Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ukma!rutgers!att!skep2!wcs From: wcs@skep2.ATT.COM (Bill.Stewart.[ho95c]) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: network public domain? Message-ID: <468@skep2.ATT.COM> Date: 20 Feb 89 06:46:27 GMT References: <2712@looking.UUCP> <1449@papaya.bbn.com> <2944@stiatl.UUCP> <24371@amdcad.AMD.COM> <530@jhereg.Jhereg.MN.ORG> <1262@ccnysci.UUCP> <101@artsnet.UUCP> Reply-To: wcs@skep2.UUCP (46323-Bill.Stewart.[ho95c],2G218,x0705,) Organization: AT&T Bell Labs Center 4632, Holmdel, NJ Lines: 56 In article <1262@ccnysci.UUCP> dan@ccnysci.UUCP (Dan Schlitt) writes: > [discussion of copyright issues in folk music tradition, analogous > to copyrighting software vs public domain] Software, as with folk music, substantially developed in an academic / amateur environment, where the rewards for doing something are primarily aesthetic rather than financial, and having someone else use your work is its own reward (assuming they credit you for it.) The difficulties in both areas come when you want cash rather than prestige. It's been especially interesting to watch these issues resolve in the Christian music field - people who want to be professional musicians need protection of their work, while the music has traditionally been in the public domain, with funding provided by patrons or church employment (e.g. Bach was a paid choirmaster.) Especially gets strange when you throw in AFCAP union-ish rules. In article <101@artsnet.UUCP> mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham) writes: :1) The aversion to copyrighting clearly public domain material :from the folk traditions is valid. Arrangements of music are :quite copyrightable, but there is a wide range of "significant :creative input" that can occur in the process of that arranging. ... : In neither case can the public domain materials of the oral :traditions be copyrighted. :Now for my example: : Cat Stevens made popular a song called "Morning Has Broken", and :in a published collection of his songs he is credited by the :publisher as having written both words and tune. ... : The tune, "Bunessan" is an old Gaelic melody [ pre-1900 public-domain] ... : The words are by Eleanor Farjeon, ...... (1931, and so *isn't* public :domain) with a new harmonic arrangement by Martin Shaw (copyright :held by Oxford University Press). .... On the other hand, Stevens's guitar arrangement is rather different from the hymnal version, so it's legitimate to credit him with it rather than Shaw. :In the case of the words and setting, the case is clear for the :significant creative input of one individual. Likewise to the :harmonic arrangement. (Note that one hymnal indicates the permissions :for the words and the harmonic setting were obtained seperately :from the author and from OUP.) : Where clear original creative work of an individual is involved, :the notion of intellectual property rights seems to also be :agreed upon. : The areas of arrangement, setting, compilation, editing, etc. :are all grayer areas, and (as in my example) something that needs :some examination and clarification. What in a moderator's :activities are to be considered "common practice" and what are :"original creative input." -- # Thanks; # Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G218 Holmdel NJ 201-949-0705 ho95c.att.com!wcs # # News. Don't talk to me about News.