Re: Solfege Resources -- 404 bach chorales in Lilypond format with Movable Do solfege.

[Phil Hézaine]

Le 03/01/2011 19:28, Michael Ellis a écrit :
> Mike, Graham, Henning,
> 
> Thanks again, it's all good discussion.  For the time being, I've altered
> the home page on the solfege-resources site to offer two choices of License,
> namely Free Art license in addition to CC BY-NC-AS.  I've also added a
> couple paragraphs explaining my understanding of U.S. copyright law and
> urging users to accept the CC license with commercial restriction in honor
> of Margaret GreenTree's patient labor while acknowledging that patient labor
> in itself may not create copyrightable work and therefore offering also the
> Free Art option.   I realize that it may all be legally meaningless,  but it
> seems as I close as I can come for the moment to balancing the various legal
> and ethical  considerations.
> 
> I've still not heard from her.  Hopefully she's just on vacation and will
> eventually reply.
> 
> I'm still open to replacing the notation in the Bach Chorales with Phil's
> work and offering those under Free Art license only.  (Phil, if you will
> send me a gmail address (needed by googlecode.com), I will authorize it for
> commit privileges on the site).   But please hold off from making extensive
> changes as I'd like to revise the lilypond files to achieve even greater
> separation between the notation and the output.  

   (skip)
> Cheers,
> Mike

Hi Mike,

You've already burst the 2011's starting blocks and you carries on with
taking a corner at top speed. ;-)
At this rate I can't follow you without finishing in a nest of cuckoos
(or, better, in a cuckoo clock). ;-) ;-)
I like very much your enthusiam, one cannot do great things without it,
but may be you misunderstood my solidarity.
Don't be hurted but I was not planning to edit the site.
My plans with the 371 chorales are "a groß travail" and I don't want add
more that I was fixing for myself.
My plans are as follows:
In a first wave I'll like to release a book in several parts, depending
of the spacing issues, you know, this famous problem which users and
devs are always fighting with and which is not an own Lilypond's issue.
By the way I'm currently wondering whether the duplicate chorales in
Breikopf's edition was a workaround about it. Possibly. Then it is an
well-known problem.
With this release you'll get all the separate files for the chorales
(the duplicates will be pointed out) under a Free Art license (*). Then
you could make anything you want with them and, from my point of view,
it would be a lot easier for students, musicologists... to check and
understand the Margaret's work and to form an opinion if you format my
free work as you did for Margaret Gentree. By the way don't forget she
has edited corrected chorales and also chorales with instrumental parts
which doesn't exist in Breitkopf.

In a second wave I'll like to re-use and reorganize the free sources to
release a book untitled very pompously (but it might change, it's just a
poetic idea):

J.S.Bach Chorales. Studies of anamorphosis.
(In fact, to juxtapose the same themes of chorales).

As you can see there is a "groß travail" to do, but be sure if you have
problems with my files I do everything one possibly can to help you
and facilitate your formatting. It's the meaning of my solidarity.
I hope you are not upset.

(*) I realize I forgot the tagline in my template. I have to add it.
Following a recent discussion on lilypond-fr where Valentin told about
photocopies of sheet music, I think I'll add this in the tagline
(without the capitals):

Copyleft: cette oeuvre est libre, vous pouvez la copier, la PHOTOCOPIER,
la diffuser et la modifier.

Is it possible?
Cheers.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Solfege Resources -- 404 bach chorales in Lilypond format with Movable Do solfege.

[Michael Ellis]

On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 4:17 AM, Graham Percival
 wrote:
> I think you are wrong.  I think that this Margaret person has
> created works that are under copyright, and you are taking those
> works and claiming to offer them under a license that she did not
> consent to.
>

Actually no.  A license is (in part) a promise that the licensor will
not sue the licensee so long as s/he adheres to the terms of the
license.  The licenses I offer, by law, can apply only to whatever
portions of the work are my original contributions.  Margaret's rights
are not abrogated in any way by a license between me and someone who
downloads one of the files from Solfege Resources.   She or her heirs
and assigns could still go after someone anyone who uses the files for
financial profit.  I'm merely promising that I won't go after them
with regard to my work. Moreover, I have diligently acknowledged
Margaret's work and urged users to respect her terms of use despite
that fact that there is, under U.S. law as I understand it, reason to
doubt that what's in my files (sequences of pitches and rhythms) are
anything other than minor alterations of music already in the public
domain.

Cheers,
Mike

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Solfege Resources -- 404 bach chorales in Lilypond format with Movable Do solfege.

[Mark Austin]

On 4 January 2011 09:17, Graham Percival  wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 01:28:29PM -0500, Michael Ellis wrote:
>>  I've also
>>    added a couple paragraphs explaining my understanding of U.S. copyright
>>    law and urging users to accept the CC license with commercial restriction
>>    in honor of Margaret GreenTree's patient labor while acknowledging that
>>    patient labor in itself may not create copyrightable work and therefore
>>    offering also the Free Art option.
>
> I think you are wrong.  I think that this Margaret person has
> created works that are under copyright, and you are taking those
> works and claiming to offer them under a license that she did not
> consent to.
>
>>    I've still not heard from her.  Hopefully she's just on vacation and will
>>    eventually reply.
>
> A lack of response should never be construed as permission to do
> whatever you want.
>
> - Graham
>

A quick comment.There are two (linked) types of copyright. If you
originate a work - in this context compose some music - you have
copyright control over any production of that work. Once that
copyright has lapsed, a third party can reproduce the work in, for
example, a book. They then get typograpghical copyright: which means,
in effect, that you cannot reproduce the book, but you could reset the
music into a work of your own. For music, there is a further
complication. If someone arranges music, e.g. by adding chords, they
gain a copyright on the arrangement, but not on the original music.
For example, I am produciong a book of tradition British folk tunes
from a music worksshop some years go. The tunes are traditional, and
thus out of copyright, but the chords/arrangements are copyright, and
I had to get permission from the family.

-- 
Mark Austin

--
For Whigs admit no force but argument
--

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Solfege Resources -- 404 bach chorales in Lilypond format with Movable Do solfege.

[Graham Percival]

On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 01:28:29PM -0500, Michael Ellis wrote:
>  I've also
>added a couple paragraphs explaining my understanding of U.S. copyright
>law and urging users to accept the CC license with commercial restriction
>in honor of Margaret GreenTree's patient labor while acknowledging that
>patient labor in itself may not create copyrightable work and therefore
>offering also the Free Art option.

I think you are wrong.  I think that this Margaret person has
created works that are under copyright, and you are taking those
works and claiming to offer them under a license that she did not
consent to.

>I've still not heard from her.  Hopefully she's just on vacation and will
>eventually reply.

A lack of response should never be construed as permission to do
whatever you want.

- Graham

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Solfege Resources -- 404 bach chorales in Lilypond format with Movable Do solfege.

[Michael Ellis]

Mike, Graham, Henning,

Thanks again, it's all good discussion.  For the time being, I've altered
the home page on the solfege-resources site to offer two choices of License,
namely Free Art license in addition to CC BY-NC-AS.  I've also added a
couple paragraphs explaining my understanding of U.S. copyright law and
urging users to accept the CC license with commercial restriction in honor
of Margaret GreenTree's patient labor while acknowledging that patient labor
in itself may not create copyrightable work and therefore offering also the
Free Art option.   I realize that it may all be legally meaningless,  but it
seems as I close as I can come for the moment to balancing the various legal
and ethical  considerations.

I've still not heard from her.  Hopefully she's just on vacation and will
eventually reply.

I'm still open to replacing the notation in the Bach Chorales with Phil's
work and offering those under Free Art license only.  (Phil, if you will
send me a gmail address (needed by googlecode.com), I will authorize it for
commit privileges on the site).   But please hold off from making extensive
changes as I'd like to revise the lilypond files to achieve even greater
separation between the notation and the output.  I'd like to get to the
point where the notation files look like:

\include "common.ly"
\header { ... }
voiceFoo =  { ... music ... }
voiceBar = { ... music ... }
...
\output

where \output is a scheme function defined in common.ly that (somehow)
detects the voicenames and creates all the \book { \score   { ... } } blocks
needed to create the PDF and MIDI files for the full score and individual
parts.

If that is possible in LilyPond it would make it very simple for folks who
want to contribute transcriptions of other works to put their files in a
simple format and, at the same time, allow all the output to have a
consistent look.  It also could allow for the use of command line defines to
control what gets generated.

I'm going to start a separate thread on that topic, so lets not discuss it
here.

Cheers,
Mike


On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 6:03 AM, Graham Percival wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 02:16:44AM -0800, Mike Blackstock wrote:
> >Just to clarify: anything is copyrightable of course
>
> That is false.
>
> > - there's no laws
> >that I'm aware of that
> >prevent people from asserting a copyright; question is, can it/has it
> a
> >chance of standing up?
>
> You are confusing things.  Somebody may claim to possess copyright
> on something, but "asserting a copyright" does not mean that it
> is, in fact, under copyright.  Whether something is under
> copyright is a question of the written law and case histories (in
> countries which recognize precedence), not mere opinion.
>
> Granted, a pessimist may point out that certain highly-paid
> lawyers are more successful in having judges agree with their
> opinions than non-highly-paid lawyers.  I am not claiming that the
> case history is a perfect record of objective judgements, but (for
> better or worse) those judgements *are* the precedence.
>
>
> Moreover, there are in fact laws against abusing the system.
> Various jursidictions have laws against "malicious prosecution".
> The (in)famous DMCA of the USA requires a copyright claimant to
> swear under perjury that they do, in fact, own the copyright in
> question.
>
> Admittedly, this does not appear to be enforced -- there have been
> a few cases wherein the MPAA, RIAA, or actors on their behalf,
> have claimed copyright when they did not in fact own the
> copyright.  But that's a problem of enforcement, not the written
> law.
>
>
> >  I spent an hour or so doing various searches looking for court
> decisions
> >  and came up blank; I'm wondering if we're making a "mountain out of
> a
> >  mole-hill"? Can somebody find an instance of a music publisher suing
> >  somebody over such things?
>
> I believe that it is more common to issue a "cease and desist"
> letter first; if the offending party complies with it, there is
> generally no lawsuit.  These definitely happen; for example,
> recent action against guitar tab notation for pop songs:
> http://www.wired.com/listening_post/2007/03/music_publisher/
>
> I've heard that publishers of "Christian pop/rock" songs are
> particularly active in this regard.  There's good money in selling
> sheet music to church groups!
>
> And don't forget about the German kindergarden that was recently
> sued for infringing copyright on sheet music:
>
> http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14741186,00.html?maca=en-rss-en-all-1573-rdf
>
>
> > Like I say I couldn't find any with my
> >  average search skills; it would certainly be illuminating to see how
> the
> >  courts have ruled however.
>
> Sadly, these stories are a dime a dozen these days.  In many
> cases, they never go to court because any lawyer will tell their
> client that they don't have a hope of defending against the
> charge.
>
> For example, if your am

Re: Solfege Resources -- 404 bach chorales in Lilypond format with Movable Do solfege.

[Graham Percival]

On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 02:16:44AM -0800, Mike Blackstock wrote:
>Just to clarify: anything is copyrightable of course

That is false.

> - there's no laws
>that I'm aware of that
>prevent people from asserting a copyright; question is, can it/has it a
>chance of standing up?

You are confusing things.  Somebody may claim to possess copyright
on something, but "asserting a copyright" does not mean that it
is, in fact, under copyright.  Whether something is under
copyright is a question of the written law and case histories (in
countries which recognize precedence), not mere opinion.

Granted, a pessimist may point out that certain highly-paid
lawyers are more successful in having judges agree with their
opinions than non-highly-paid lawyers.  I am not claiming that the
case history is a perfect record of objective judgements, but (for
better or worse) those judgements *are* the precedence.


Moreover, there are in fact laws against abusing the system.
Various jursidictions have laws against "malicious prosecution".
The (in)famous DMCA of the USA requires a copyright claimant to
swear under perjury that they do, in fact, own the copyright in
question.

Admittedly, this does not appear to be enforced -- there have been
a few cases wherein the MPAA, RIAA, or actors on their behalf,
have claimed copyright when they did not in fact own the
copyright.  But that's a problem of enforcement, not the written
law.


>  I spent an hour or so doing various searches looking for court decisions
>  and came up blank; I'm wondering if we're making a "mountain out of a
>  mole-hill"? Can somebody find an instance of a music publisher suing
>  somebody over such things?

I believe that it is more common to issue a "cease and desist"
letter first; if the offending party complies with it, there is
generally no lawsuit.  These definitely happen; for example,
recent action against guitar tab notation for pop songs:
http://www.wired.com/listening_post/2007/03/music_publisher/

I've heard that publishers of "Christian pop/rock" songs are
particularly active in this regard.  There's good money in selling
sheet music to church groups!

And don't forget about the German kindergarden that was recently
sued for infringing copyright on sheet music:
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14741186,00.html?maca=en-rss-en-all-1573-rdf


> Like I say I couldn't find any with my
>  average search skills; it would certainly be illuminating to see how the
>  courts have ruled however.

Sadly, these stories are a dime a dozen these days.  In many
cases, they never go to court because any lawyer will tell their
client that they don't have a hope of defending against the
charge.

For example, if your amateur church choir photocopies a 1984
arrangement of a hymn for SATB plus rock band (for the teenagers
in the congregation to play), that's a clear infringement of
copyright.  There's no point trying to defend yourself legally;
you're absolutely on the wrong side of the law.



> I'm wondering if fingerings and/or phrasing
>  slurs are even copyrightable:

Yes.

> is a suggestion on how to solve a
>  technical problem copyrightable?

If it is in fixed form (generally meaning "written").

> If so, couldn't one copyright a golf
>  swing?

Not the swing itself, but any fixed representation of that swing.
In this case, perhaps an instructional video?  voice-over, showing
the swing from different angles, maybe slow-motion video... that
is definitely under copyright.

> It starts to look ridiculous

Some people, including myself, think so, and therefore vote in
favor of political parties which favor copyright reform.

But never confuse what is *moral* with what is *legal*.  I have
been discussing my interpretation of the *laws*.  I am not saying
that a company is *morally* justified in suing a kindergarten, or
amateur choral group, or a website showing guitar tabs.

Cheers,
- Graham

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Solfege Resources -- 404 bach chorales in Lilypond format with Movable Do solfege.

[Mike Blackstock]

Just to clarify: anything is copyrightable of course - there's no laws that
I'm aware of that
prevent people from asserting a copyright; question is, can it/has it a
chance of standing up?

M.

On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 2:09 AM, Mike Blackstock
wrote:

> Interesting.
>
> I spent an hour or so doing various searches looking for court decisions
> and came up blank; I'm wondering if we're making a "mountain out of a
> mole-hill"? Can somebody find an instance of a music publisher suing
> somebody over such things? Like I say I couldn't find any with my average
> search skills; it would certainly be illuminating to see how the courts have
> ruled however. I'm wondering if fingerings and/or phrasing slurs are even
> copyrightable: is a suggestion on how to solve a technical problem
> copyrightable? If so, couldn't one copyright a golf swing? It starts to look
> ridiculous - which may explain the lack of easily-located court cases.
>
> Just thinking out loud.
> M.
>
> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Michael Ellis 
> wrote:
>
>> A few excerpts from the Wikipedia article on derivative works.
>>  Highlighting and italics added by me.
>>
>> 17 U.S.C.
>>  § 103(b) 
>>  provides:
>>
>> The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the
>> material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the
>> preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any
>> exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is
>> independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration,
>> ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting
>> material.
>>
>>
>> US Copyright Office Circular 14: Derivative 
>> Works
>>  notes
>> that:
>>
>> A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the
>> Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some
>> previously published material. This previously published material makes the
>> work a derivative work under the copyright law. To be copyrightable, a
>> derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as
>> a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. *Making
>> minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will
>> not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new
>> material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short
>> phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable.*
>>
>>
>>  When does derivative-work copyright exist?
>>
>> For copyright protection to attach to a later, allegedly derivative work,
>> it must display some originality of its own. It cannot be a rote, uncreative
>> variation on the earlier, underlying work. The latter work must contain
>> sufficient new expression, over and above that embodied in the earlier work
>> for the latter work to satisfy copyright law’s requirement of 
>> originality
>> .
>>
>> Although serious emphasis on originality, at least so designated, began
>> with the Supreme Court’s 1991 decision in *Feist v. 
>> Rural
>> *, some pre-*Feist* lower court decisions addressed this requirement in
>> relation to derivative works. In *Durham Industries, Inc. v. Tomy Corp.*[
>> 1]  and earlier
>> in *L. Batlin & Son, Inc. v. 
>> Snyder*,.[2]the
>> Second Circuit held that a derivative work must be original relative to the
>> underlying work on which it is based. Otherwise, it cannot enjoy copyright
>> protection and copying it will not be copyright infringement.
>>
>> In the *Batlin* case, one maker of "Uncle Sam" toy banks sued another for
>> copying its coin-operated bank, which was based on toy banks sold in the
>> United States[3] 
>> since
>> at least the 1880s. (These toys have Uncle Sam's extended arm and
>> outstretched hand adapted to receive a coin; when the user presses a lever,
>> Uncle Sam appears to put the coin into a carpet bag.) The plaintiff's bank
>> was so similar to the 19th Century toys, differing from them only in the
>> changes needed to permit a plastic molding to be made, that it lacked any
>> original expression. Therefore, even though the defendant's bank was very
>> similar to the 
>> plaintiff's,[4] the
>> plaintiff's was not entitled to any copyright protection. "To extend
>> copyrightability to minuscule variations would simply put a weapon for
>> harassment in the hands of mischievous copiers intent on appropriating and
>> monopolizing public domain work."
>>
>> ---

Re: Solfege Resources -- 404 bach chorales in Lilypond format with Movable Do solfege.

[Mike Blackstock]

Interesting.

I spent an hour or so doing various searches looking for court decisions and
came up blank; I'm wondering if we're making a "mountain out of a
mole-hill"? Can somebody find an instance of a music publisher suing
somebody over such things? Like I say I couldn't find any with my average
search skills; it would certainly be illuminating to see how the courts have
ruled however. I'm wondering if fingerings and/or phrasing slurs are even
copyrightable: is a suggestion on how to solve a technical problem
copyrightable? If so, couldn't one copyright a golf swing? It starts to look
ridiculous - which may explain the lack of easily-located court cases.

Just thinking out loud.
M.

On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Michael Ellis wrote:

> A few excerpts from the Wikipedia article on derivative works.
>  Highlighting and italics added by me.
>
> 17 U.S.C.
>  § 103(b)  provides:
>
> The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the
> material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the
> preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any
> exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is
> independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration,
> ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting
> material.
>
>
> US Copyright Office Circular 14: Derivative 
> Works
>  notes
> that:
>
> A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the
> Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some
> previously published material. This previously published material makes the
> work a derivative work under the copyright law. To be copyrightable, a
> derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as
> a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. *Making
> minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will
> not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new
> material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short
> phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable.*
>
>
>  When does derivative-work copyright exist?
>
> For copyright protection to attach to a later, allegedly derivative work,
> it must display some originality of its own. It cannot be a rote, uncreative
> variation on the earlier, underlying work. The latter work must contain
> sufficient new expression, over and above that embodied in the earlier work
> for the latter work to satisfy copyright law’s requirement of 
> originality
> .
>
> Although serious emphasis on originality, at least so designated, began
> with the Supreme Court’s 1991 decision in *Feist v. 
> Rural
> *, some pre-*Feist* lower court decisions addressed this requirement in
> relation to derivative works. In *Durham Industries, Inc. v. Tomy Corp.*[1
> ]  and earlier
> in *L. Batlin & Son, Inc. v. 
> Snyder*,.[2]the
> Second Circuit held that a derivative work must be original relative to the
> underlying work on which it is based. Otherwise, it cannot enjoy copyright
> protection and copying it will not be copyright infringement.
>
> In the *Batlin* case, one maker of "Uncle Sam" toy banks sued another for
> copying its coin-operated bank, which was based on toy banks sold in the
> United States[3] 
> since
> at least the 1880s. (These toys have Uncle Sam's extended arm and
> outstretched hand adapted to receive a coin; when the user presses a lever,
> Uncle Sam appears to put the coin into a carpet bag.) The plaintiff's bank
> was so similar to the 19th Century toys, differing from them only in the
> changes needed to permit a plastic molding to be made, that it lacked any
> original expression. Therefore, even though the defendant's bank was very
> similar to the 
> plaintiff's,[4] the
> plaintiff's was not entitled to any copyright protection. "To extend
> copyrightability to minuscule variations would simply put a weapon for
> harassment in the hands of mischievous copiers intent on appropriating and
> monopolizing public domain work."
>
> --
>
>
> Obviously, laws vary from country to country, but to me this suggests that
> it would be very hard to assert a copyright claim to any set of of rhythms
> and pitches that are already available in the public domain.  I think that's
> why I was having trouble with the concept that a copy of a chorale with a
> mistake 

Re: Solfege Resources -- 404 bach chorales in Lilypond format with Movable Do solfege.

[Henning Hraban Ramm]

Just a minor remark:

At least in German laws, there can't be a copyright on mere  
"industrial art" like typesetting or music engraving, independent from  
the effort. (I.e. "Sweat of the brow" from UK and Canadian  
jurisdiction isn't valid in Germany.)
That means, there is no copyright on the layout of music, even if some  
publishers claim to own it.


Additionally, there is a (very low) "threshold of originality" for a  
(new) copyright, i.e. just errors don't cause a new copyright on an  
edition. (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schöpfungshöhe) But this  
originality is always controversial.


I'm not a lawyer, and I can't speak for other legislations, of course.  
Laws of Austria and Switzerland are very similar to Germany's.



Greetlings from Lake Constance
---
fiëé visuëlle
Henning Hraban Ramm
http://www.fiee.net
http://angerweit.tikon.ch/lieder/
https://www.cacert.org (I'm an assurer)



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Solfege Resources -- 404 bach chorales in Lilypond format with Movable Do solfege.

[Michael Ellis]

A few excerpts from the Wikipedia article on derivative works.  Highlighting
and italics added by me.

17 U.S.C. 
§ 103(b)  provides:

The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the
material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the
preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive
right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent
of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or
subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.


US Copyright Office Circular 14: Derivative
Works
notes
that:

A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the
Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some
previously published material. This previously published material makes the
work a derivative work under the copyright law. To be copyrightable, a
derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as
a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. *Making
minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will
not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new
material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short
phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable.*


When does derivative-work copyright exist?

For copyright protection to attach to a later, allegedly derivative work, it
must display some originality of its own. It cannot be a rote, uncreative
variation on the earlier, underlying work. The latter work must contain
sufficient new expression, over and above that embodied in the earlier work
for the latter work to satisfy copyright law’s requirement of
originality
.

Although serious emphasis on originality, at least so designated, began with
the Supreme Court’s 1991 decision in *Feist v.
Rural
*, some pre-*Feist* lower court decisions addressed this requirement in
relation to derivative works. In *Durham Industries, Inc. v. Tomy
Corp.*[1]
and
earlier in *L. Batlin & Son, Inc. v.
Snyder*,.[2]the
Second Circuit held that a derivative work must be original relative to the
underlying work on which it is based. Otherwise, it cannot enjoy copyright
protection and copying it will not be copyright infringement.

In the *Batlin* case, one maker of "Uncle Sam" toy banks sued another for
copying its coin-operated bank, which was based on toy banks sold in the
United States[3]
 since
at least the 1880s. (These toys have Uncle Sam's extended arm and
outstretched hand adapted to receive a coin; when the user presses a lever,
Uncle Sam appears to put the coin into a carpet bag.) The plaintiff's bank
was so similar to the 19th Century toys, differing from them only in the
changes needed to permit a plastic molding to be made, that it lacked any
original expression. Therefore, even though the defendant's bank was very
similar to the 
plaintiff's,[4]
the
plaintiff's was not entitled to any copyright protection. "To extend
copyrightability to minuscule variations would simply put a weapon for
harassment in the hands of mischievous copiers intent on appropriating and
monopolizing public domain work."

--


Obviously, laws vary from country to country, but to me this suggests that
it would be very hard to assert a copyright claim to any set of of rhythms
and pitches that are already available in the public domain.  I think that's
why I was having trouble with the concept that a copy of a chorale with a
mistake is a copyrighted work.

Cheers,
Mike


On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Michael Ellis wrote:

> Thanks Graham, it's good to get the straight story!  I must say there are
> certainly some confusing aspects to copyright law.  So If I'm understanding
> you correctly, if I were to transcribe a fugue from an out of copyright
> source, I have a copyright if I make a mistake and none if I copy it
> perfectly!  What if I transcribe from a copyrighted source and make a
> mistake (or a lot of mistakes)?  Or copy from a copyrighted source only
> those aspects that exist verbatim in a non-copyrighted version, e.g. notes
> and rhythms as Bach wrote them but no dynamics or layout added by the
> editor?
>
> Anyway, I do appreciate the insights.  For the time being I'm interpreting
> her publicly granted rights according to the notice on her web site, i.e
> free use for purposes other than financial profit.
>

Re: Solfege Resources -- 404 bach chorales in Lilypond format with Movable Do solfege.

[Graham Percival]

On Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 08:09:52PM -0500, Michael Ellis wrote:
>Thanks Graham, it's good to get the straight story!  I must say there are
>certainly some confusing aspects to copyright law.

First, I must clarify that I cannot give you a straight story.  To
begin with, I am not a certified lawyer, and certainly not a
certified lawyer in your legal jurisdiction.  Some jurisdictions
have laws against non-lawyers giving legal advice.  I am not
giving legal advice; I am merely giving my semi-informed opinion
on the basis of having read some internet articles and skimming
through two sets of copyright legislation (Canadian and UK).

Second, there is no such thing as "copyright law".  Each country
has its own copyright law.  There is a Berne convention on
copyright, but my understanding is that such a treaty only calls
upon its signatories to enact legislation with the specified
general terms.

Third, even if I *were* a qualified lawyer in a particular
jurisdiction (say, Canada), and even if you were in the same
country, the global nature of the internet makes it very unclear
as to which set of copyright law.  If you want a truly "straight
story", you would probably need to consult somebody who was
familiar with copyright law, and the legal history of copyright
cases, of every country in the world.

>  So If I'm
>understanding you correctly, if I were to transcribe a fugue from an out
>of copyright source, I have a copyright if I make a mistake and none if I
>copy it perfectly!

My guess is that if you transcribe a fugue from an out of
copyright source, you have copyright over that rendition.  That is
the only thing that I can think of which would allow transcribers
to put such music under different copyright licenses -- for
example, Mutopia allows various Creative Commons licenses.  If the
transcriber did not have copyright over their work, then it would
not be legally possible for them to place it under any license.
If this guess is correct, then the question of "mistakes" is not
relevant.

>  What if I transcribe from a copyrighted source and
>make a mistake (or a lot of mistakes)?

Then you have infringed copyright, regardless of the number of
mistakes.  (unless your actions fall under a narrow set of
exceptions as defined in whatever country's copyright law is
applicable)

>  Or copy from a copyrighted source
>only those aspects that exist verbatim in a non-copyrighted version, e.g.
>notes and rhythms as Bach wrote them but no dynamics or layout added by
>the editor?  

My understanding is that the general consensus of non-lawyers who
are involved in this stuff thinks that this is ok.  I suggest you
look at copyright-oriented pages from mutopia, project gutenburg,
and IMSLP.

>Anyway, I do appreciate the insights.  For the time being I'm interpreting
>her publicly granted rights according to the notice on her web site, i.e
>free use for purposes other than financial profit.  

I would be cautious about assuming things, and remember that this
type of license is *not* compatible with the GPL -- you certainly
would not be able to use them in solfege.  This may or may not be
a problem for you.

Cheers,
- Graham

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Solfege Resources -- 404 bach chorales in Lilypond format with Movable Do solfege.

[Michael Ellis]

Thanks Graham, it's good to get the straight story!  I must say there are
certainly some confusing aspects to copyright law.  So If I'm understanding
you correctly, if I were to transcribe a fugue from an out of copyright
source, I have a copyright if I make a mistake and none if I copy it
perfectly!  What if I transcribe from a copyrighted source and make a
mistake (or a lot of mistakes)?  Or copy from a copyrighted source only
those aspects that exist verbatim in a non-copyrighted version, e.g. notes
and rhythms as Bach wrote them but no dynamics or layout added by the
editor?

Anyway, I do appreciate the insights.  For the time being I'm interpreting
her publicly granted rights according to the notice on her web site, i.e
free use for purposes other than financial profit.

Cheers,
Mike


On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Graham Percival wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 12:59:39PM -0500, Michael Ellis wrote:
> > We all seems to agree that:
> >1. The "music" of the chorales (the sequences of pitches and
> > rhythms notated in the Breitkopf edition) is public domain.
> >2. The Breitkopf edition itself is also in the public domain.
>
> I haven't checked it myself, but if this Breitkopf edition is on
> IMSLP, then yes.
>
> >3. Margaret Greentree's XML files do not contain any copyright
> > assertions other than for the PDF output.
>
> "Assertion" is completely irrelevant to the status of being under
> copyright or not.  If something would normally be under copyright,
> then it is under copyright the instant that it is produced in
> fixed form.  (i.e. as soon as I type each letter of this
> paragraph, it is under copyright -- even though I am not going to
> append "Copyright (c) 2011 Graham Percival" to this email)
>
> > Given the above, it seems that an important question is whether her
> > reservation of rights applies to distributing material created by
> > applying LilyPond to the notation sequences embodied in her XML.
>
> No.  The question is whether her particular rendition of the Bach
> chorales in XML can be under copyright.  If it is -- and I believe
> it can be, especially since somebody noted that her rendition was
> not completely accurate -- then all the XML files are under
> copyright, and you cannot do (legally) anything with them without
> her express permission (with certain exeptions that vary from
> country to country).
>
> > On the other hand, I'm not sure that failing to declare a copyright to
>
> "Failing to declare a copyright" has no meaning since 1970 or so.
> In the first half of the 20th century, that had a legal meaning,
> but after one particular major rewrite of copyright law, any "idea
> in fixed form" (paraphrased) was under copyright.
>
> Cheers,
> - Graham
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Solfege Resources -- 404 bach chorales in Lilypond format with Movable Do solfege.

[Graham Percival]

On Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 12:59:39PM -0500, Michael Ellis wrote:
> We all seems to agree that:
>1. The "music" of the chorales (the sequences of pitches and
> rhythms notated in the Breitkopf edition) is public domain.
>2. The Breitkopf edition itself is also in the public domain.

I haven't checked it myself, but if this Breitkopf edition is on
IMSLP, then yes.

>3. Margaret Greentree's XML files do not contain any copyright
> assertions other than for the PDF output.

"Assertion" is completely irrelevant to the status of being under
copyright or not.  If something would normally be under copyright,
then it is under copyright the instant that it is produced in
fixed form.  (i.e. as soon as I type each letter of this
paragraph, it is under copyright -- even though I am not going to
append "Copyright (c) 2011 Graham Percival" to this email)

> Given the above, it seems that an important question is whether her
> reservation of rights applies to distributing material created by
> applying LilyPond to the notation sequences embodied in her XML.

No.  The question is whether her particular rendition of the Bach
chorales in XML can be under copyright.  If it is -- and I believe
it can be, especially since somebody noted that her rendition was
not completely accurate -- then all the XML files are under
copyright, and you cannot do (legally) anything with them without
her express permission (with certain exeptions that vary from
country to country).

> On the other hand, I'm not sure that failing to declare a copyright to

"Failing to declare a copyright" has no meaning since 1970 or so.
In the first half of the 20th century, that had a legal meaning,
but after one particular major rewrite of copyright law, any "idea
in fixed form" (paraphrased) was under copyright.

Cheers,
- Graham

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Solfege Resources -- 404 bach chorales in Lilypond format with Movable Do solfege.

[Phil Hézaine]

Le 02/01/2011 18:59, Michael Ellis a écrit :
> Hi Phil & Graham,
> Thanks very much for the information and discussion.  It's all
> extremely useful.  Let me see if I can paraphrase a few points that
> are influencing my thinking:
> 
> We all seems to agree that:
> 
>1. The "music" of the chorales (the sequences of pitches and
> rhythms notated in the Breitkopf edition) is public domain.
>2. The Breitkopf edition itself is also in the public domain.
>3. Margaret Greentree's XML files do not contain any copyright
> assertions other than for the PDF output.
>4. Her site has the following text in the footer of each page:
> " © 1996-2010 by Margaret Greentree, some rights reserved.
> Free midi files and sets, ongoing corrections.
>  This site may be browsed, referenced or linked. Download the
> ftp files, but do not use images or music for financial profit.
> Commercial use of material without permission from me or the artists
> is an infringement of rights reserved."
> 
> Given the above, it seems that an important question is whether her
> reservation of rights applies to distributing material created by
> applying LilyPond to the notation sequences embodied in her XML.   I
> don't mean to sound like a lawyer here (and I'm most assuredly not
> one), but to the extent that her notes match those in public domain
> editions, one could argue that no copyright is possible.
> 
> On the other hand, I'm not sure that failing to declare a copyright to
> the XML files necessarily invalidates a copyright to the digital
> representation she created and one could argue that the translation
> produced by MuseScore (via xml2ly, I think) is a purely mechanical
> re-representation of her work.
> 
> As to my own contributions to this work, I am ok with dropping
> commercial clause and issuing it with either the CC license or the
> Free Art license or both.  So I think we need to wait for a response
> from Margaret.  Hopefully she will be amenable to what we would like
> to do.
> 

Hi Mike,

Sorry for the trouble I cause but for the future of the project it seems
necessary. The Margaret's work is not trivial and we are discussing the
"some rights reserved" assertion. Besides, may be she is not alone. You
did the right thing when you send her a mail.
Be patient is the best way. Let us hope an answer in the week.
About the difference between CC / Free Art license, if I remember
correctly, the latter takes in account in a more suitable way the Berne
Convention about copyrights.

> Needless to say, another alternative would be to replace her work with
> yours, Phil.  I think you said you've got about 300 of the chorales
> already transcribed.  Is that right?  Would it be difficult to plug
> your note sequences into the format I'm using?

You're right. And with your skills I think it could be automated.
If you want I can send you the template while we are waiting for a
response. Be sure of my solidarity.

> Cheers,
> Mike

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Solfege Resources -- 404 bach chorales in Lilypond format with Movable Do solfege.

[Michael Ellis]

Hi Phil & Graham,
Thanks very much for the information and discussion.  It's all
extremely useful.  Let me see if I can paraphrase a few points that
are influencing my thinking:

We all seems to agree that:

   1. The "music" of the chorales (the sequences of pitches and
rhythms notated in the Breitkopf edition) is public domain.
   2. The Breitkopf edition itself is also in the public domain.
   3. Margaret Greentree's XML files do not contain any copyright
assertions other than for the PDF output.
   4. Her site has the following text in the footer of each page:
" © 1996-2010 by Margaret Greentree, some rights reserved.
Free midi files and sets, ongoing corrections.
 This site may be browsed, referenced or linked. Download the
ftp files, but do not use images or music for financial profit.
Commercial use of material without permission from me or the artists
is an infringement of rights reserved."

Given the above, it seems that an important question is whether her
reservation of rights applies to distributing material created by
applying LilyPond to the notation sequences embodied in her XML.   I
don't mean to sound like a lawyer here (and I'm most assuredly not
one), but to the extent that her notes match those in public domain
editions, one could argue that no copyright is possible.

On the other hand, I'm not sure that failing to declare a copyright to
the XML files necessarily invalidates a copyright to the digital
representation she created and one could argue that the translation
produced by MuseScore (via xml2ly, I think) is a purely mechanical
re-representation of her work.

As to my own contributions to this work, I am ok with dropping
commercial clause and issuing it with either the CC license or the
Free Art license or both.  So I think we need to wait for a response
from Margaret.  Hopefully she will be amenable to what we would like
to do.

Needless to say, another alternative would be to replace her work with
yours, Phil.  I think you said you've got about 300 of the chorales
already transcribed.  Is that right?  Would it be difficult to plug
your note sequences into the format I'm using?


Cheers,
Mike


On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Phil Hézaine  wrote:
>
> Le 01/01/2011 23:30, Graham Percival a écrit :
> > On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 10:08:38PM +0100, Phil Hézaine wrote:
> >> Moreover, there are chorals which aren't changed from the Public Domain.
> >> I've checked some of it against my sources. Well, only a little bit.
> >> And i'm not sure of the data integrity of her typesetting.
> >
> > Interesting.
> >
> >> Then, why to claim a clause of copyright non-commercial without arguments?
> >
> > Well, if she made any editorial changes, the result is not in the
> > public domain.  Arguably, even simply making unintentional "data
> > entry" changes could be enough for the result to be under
> > copyright.
> >
> >> What a shame that Margaret Gentree is not on this list. We could have a
> >> better understanding. Are Barenreiter or Musica Budapest's sources
> >> closed?
> >
> > Unless they created an "urtext" edition, then yes, the notes and
> > markings are under copyright.  Even if they created an "urtext"
> > edition, the actual layout of music on the page is under
> > copyright.  In the latter case, typing the notes into a text file
> > (for processing with lilypond) does not infringe copyright,
> > whereas making a photocopy would infringe.
> >
> >> Could we use her work in a GNU app like GNU Solfege without
> >> infringements between the GPL and her license?
> >
> > No.  GPL does not allow you to play additional restrictions on the
> > distribution of material; the CC-NC has an extra restriction ("no
> > commercial use").
> >
> >> For now I plan to publish the 371 chorals from Breitkopf with a Free Art
> >> license,
> >
> > Have you checked that the Breitkopf edition is free from
> > copyright?  Mutopia has a good short discussion about this:
> > http://www.mutopiaproject.org/contribute.html
> >
> > Cheers,
> > - Graham
>
> Thanks for the informations, Graham, it's always useful.
> The handy sources i have are exactly the same you find on ISMLP:
>
>
> > http://imslp.org/wiki/Chorale_Harmonisations,_BWV_1-438_%28Bach,_Johann_Sebastian%29
>
> Rédacteur:
> Johann Philipp Kirnberger
> Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach
>
> Édition:
> Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, n.d.[1878]. Plate V.A. 10
> Droit d'auteur: Public Domain
>
> Notes:
> Based on 1st edition (Leipzig: Breitkopf, 1784–1788)
> 2 staves, without lyrics
>
>
> I think I'm right.
> However I add in my typesetting the BWV references and the corrected
> titles (there are a lot) from jsbchorales, and i point out the chorales
> in duplicate.
> Yes, in fact there are not 371 chorales in this edition!
> Off course, I'll mention the origin of my references in my final work. I
> think there is no copyright issue about their catalogue.
> Am i wrong?
>
> If you check the second chorale from the Breitkopf's edition against the
> jsb sources

Re: Solfege Resources -- 404 bach chorales in Lilypond format with Movable Do solfege.

[Phil Hézaine]

Le 01/01/2011 23:30, Graham Percival a écrit :
> On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 10:08:38PM +0100, Phil Hézaine wrote:
>> Moreover, there are chorals which aren't changed from the Public Domain.
>> I've checked some of it against my sources. Well, only a little bit.
>> And i'm not sure of the data integrity of her typesetting.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
>> Then, why to claim a clause of copyright non-commercial without arguments?
> 
> Well, if she made any editorial changes, the result is not in the
> public domain.  Arguably, even simply making unintentional "data
> entry" changes could be enough for the result to be under
> copyright.
> 
>> What a shame that Margaret Gentree is not on this list. We could have a
>> better understanding. Are Barenreiter or Musica Budapest's sources
>> closed?
> 
> Unless they created an "urtext" edition, then yes, the notes and
> markings are under copyright.  Even if they created an "urtext"
> edition, the actual layout of music on the page is under
> copyright.  In the latter case, typing the notes into a text file
> (for processing with lilypond) does not infringe copyright,
> whereas making a photocopy would infringe.
> 
>> Could we use her work in a GNU app like GNU Solfege without
>> infringements between the GPL and her license?
> 
> No.  GPL does not allow you to play additional restrictions on the
> distribution of material; the CC-NC has an extra restriction ("no
> commercial use").
> 
>> For now I plan to publish the 371 chorals from Breitkopf with a Free Art
>> license,
> 
> Have you checked that the Breitkopf edition is free from
> copyright?  Mutopia has a good short discussion about this:
> http://www.mutopiaproject.org/contribute.html
> 
> Cheers,
> - Graham

Thanks for the informations, Graham, it's always useful.
The handy sources i have are exactly the same you find on ISMLP:


> http://imslp.org/wiki/Chorale_Harmonisations,_BWV_1-438_%28Bach,_Johann_Sebastian%29

Rédacteur:
Johann Philipp Kirnberger
Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach

Édition:
Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, n.d.[1878]. Plate V.A. 10
Droit d'auteur: Public Domain

Notes:
Based on 1st edition (Leipzig: Breitkopf, 1784–1788)
2 staves, without lyrics


I think I'm right.
However I add in my typesetting the BWV references and the corrected
titles (there are a lot) from jsbchorales, and i point out the chorales
in duplicate.
Yes, in fact there are not 371 chorales in this edition!
Off course, I'll mention the origin of my references in my final work. I
think there is no copyright issue about their catalogue.
Am i wrong?

If you check the second chorale from the Breitkopf's edition against the
jsb sources (BWV 347) you'll see no difference.
The first chorale (BWV 269) has just a missing tie for the alto, 5 bars
before the end.
I don't say that to pull down the work of Margaret Gentree, it will be
ridiculous, far away of my wish, just to point out you can find chorales
of the Public Domain. Checking the whole stuff is not my purpose and may
be irrelevant for now.
Cheers.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Solfege Resources -- 404 bach chorales in Lilypond format with Movable Do solfege.

[Phil Hézaine]

Le 01/01/2011 22:45, Michael Ellis a écrit :
> Hi Phil,
> Thanks for the input.  I've sent email to Margaret (whom I don't know
> personally)  asking her thoughts about the licensing.  I've not yet heard
> back from her.
> 
> I confess I went with a strong non-commercial clause largely in deference to
> her work and the claims on her website.  It's a lot easier to loosen a
> license later than to tighten it after the work is "in the wild".   I have
> to say that the whole copyright issue here is quite confusing.  As you point
> out, the author of the works is long dead and published editions exist that
> were never under copyright or have lapsed into the public domain.
> 
> I'm certainly not trying to assert any copyright to Bach's work or
> Margaret's for that matter.  I do claim some right to the LilyPond files
> themselves, or perhaps better to say, the organization of the files to
> produce the solfege, etc, but I'm not sure how to properly express that or,
> to be truthful, whether it's even worth the bother.  I suspect you may have
> more experience than I in these areas.
> 

Hi Michael,

Personnally, because your work is based on scripts, i'll put a GPL'ed
license. But I haven't to give you a piece of advice. Even I don't know
if you can mix the CC-NC-SA with GPL both in a work

> I really want to find out how Margaret feels about this before changing the
> license.  My primary intent here is to provide a useful resource for
> students of music and I don't want to get into a copyright dispute with
> anyone.  As the Chinese proverb says "In death avoid hell, in life avoid the
> law courts!"
> 

We have exactly the same intent. I'll say: for students of music,
artists or musicologists

> I have not encountered the Free Art license before.  From a quick glance at
> the wikipedia description, it sounds almost identical to the Creative
> Commons license with only the Attribution and ShareAlike clauses but without
> the Non-commercial clause.  Is that correct?
> 

Yes. And there is a recommandation from the FSF to use this license for
artistic purposes. Just a recommandation. Not more.

> Finally, however the copyright on my work sorts itself out, I'll be happy to
> include your work on my site under whatever copyright terms you like.
> Still, since we're working on the same chorales it would be great if we can
> find a way to combine our efforts to produce the best possible editions.
> 

I agree. Bach and a free license are just my condition for this kind of
work.

> Cheers,
> Mike
Cheers.
Phil.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Solfege Resources -- 404 bach chorales in Lilypond format with Movable Do solfege.

[Michael Ellis]

Project site now has downloadable archives of PDF and MIDI files at

http://code.google.com/p/solfege-resources/downloads/list

Cheers,
Mike
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Solfege Resources -- 404 bach chorales in Lilypond format with Movable Do solfege.

[Graham Percival]

On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 10:08:38PM +0100, Phil Hézaine wrote:
> Moreover, there are chorals which aren't changed from the Public Domain.
> I've checked some of it against my sources. Well, only a little bit.
> And i'm not sure of the data integrity of her typesetting.

Interesting.

> Then, why to claim a clause of copyright non-commercial without arguments?

Well, if she made any editorial changes, the result is not in the
public domain.  Arguably, even simply making unintentional "data
entry" changes could be enough for the result to be under
copyright.

> What a shame that Margaret Gentree is not on this list. We could have a
> better understanding. Are Barenreiter or Musica Budapest's sources
> closed?

Unless they created an "urtext" edition, then yes, the notes and
markings are under copyright.  Even if they created an "urtext"
edition, the actual layout of music on the page is under
copyright.  In the latter case, typing the notes into a text file
(for processing with lilypond) does not infringe copyright,
whereas making a photocopy would infringe.

> Could we use her work in a GNU app like GNU Solfege without
> infringements between the GPL and her license?

No.  GPL does not allow you to play additional restrictions on the
distribution of material; the CC-NC has an extra restriction ("no
commercial use").

> For now I plan to publish the 371 chorals from Breitkopf with a Free Art
> license,

Have you checked that the Breitkopf edition is free from
copyright?  Mutopia has a good short discussion about this:
http://www.mutopiaproject.org/contribute.html

Cheers,
- Graham

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Solfege Resources -- 404 bach chorales in Lilypond format with Movable Do solfege.

[Michael Ellis]

Hi Phil,
Thanks for the input.  I've sent email to Margaret (whom I don't know
personally)  asking her thoughts about the licensing.  I've not yet heard
back from her.

I confess I went with a strong non-commercial clause largely in deference to
her work and the claims on her website.  It's a lot easier to loosen a
license later than to tighten it after the work is "in the wild".   I have
to say that the whole copyright issue here is quite confusing.  As you point
out, the author of the works is long dead and published editions exist that
were never under copyright or have lapsed into the public domain.

I'm certainly not trying to assert any copyright to Bach's work or
Margaret's for that matter.  I do claim some right to the LilyPond files
themselves, or perhaps better to say, the organization of the files to
produce the solfege, etc, but I'm not sure how to properly express that or,
to be truthful, whether it's even worth the bother.  I suspect you may have
more experience than I in these areas.

I really want to find out how Margaret feels about this before changing the
license.  My primary intent here is to provide a useful resource for
students of music and I don't want to get into a copyright dispute with
anyone.  As the Chinese proverb says "In death avoid hell, in life avoid the
law courts!"

I have not encountered the Free Art license before.  From a quick glance at
the wikipedia description, it sounds almost identical to the Creative
Commons license with only the Attribution and ShareAlike clauses but without
the Non-commercial clause.  Is that correct?

Finally, however the copyright on my work sorts itself out, I'll be happy to
include your work on my site under whatever copyright terms you like.
Still, since we're working on the same chorales it would be great if we can
find a way to combine our efforts to produce the best possible editions.


Cheers,
Mike


On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Phil Hézaine wrote:

> Hi Michael and all,
>
> Copy from the previous discussion:
> Le 31/12/2010 20:33, Michael Ellis a écrit :
> > Hi Phil,
> > The problem is pretty well solved. I'm just cleaning up a few things
> > in my scripts today.
> >
> >  I don't have all the answers yet regarding copyrights.  Margaret
> > Greentree's site seems to claim copyrights only to the PDF images > >
> > and those are freely shared for non-commercial use.  So I'm not quite
> > sure how that might apply to works derived from the MusicXML files.
> >
> > My thought was to release my versions with attribution to her and a
> > Creative Commons license with similar conditions -- free use for
> > non-commercial purposes with attribution and share-alike.
> >
> > Initially, I'm going to put the files into a googlecode site so it's
> > easy to allow more than one person to edit them.  I'll be happy to add
> > your name to the list of "developers" for the site.  Later on, I want
> > to put up a free site that can serve PDF, midi, and mp3 files.
> >
> > Looking forward to working with you!
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Mike
>
> It's not my goal to begin a troll or flames war but i'm a bit stumpled
> with the licence. I have great respect for your choice and Margaret
> Greentree who is a passionate artist but I want to explain my thoughts.
> I have no problem with a Creative Commons - non-commercial license when
> the copyright is 'alive'. I have even used it for one of my own work
> for the main reason that I want to impose a percentage of redistribution
> for Free Software or humanitarians goals in case of a commercial
> product, even for one song. If you agree to this clause you get an
> authorization and all is right. It's the rules of the game. Not
> completely closed but...  Anyway, this clause didn't suit me very well
> with a virtual band from linux-audio on internet. At this time they were
> Free like zealots.
> But in the case under discussion the copyright is 'dead', and i don't
> see a valuable explanation on the site for the non-commercial use. Hence
> my questions.
> Moreover, there are chorals which aren't changed from the Public Domain.
> I've checked some of it against my sources. Well, only a little bit.
> And i'm not sure of the data integrity of her typesetting.
> Then, why to claim a clause of copyright non-commercial without arguments?
> What a shame that Margaret Gentree is not on this list. We could have a
> better understanding. Are Barenreiter or Musica Budapest's sources
> closed? I don't know for now. Is there a special wish with the license?
> We don't know.
> Could we use her work in a GNU app like GNU Solfege without
> infringements between the GPL and her license?
> Like I said it's not at all a flames war, but there are too many
> questions about this.
> Would you like some more? I'm neither a professional engraver nor an
> editor but I'll agree with a professional publishing of the chorals,
> whether it happens. With a Free Art License, for example, we need of an
> advanced (progressive) editor who accepts to pu