I was glad

[MrGongGong]

Love to know how many copywright laws you are /and now we are breaking?
Kronos Quartet might sue on 'Black Angels' material?

Blimey.

I didn't know the performer had the copyright of the music they played ?

all those are public domain
and extracts are fine for educational purposes

Is linking to something the same as publishing it ? (I honestly don't know )

I was going to put a page of my own stuff but there again .................

[french frank]

I was going to put a page of my own stuff but there again .................

You can put your own stuff up as long as you haven't flogged the copyright [- is it notated ? ]

I'm not too sure whether there's a distinction between linking pictures/photos and sheet music so perhaps I'd be (over)cautious about anything marked copyright which isn't obviously out of copyright. Just because it's published on the internet it doesn't make that public domain.

[MrGongGong]

You can put your own stuff up as long as you haven't flogged the copyright [- is it notated ? ]

I'm not too sure whether there's a distinction between linking pictures/photos and sheet music so perhaps I'd be (over)cautious about anything marked copyright which isn't obvious out of copyright. Just because it's published on the internet it doesn't make that public domain.

Ok boss

So are links (as you have made them) ok ?
the embedded images are surely the same though as they only appear to be on this site ? (as with Youtube ) and aren't really on the server or is that an academic distinction ?

and

how can one discuss John Oswald (http://www.plunderphonics.com/) without infringing copyright ?

clicking the P gets the essay .............

[french frank]

The answer is - I don't know the exact position. I do know that quoting chunks of text from online newspaper articles is a breach of copyright because The Times contacted us and informed us of the fact. . At one time I think The Independent expected you to ask permission even to post a link to their online material but I suspect that's no longer worth trying to enforce.

Sheet music is a dodgy area though. There must be someone here who has experience of this ...

Ok boss

So are links (as you have made them) ok ?
the embedded images are surely the same though as they only appear to be on this site ? (as with Youtube ) and aren't really on the server or is that an academic distinction ?

and

how can one discuss John Oswald (http://www.plunderphonics.com/) without infringing copyright ?

clicking the P gets the essay .............

[Pabmusic]

Sheet music is a dodgy area though. There must be someone here who has experience of this ...

I'm not a copyright lawyer, but this may help. This is the position in the EU.

The composer/arranger/editor has copyright in the work. It remains until the beginning of the year following the 70th anniversary of the composer's death. For an arranger or editor to have copyright there needs to have been sufficient input to create an entitlement to copyright (for all intents and purposes, this will usually be the case). The publisher will have copyright in the edition they publish (I think the term is shorter than 70 years - 25 years? - if the composer is already dead when the edition is published, but I'm not sure).

It follows that the Crumb and Lygeti pieces are copyright. The Parry is not, and the edition appears to be the old Novello one - so it is not copyright. (The text is not copyright, either.)

Short extracts are permitted to be copied for educational purposes, but I think that I'd seek permission for anything intended for publication on the Web.

If Mr GG owns the copyright (for instance, it's a piece he wrote) then he can allow its publication. I suspect you would need an assurance that he is the copyright holder, and he gives his permission.

Hope this helps.

[ardcarp]

O Gawd. What have I started? What I originally meant (and not all that seriously) was the ability to post up our own manuscript jottings via some cunning e-gadget on this site. This was in response to RJ's valiant attempt to represent note-values with letters. I wish I'd kept my mouth shut 'cos I'd be the least likely person on the planet to be able to operate any such system. Give me a piece of paper and a pencil and I can dash away like Mozart on speed, but Sibelius (not the composer) reduces me to a gibbering wreck.

[mercia]

my fault for starting this thread

[DracoM]

I'm not a copyright lawyer, but this may help. This is the position in the EU.

The composer/arranger/editor has copyright in the work. It remains until the beginning of the year following the 70th anniversary of the composer's death. For an arranger or editor to have copyright there needs to have been sufficient input to create an entitlement to copyright (for all intents and purposes, this will usually be the case). The publisher will have copyright in the edition they publish (I think the term is shorter than 70 years - 25 years? - if the composer is already dead when the edition is published, but I'm not sure).

It follows that the Crumb and Lygeti pieces are copyright. The Parry is not, and the edition appears to be the old Novello one - so it is not copyright. (The text is not copyright, either.)

Short extracts are permitted to be copied for educational purposes, but I think that I'd seek permission for anything intended for publication on the Web.

If Mr GG owns the copyright (for instance, it's a piece he wrote) then he can allow its publication. I suspect you would need an assurance that he is the copyright holder, and he gives his permission.

Hope this helps.

Well, I'm still not clear. What about EDITORS who amend / tidy up /include new research in publishing a piece hitherto 'out of copyright'? Do they not taken out copyright on THEIR edition irrespective of whether the original is in / out of copyright?

[MrGongGong]

If Mr GG owns the copyright (for instance, it's a piece he wrote) then he can allow its publication. I suspect you would need an assurance that he is the copyright holder, and he gives his permission.
.

several years ago before I started to use a computer for notation I finished some parts and took them to a shop to photocopy them.
"You can't do that" they said, "It's copyright"
"yes I know" I said
"it's mine , i've just finished writing it"
"sorry , that's illegal" they said ...........

[french frank]

O Gawd. What have I started? What I originally meant (and not all that seriously) was the ability to post up our own manuscript jottings via some cunning e-gadget on this site. This was in response to RJ's valiant attempt to represent note-values with letters. I wish I'd kept my mouth shut 'cos I'd be the least likely person on the planet to be able to operate any such system. Give me a piece of paper and a pencil and I can dash away like Mozart on speed

Well, there's nothing to prevent you doing that and posting a scanned image .

[Pabmusic]

Well, I'm still not clear. What about EDITORS who amend / tidy up /include new research in publishing a piece hitherto 'out of copyright'? Do they not taken out copyright on THEIR edition irrespective of whether the original is in / out of copyright?

I thought this covered it: ' For an arranger or editor to have copyright there needs to have been sufficient input to create an entitlement to copyright (for all intents and purposes, this will usually be the case).'

Obviously, such people will have the copyright in what the've done (say, a preface, or editorial notes) unless they've waived their rights in favour of the publisher - this is often the case, and they will have been paid by the publisher for doing so. They will not automatically have copyright in the music, except where their input has been demonstrably significant (I don't know exactly what the test is). You may remember that Hyperion got burned a few years ago when the editor of a work they'd recorded sued and won on the facts (that is, in his case, the court found his contribution had been sufficiently great).

[Pabmusic]

several years ago before I started to use a computer for notation I finished some parts and took them to a shop to photocopy them.
"You can't do that" they said, "It's copyright"
"yes I know" I said
"it's mine , i've just finished writing it"
"sorry , that's illegal" they said ...........

The same has happened to me. Sibelius makes things look too good

[french frank]

Well, I'm still not clear. What about EDITORS who amend / tidy up /include new research in publishing a piece hitherto 'out of copyright'? Do they not taken out copyright on THEIR edition irrespective of whether the original is in / out of copyright?

Probably, according to the judgement in Sawkins v Hyperion.

[MrGongGong]

Well, there's nothing to prevent you doing that and posting a scanned image .

(Shame this one wont work as a post)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Im-9xfFHW0s/ToqG93xuYFI/AAAAAAAAAOA/eXXdNnFk8Q0/s320/don%2527t+bitch+about+the+key.jpg

or even this (rather famous example)

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/148/406258694_e65219a08c_o.jpg

http://lostinthecloudblog.com/2010/03/13/john-stump-composer-of-faeries-aire-and-death-waltz/

[Pabmusic]

Here's Sawkins v Hyperion: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/565.html

Note that Dr Sawkins was not claiming copyright in Lalande's music - only in the performing editions he prepared and which were used for the recording. The judgement says he made some 3000 editorial interventions, and realised the figured bass. I'd say that was pretty significant, and the court obviously thought so.