Copyright protection [LWN.net]

Posted Aug 25, 2012 17:07 UTC (Sat) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]

as I understand it, publication creates a new copyright on that copy.

This is why printed classical music is still under copyright, it's not the copyright of the author, it's copyright of that particular copy by the publisher.

So if Disney were to reprint "Steamboat Willie" and re-release it, they would have a new copyright on the new version

yes, this can get confusing and ugly because the publisher doesn't gain copyright on the older work, it's only their 'version' of it that gets the protection, and the original author could give others permission to publish the work as well, which would get a separate copyright.

But anything that's produced has copyright from the moment it's 'fixed' (written down, recorded, etc)

Posted Aug 25, 2012 20:17 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

as I understand it, publication creates a new copyright on that copy.

I'm highly skeptical. Besides the fact that it creates bizarre ownership situations, it doesn't serve the purpose of copyright at all to give someone property rights just for publishing something that was already published.

For the classical music, I think you're thinking of new arrangements of the music - something with creative content. If it's just the same sheet music Beethoven wrote, I don't believe it.

It does seem like the Berne Convention changed (back in 1982) the relevance of publication in the US. When I heard something had to be published to have copyright, it was probably before that. I think the author actually had to claim copyright in those days too (hence the copyright notice found at the beginning of every book, which is mostly redundant now).

Posted Aug 25, 2012 20:36 UTC (Sat) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]

I wish it wasn't the case, but no, it doesn't take making a new arrangement for copyright to kick in.

it may be that they are claiming copyright on the compilation of all the music together, but somhow they make it so that you can't copy the music, even though it's note-for-note identical to something published 100 years ago.

Posted Aug 25, 2012 20:43 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

Perhaps music publishers claim copyright on the arrangement on the page; after all music type setting is a complex task. But I am not so sure that it would hold before a judge...

Posted Aug 25, 2012 20:42 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

IANAL, but I think he is right. And you are right about bizarre situations: the copyright applies to the new copy, but not to the old copy. This is the understanding that I have arrived at about this issue, illustrated by a few examples:

If the copyright for "Steamboat Willie" had expired (something that Disney is unlikely to allow, but bear with me), and Disney publishes a restored version: anyone would be allowed to publish the old version, but not the new one. Disney would tell the world: "Find your own copy!"
We are in the year 2055, the copyright for "Star Wars" has expired. Some Martians try to show one of the endless remasterings and reeditings Lucas has produced during the years on the Earth shuttle; they have to pay royalties. Then they resort to showing the original movie; Lucas doesn't get a dime (and travelers are much happier).
I publish a new translation of "The Idiot" by Dostoievsky. I hold the copyright for my translation, although the copyright for the original is long expired. A translation made in 1905, however, is in the public domain.

These are not hypothetical situations, they arise all the time e.g. in Google Books.

Posted Aug 25, 2012 23:18 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

Well sure — restored, remastered, re-edited, translated into another language. That's creative content and deserves a new copyright. We were talking about merely reprinting.

If a phone book doesn't enjoy copyright protection (which we know from the famous 1991 US Supreme Court Feist decision, which said merely printing names and phone numbers in alphabetical order is not creative enough to deserve copyright), then I can't see how a second press run from the same galleys that produced the first gives you a second copyright. Or a re-typesetting of the same notes you find in 100-year-old sheet music.

Posted Aug 25, 2012 23:28 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

In the first case (reprint, reusing the galleys) then I think there is no margin for interpretation: in effect it is the same copy. Re-typesetting depends on whether there is any art to it. I suppose it depends on the following question: given the same content and the same constraints, is there only one possible output, or several? For text these days typesetting is almost always mechanical, for music I have no idea, honestly.

Just curious, why do you concede that re-editing has creative content, but deny it to re-typesetting printed music?

Posted Aug 26, 2012 21:14 UTC (Sun) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

Just curious, why do you concede that re-editing has creative content, but deny it to re-typesetting printed music?

Just because re-editing involves the same kind of intellectual work as what was protected by the original copyright: writing. Composition of words. If there is any significant creativity in typesetting music, it's a different kind from what went into composing the music, which is what we generally think of as protected by sheet music's copyright.

I suppose it's conceivable that typesetting music is creative enough to be copyrightable, and if that's all that gets re-copyrighted when someone publishes Beethoven sheet music, that isn't unbelievable for me. I thought we were talking about a copyright wherein a person couldn't legally read the notes off the page, type them into a music publishing program, and print new copies of the composition.

Posted Aug 26, 2012 21:40 UTC (Sun) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]

If editing is a creative enough endeavour, why does an editor of a book not get copyright on that book?

Posted Aug 26, 2012 21:55 UTC (Sun) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

If editing is a creative enough endeavour, why does an editor of a book not get copyright on that book?

Well assuming that's true, I withdraw my acceptance of the idea that re-editing a book creates addition copyright of any kind.

(Assuming "re-editing" means redoing what an "editor" does).

Posted Aug 27, 2012 0:41 UTC (Mon) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]

Because editing is usually a work-for-hire, so the copyright on the edited work belongs to whomever payed an editor. However, if an author collaborates with an editor without making any work-for-hire contracts then editor indeed would share the copyright with the author.

Posted Aug 26, 2012 21:42 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

Ah, now I understand: you mean something like a revised edition, not just a reprint.

I thought we were talking about a copyright wherein a person couldn't legally read the notes off the page, type them into a music publishing program, and print new copies of the composition.

That would indeed be quite bizarre. I think a new edition of an old music work can restrict e.g. photocopying the exact pages, but not protect the music score in any way. The same would be true for a text book. But I am not an expert in any way, just a puny armchair copyright amateur.

Posted Aug 27, 2012 9:42 UTC (Mon) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link]

Music publishers bring out new editions of old works all the time. Usually they add stuff like fingering or dynamics that wasn't in the original, just so they have something obvious to copyright. This is on top of re-typesetting the music according to modern customs, since the original old scores are often quite difficult to make out even if you photograph them 1:1 for reproduction.

Even »urtext« editions which try to present the music as originally written by, say, Bach or Beethoven normally add »critical« annotations along the lines of »In bar 39, the so-and-so edition of 1865 has an A where all the other editions have an A-flat«.

If you were to locate a very old copy of the music in question in your granny's laundry chest, you would be perfectly free to scan these pages and put them up on the Internet, even if modern editions of the same music exist. You would also be perfectly free to take your laptop, with a music typesetting program on it, to your friendly neighbourhood music library and type in stuff from very old scores there. This is basically what the music publishers do, anyway.

Posted Aug 27, 2012 10:46 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

Would you also be free to take your laptop with a music typesetting program and type in stuff from the modern edition? I assume that, as long as you don't copy the new annotations, you are good to go: the mere work of e.g. compiling the score from older sources is not copyrighteable.

Posted Sep 4, 2012 9:46 UTC (Tue) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]

For music, GOOD typesetting is mostly manual. However, most typesetting nowadays is mechanical.

Just look at lilypond, and in particular their "essay on music" whatever it's called. Mechanical typesetting can *easily* create music that is very hard to play.

Cheers,
Wol

Posted Aug 25, 2012 17:11 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

Interesting problem. The Berne Convention doesn't say, as it doesn't seem to apply to software. 17 USC, which apparently covers computer programs (although I can't find them explicity mentioned), makes no distinctions with other works:

Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978, subsists from its creation and, except as provided by the following subsections, endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author’s death. [...] In the case of an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first"

I suppose it is similar in the relevant EU Directive.