Copyright only apply to the work parts of a work originated by
humans. So it is not possible to claim copyrights for mere machine
processing, and no acknowledgment is needed for that. It is though
possible, in part, to restrict the use of a copyright, as long as it
it does not restrict customary use of ownership of copyrighted
material. For example, if you own a copyrighted book, you can freely
sell it or do whatever you want to do with it, as long as it does not
violate the rights of the copyright owner (like reprinting would),
and it is not possible for the copyright owner to restrict that owner
right. Computer software is in this respect no different than books;
see:
http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/index.html
http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/trtdocs_wo033.html
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
If work is made up by differently copyrighted components, different
legal principles apply. For example, if a composer makes a work,
which a performer performs in an recording, then there was a case
involving the Beastie Boys (see the Usenet newsgroup
rec.music.theory), where the performer, but not the composer part,
was viewed as copyrighted. The legal principle indicated by the court
is that for a material to be considered copyrighted, there must be
sufficiently creative human work involved to make it unique. The
snipped from the composition was too short to make it attributable to
the composers special creative imagination.
And as for licenses, they must be properly legally registered for
each licensee (in advance of any purchase or use), as the user must
give up the owner rights granted by copyrights. So most licenses
sprinkled by the computer industry are probably not legally valid due
to absent or improper legal registration, but copyright still apply.
On 9 Jan 2006, at 17:44, Vaylor Trucks wrote:
I was not able to (quckly) find this info on the site or in the
list archives. Suppose I want to use Lilypond to generate output
which would then be inserted into a book which I intend to sell:
1. is this a violation of the GNU?
2. if not, what attribution (if any) needs to be present in the
final materials?
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
