Re: [Patch] Request for addition to the publications list

[Jonathan Wilkes]

--- On Sun, 10/10/10, Valentin Villenave <address@hidden> wrote:

> From: Valentin Villenave <address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: [Patch] Request for addition to the publications list
> To: "Jonathan Wilkes" <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
> Date: Sunday, October 10, 2010, 11:14 PM
> On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 10:53 PM,
> Jonathan Wilkes <address@hidden>
> wrote:
> > That's an interesting article.
> 
> Thanks. Please do note that IANAL, obviously.
> 
> > Here's a question: if I made my own critical edition
> of
> > "Rite of Spring" in Lilypond using various scores as
> source
> > material, can I release that edition under a free
> license?  Or
> > does that depend on how each individual source score I
> used to
> > make it is licensed?
> 
> Well, for starters if you make any edition of "Rite of
> Spring", you're
> likely to be prosecuted for counterfeiting (Universal
> Editions tend to
> take this kind of things seriously, or so I was told).

Oh...
I forgot that the Copyright term is 70 years after the 
composer's death (at least in U.S.).

> 
> Secondly, any edition you will use (even for a very short
> part, even
> if you're just "remotely inspired by") is regarded as
> primary material
> and for *each and every one* of these sources you'll have
> to (either):
> 
> a - request and pay for an authorization (which will,
> anyway, be
> limited: for instance you may have permission to make a
> given number
> of exact copies, but no derived work, and the copies you'll
> make won't
> be redistributable)
> 
> b - make sure it's in the public domain (that means that
> the composer,
> the publisher, the editor, his assistant, everyone and his
> cousin have
> all been dead and buried for decades -- BUT also watch out
> for
> copyright extensions that could have be bought since then
> by their
> relatives, grandchilds etc.)
> 
> c - OR, if you happen to stumble upon a
> Creative-Commons-licensed
> score that Stravinsky had himself typeset using GNU
> LilyPond version
> -0.0.0.1-pre-pre-pre-alpha... then you may use it like a
> breeze, and
> Bob's your uncle. (careful *which* CC license he chose,
> though).
> 
> Oh, and by the way, even if you *think* your all set, it
> may be legal
> in your country but as soon as you'll post it online
> there's a good
> chance it will be accessible from a country where it is not
> (I'm told
> there's a little country called Sarkozistan that has very
> strange laws
> in this regard).
> 
> Actually, I don't care that much for Stravinsky (after all,
> he could
> have been your grandgrandfather).
> But when posthumous,
> recently-discovered Chopin manuscripts are effectively
> proprietarized
> by greedy publishers, now *that* just pisses me off.

From a moral standpoint, what's the difference between the two cases?

> 
> Valentin
> 
> PS (Just for the gist of it: this article I wrote nearly
> got me sued
> by the French music publishers' guild. IANAL, but somehing
> tells me I
> better get studying law :-)
>