--- On Sun, 10/10/10, Valentin Villenave <valen...@villenave.net> wrote:
> From: Valentin Villenave <valen...@villenave.net> > Subject: Re: [Patch] Request for addition to the publications list > To: "Jonathan Wilkes" <jancs...@yahoo.com> > Cc: lilypond-devel@gnu.org > Date: Sunday, October 10, 2010, 11:14 PM > On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 10:53 PM, > Jonathan Wilkes <jancs...@yahoo.com> > 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 :-) > _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
