no way that our use of Stockhausen would qualify as > >"fair dealing" under Canadian copyright law. I cannot speak to > >copyright law in Germany, Sweden, or other jurisdictions. > > So what makes you so sure. Is that what a copyright lawyer has told you? Hans, are you a copyright lawyer, willing to give legal advice here, for free? Whatever your answer, I think that settles that. Ciao, Dscho ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
On 22 Feb 2010, at 11:50, Graham Percival wrote: That said, I can't see how using that exerpt could possibly qualify under Canada's "fair dealing" provisions in the copyright act. Distributing that de.wikipedia.org page in Canada would thus constitute an infringement of copyright. Since it is a small snippet, not affecting the commercial value of the original work, it should be acceptable also under Canada's "fair dealing" interpretation by its Suporeme Court: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing#Canada Please read that webpage. "The fair dealing clauses[1] of the Canadian Copyright Act allow users to engage in certain activities relating to research, private study, criticism, review, or news reporting." We are not doing research, private study, criticism, review, or news reporting about Stockhausen. The context is advertising or documentation for an open-source project. There is **no** provision for Canadian fair dealing for such usage. Even if our use somehow qualified as "research" -- which it emphatically does *not* -- then we'd fail on the "alternatives to the dealing". Was there "a non-copyrighted equivalent of the work" available? Certainly. It would take me 15 minutes to write some music which showed the same typographical features of the Stockenhausen, without infringing on that copyright. Read it yourself. Does the use affect the market of the original work? That would suffice, as copyright law is essentially a business law. But it is also a small snippet. And possibly: purpose is private study. You do not have to qualify for all conditions, in my reading. I repeat: there is no way that our use of Stockhausen would qualify as "fair dealing" under Canadian copyright law. I cannot speak to copyright law in Germany, Sweden, or other jurisdictions. So what makes you so sure. Is that what a copyright lawyer has told you? The official LilyPond documentation should not include any material which infringes on copyright in any country. Formally, you only have to comply with the local copyright law. What is the "local copyright law"? Is it Canada, where I wrote most of the docs? Is it the UK, where I currently reside? Is it the Netherlands, which is where Han-Wen and Jan are from? Is it from America, where the webserver might reside? (I don't know where it is) The country from which it is distributed. If that country in the trade war against the US declares that it will no longer acknowledge US copyright (I forget the country, but they're talking about this), then can I (legally) download any Hollywood movies I want from servers in that country? I don't think so. It is up to you to decide, but they cannot go after those that distribute it. There was a case where material distributed from Russia was taken up in New York, but it would mean that US law would be applicable for activities done in Russia - and the vice versa, which is why no country would admit it. In addition to distributing the webpages ourselves, a number of people redistribute the lilypond docs; I don't think we should try getting Debian in trouble by including any copyright-infringing material. It is really up to them to learn about their local copyright law and make sure they comply. We're not in the business of making it hard for linux distributions to supply lilypond to their users. That's precisely why we're keeping legally questionable material out of our documentation. They only need to know what is valid in their country. In worst case, they could put a link for the docs. It is quite impossible for anyhow to know and follow the copyright laws in all the about 200 countries in the world. Hans ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: > Op maandag 22-02-2010 om 10:36 uur [tijdzone +], schreef Graham > Percival: > >> Maybe I'm missing something, but I see nothing in that Stockhausen >> example that isn't covered by Trevor Baca's example: >> http://lilypond.org/~graham/website/examples.html > > The colours! Wow, that never crossed my mind. Good point! Our Examples page has red lines for Gregorian, but it would be nice to add some more. I think they would fit best in the educational application. Or maybe the Schenkerian analysis? Added as http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1018 Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
Op maandag 22-02-2010 om 10:36 uur [tijdzone +], schreef Graham Percival: > Maybe I'm missing something, but I see nothing in that Stockhausen > example that isn't covered by Trevor Baca's example: > http://lilypond.org/~graham/website/examples.html The colours! Jan. -- Jan Nieuwenhuizen | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter Avatar®: http://AvatarAcademy.nl| http://lilypond.org ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Hans Aberg wrote: > > On 22 Feb 2010, at 04:26, Graham Percival wrote: > >> That said, I can't see how using that exerpt could possibly >> qualify under Canada's "fair dealing" provisions in the copyright >> act. Distributing that de.wikipedia.org page in Canada would thus >> constitute an infringement of copyright. > > Since it is a small snippet, not affecting the commercial value of the > original work, it should be acceptable also under Canada's "fair dealing" > interpretation by its Suporeme Court: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing#Canada Please read that webpage. "The fair dealing clauses[1] of the Canadian Copyright Act allow users to engage in certain activities relating to research, private study, criticism, review, or news reporting." We are not doing research, private study, criticism, review, or news reporting about Stockhausen. The context is advertising or documentation for an open-source project. There is **no** provision for Canadian fair dealing for such usage. Even if our use somehow qualified as "research" -- which it emphatically does *not* -- then we'd fail on the "alternatives to the dealing". Was there "a non-copyrighted equivalent of the work" available? Certainly. It would take me 15 minutes to write some music which showed the same typographical features of the Stockenhausen, without infringing on that copyright. I repeat: there is no way that our use of Stockhausen would qualify as "fair dealing" under Canadian copyright law. I cannot speak to copyright law in Germany, Sweden, or other jurisdictions. >> The official LilyPond documentation >> should not include any material which infringes on copyright in >> any country. > > Formally, you only have to comply with the local copyright law. What is the "local copyright law"? Is it Canada, where I wrote most of the docs? Is it the UK, where I currently reside? Is it the Netherlands, which is where Han-Wen and Jan are from? Is it from America, where the webserver might reside? (I don't know where it is) If that country in the trade war against the US declares that it will no longer acknowledge US copyright (I forget the country, but they're talking about this), then can I (legally) download any Hollywood movies I want from servers in that country? I don't think so. >> In addition to distributing the webpages ourselves, >> a number of people redistribute the lilypond docs; I don't think >> we should try getting Debian in trouble by including any >> copyright-infringing material. > > It is really up to them to learn about their local copyright law and make > sure they comply. We're not in the business of making it hard for linux distributions to supply lilypond to their users. That's precisely why we're keeping legally questionable material out of our documentation. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: > Op maandag 22-02-2010 om 07:58 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Werner > LEMBERG: >> > In answer to any question about using such examples in the LilyPond >> > documentation: The official LilyPond documentation should not >> > include any material which infringes on copyright in any country. >> >> I fully support this point of view. > > Right - however, I think the example is very nice and it may not > be difficult to totally de-Stockhausen it, while keeping its > attractiveness. Hmm, does Stockhausen have a free work that > we can cite? Maybe I'm missing something, but I see nothing in that Stockhausen example that isn't covered by Trevor Baca's example: http://lilypond.org/~graham/website/examples.html ... wait, correction: the Stockhausen uses pedals, which are not covered anywhere in our examples. Still, if we desperately want to demonstrate pedals, I'm certain that we can find other material for that. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
On 22 Feb 2010, at 04:26, Graham Percival wrote: see the german wikipedia http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/LilyPond too bad it's under dispute. Is it? I don't see such a remark. It is only stated that the picture shows copyrighted material which can only be cited legally as a very small snippet. I can't read German, or speak about German copyright law. And for that matter, I'm not a trained lawyer in Canadian law (or anywhere else). This email does not constitute legal advice. That said, I can't see how using that exerpt could possibly qualify under Canada's "fair dealing" provisions in the copyright act. Distributing that de.wikipedia.org page in Canada would thus constitute an infringement of copyright. Since it is a small snippet, not affecting the commercial value of the original work, it should be acceptable also under Canada's "fair dealing" interpretation by its Suporeme Court: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing#Canada In answer to any question about using such examples in the LilyPond documentation (Jan and Werner haven't raised the issue, but I'm certain that many readers will be wondering about this), my position has not changed: The official LilyPond documentation should not include any material which infringes on copyright in any country. Formally, you only have to comply with the local copyright law. In addition to distributing the webpages ourselves, a number of people redistribute the lilypond docs; I don't think we should try getting Debian in trouble by including any copyright-infringing material. It is really up to them to learn about their local copyright law and make sure they comply. If they distribute it from the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use You may not want to use such examples, though for other reasons. Hans ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 10:23:37 +0100, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: Op maandag 22-02-2010 om 07:58 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Werner LEMBERG: > In answer to any question about using such examples in the LilyPond > documentation: The official LilyPond documentation should not > include any material which infringes on copyright in any country. I fully support this point of view. Right - however, I think the example is very nice and it may not be difficult to totally de-Stockhausen it, while keeping its attractiveness. Hmm, does Stockhausen have a free work that we can cite? Jan. Very unlikely. I can offer to donate something similar to Cage's "Cheap Imitation" in the case of Satie's Socrate... Arno -- http://www.facebook.com/waschk ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
Op maandag 22-02-2010 om 07:58 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Werner LEMBERG: > > In answer to any question about using such examples in the LilyPond > > documentation: The official LilyPond documentation should not > > include any material which infringes on copyright in any country. > > I fully support this point of view. Right - however, I think the example is very nice and it may not be difficult to totally de-Stockhausen it, while keeping its attractiveness. Hmm, does Stockhausen have a free work that we can cite? Jan. -- Jan Nieuwenhuizen | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter Avatar®: http://AvatarAcademy.nl| http://lilypond.org ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
> In answer to any question about using such examples in the LilyPond > documentation (Jan and Werner haven't raised the issue, but I'm > certain that many readers will be wondering about this), my position > has not changed: The official LilyPond documentation should not > include any material which infringes on copyright in any country. > In addition to distributing the webpages ourselves, a number of > people redistribute the lilypond docs; I don't think we should try > getting Debian in trouble by including any copyright-infringing > material. I fully support this point of view. Werner ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 01:41:33AM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > > see the german wikipedia > > > > http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/LilyPond > > > > too bad it's under dispute. > > Is it? I don't see such a remark. It is only stated that the picture > shows copyrighted material which can only be cited legally as a very > small snippet. I can't read German, or speak about German copyright law. And for that matter, I'm not a trained lawyer in Canadian law (or anywhere else). This email does not constitute legal advice. That said, I can't see how using that exerpt could possibly qualify under Canada's "fair dealing" provisions in the copyright act. Distributing that de.wikipedia.org page in Canada would thus constitute an infringement of copyright. (or rather, if the server and client were both in Canada, it would be an infringment. I don't know -- and I'm pretty certain that nobody *else* in the world does, either -- how precisely the legal jurisdiction applies when doing this between different countries over the internet) Please note that I'm **not** claiming that I believe the current Canadian law to be reasonable, moral, or fair. I'm also not claiming that anybody has a moral duty to follow any country's laws, irrespective of whether or not they are a citizen of that country. In answer to any question about using such examples in the LilyPond documentation (Jan and Werner haven't raised the issue, but I'm certain that many readers will be wondering about this), my position has not changed: The official LilyPond documentation should not include any material which infringes on copyright in any country. In addition to distributing the webpages ourselves, a number of people redistribute the lilypond docs; I don't think we should try getting Debian in trouble by including any copyright-infringing material. I naturally cannot stop anybody else from tempting fate -- if somebody created a webpage with material which they believed to be morally ok (such as 4 bars of Stockhausen's Kavlierstuck II), more power to them. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
> see the german wikipedia > > http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/LilyPond > > too bad it's under dispute. Is it? I don't see such a remark. It is only stated that the picture shows copyrighted material which can only be cited legally as a very small snippet. Werner ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
