Copyright, was [Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ;-)]
You need an international copyright lawyer. This is a fraught topic. On list email, I recently set up a big sophisticated mail server to support GNU Mailman 3 mailing lists, and moved an archive from a previous list with 100,000 posts across. Extensive discussion with my colleagues in that project revealed that, surprising to me, it appears to be the legal consensus that the poster of the email owns the post and its material in a strong sense, and posts are not the property of the list or the list owner,. and that duplicating posts for archival purposes can therefore be in violation of various parts of copyright and intellectual property law, and the whole business is a nightmare. Going against this however is the norm that I think most members of mailing lists like my harpsichord list and this lilypond list feel that their posts become 'public domain', meaning not subject to copyright, as the intention generally is to share and discuss. I am in Australia, and our copyright/IP law is different to the US, and to Europe, so I cant really comment any more. But this appears to be an infinitely deep rabbit burrow to explore. Looking at the spirit of sharing, I feel pretty sure that people who contribute to openlilylib, and to LSR, and who post code snippets and solutions here on this list intend these works to be shared and used by all, despite what the letter of the (internationally varying) law may be. Andrew
Re: Copyright, was [Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ;-)]
though I generally loathe such usage terms, wouldn't some clause in the list's ToS to the effect that use of the list grants some nonexclusive but unrestricted right to copy/use that material alleviate these concerns? Those kinds of clauses are part of every online email service, for example (since the servers make multiple copies of your message as the send/store it), and most online services. as usual, ianal, etc etc. Cheers, A On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 9:05 AM Andrew Bernard wrote: > You need an international copyright lawyer. This is a fraught topic. > > On list email, I recently set up a big sophisticated mail server to > support GNU Mailman 3 mailing lists, and moved an archive from a previous > list with 100,000 posts across. Extensive discussion with my colleagues in > that project revealed that, surprising to me, it appears to be the legal > consensus that the poster of the email owns the post and its material in a > strong sense, and posts are not the property of the list or the list > owner,. and that duplicating posts for archival purposes can therefore be > in violation of various parts of copyright and intellectual property law, > and the whole business is a nightmare. Going against this however is the > norm that I think most members of mailing lists like my harpsichord list > and this lilypond list feel that their posts become 'public domain', > meaning not subject to copyright, as the intention generally is to share > and discuss. > > I am in Australia, and our copyright/IP law is different to the US, and to > Europe, so I cant really comment any more. But this appears to be an > infinitely deep rabbit burrow to explore. > > Looking at the spirit of sharing, I feel pretty sure that people who > contribute to openlilylib, and to LSR, and who post code snippets and > solutions here on this list intend these works to be shared and used by > all, despite what the letter of the (internationally varying) law may be. > > > Andrew > >
Re: Copyright, was [Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ;-)]
Perhaps we need a "graffiti law" -- that anything written in a public place or on someone else's property becomes the property of the public, or owner respectively. Otherwise what right do owners have to clean graffiti off their buildings? Dick S. On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 4:06 AM Andrew Bernard wrote: > You need an international copyright lawyer. This is a fraught topic. > > On list email, I recently set up a big sophisticated mail server to > support GNU Mailman 3 mailing lists, and moved an archive from a previous > list with 100,000 posts across. Extensive discussion with my colleagues in > that project revealed that, surprising to me, it appears to be the legal > consensus that the poster of the email owns the post and its material in a > strong sense, and posts are not the property of the list or the list > owner,. and that duplicating posts for archival purposes can therefore be > in violation of various parts of copyright and intellectual property law, > and the whole business is a nightmare. Going against this however is the > norm that I think most members of mailing lists like my harpsichord list > and this lilypond list feel that their posts become 'public domain', > meaning not subject to copyright, as the intention generally is to share > and discuss. > > I am in Australia, and our copyright/IP law is different to the US, and to > Europe, so I cant really comment any more. But this appears to be an > infinitely deep rabbit burrow to explore. > > Looking at the spirit of sharing, I feel pretty sure that people who > contribute to openlilylib, and to LSR, and who post code snippets and > solutions here on this list intend these works to be shared and used by > all, despite what the letter of the (internationally varying) law may be. > > > Andrew > > -- Dick Seabrook Anne Arundel Community College http://vader.aacc.edu/~rhs Speed the Net!
Re: Copyright, was [Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ;-)]
Yes, ... international copyright lawyer required for even such a simple thing. In many cases it may be better to put nothing - as the GNU lists do - and let national law deal with problems and interpretation. Whatever you put, some jurisdiction somewhere will find it to be in error, and that just causes headaches. But I really don't think there is an issue with this list. The topic only arose due to what I consider strange comments about the GPL licence for software (not music). Interestingly, Google states: https://policies.google.com/terms?hl=en Some of our Services allow you to upload, submit, store, send or receive content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours. And then they go on to point out the can make derivative works and do what they pretty well much like with your content in the next paragraph, exactly as you say. Andrew On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 22:37, N. Andrew Walsh wrote: > though I generally loathe such usage terms, wouldn't some clause in the > list's ToS to the effect that use of the list grants some nonexclusive but > unrestricted right to copy/use that material alleviate these concerns? > Those kinds of clauses are part of every online email service, for example > (since the servers make multiple copies of your message as the send/store > it), and most online services. >
Re: Copyright, was [Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ; -)]
Dick Seabrook writes: > Perhaps we need a "graffiti law" -- that anything written in a public place > or on > someone else's property becomes the property of the public, or owner > respectively. > Otherwise what right do owners have to clean graffiti off their buildings? You are confusing ownership of the medium with copyright over the content. Cleaning graffiti off a building is exercising control over the medium in your possession. Selling postcards of your building prominently featuring the graffiti is creating copies of the content: that would be problematic since it is solely the privilege of the copyright holder. Breaking the wall into pieces of graffiti you sell is "first sale": lawfully disposing of the medium containing the "legally" acquired authorized copy (the author chose to put it there, and you did not commit any illegal act for getting it there I assume, like holding a gun to their head) in your possession. -- David Kastrup
