Close me. I'm a done thread.

[MartyNeilan]

I edited a copy that I use for my students. (some markings are added to help performance at a middle and high school level and are not Wagner's, they are specified in the arrangement) I also have it in Bb, which the kids have an easier time starting on assuming they can play a low Eb (124), and also a rhythmic exercise to help prepare for it. Here are the links to my Finale files:

Tuba:
http://home.earthlink.net/~jmjsneilan/TRide.MUS
http://home.earthlink.net/~jmjsneilan/TRideBb.MUS
http://home.earthlink.net/~jmjsneilan/TPreRide.MUS

Trombone:
http://home.earthlink.net/~jmjsneilan/TrRide.MUS
http://home.earthlink.net/~jmjsneilan/TrPreRide.MUS

[BVD Press]

Here is a link for the Torchinsky book:

http://www.encoremupub.com/9046.htm

Why not get a bunch of Wagner!!!

[ThomasDodd]

Xeroxing parts out of a book is not.

That depends on wether it's the original part or an arangement. Taking the seperate parts from a full score, and puting them all on one page, then putting those ion a book does not give you any rights over that material. Any original text you write, like performance notes and such, are protected by copyright, but not the notes. Refomating the notes, say 5 bars per line instead of 8, doesn't make it a new work either.

Now, if the page in the books says "arranged by Bob Smith" then you have to check the dates to see if he still hold the copyright on his arangement.

Then there is "fair use." So if I bought said book, I can make a copy of it, that I write on to make notes for performance.

[Rick Denney]

I will expound further. If somebody on this board wants to write out the Sheet music, post it on a web site that is available for download or printing, that is fully legal in this case.
Xeroxing parts out of a book is not.

Photocopying ur-text or any publication that does not have copyrightable added material or editing would be legal because it is in the public domain. For example, copying the page in the Torchinsky book with that part on it would be legal, because it is also just a photocopy of the ur-text tuba part without any additional editing. Torchy's contribution is the advice he gives at the front of the book, which is still, of course, protected by copyright.

But, frankly, it's just as easy to go to the places I mentioned, order the music, and have it right in front of you tormorrow or the next day. And if you get the Wagner book edited by Torchinsky, you'll get some valuable advice on how to play it, too.

I would have sent him a PDF if I'd had one on my computer, which I didn't. And now that Joe has provided him the link, I don't need to.

I'm not in any way excusing his rude behavior, behavior that seems remarkably self-destructive considering who he might be offending on this board. I get irritated by people who ask for free advice and then complain that it is not worth more than what they paid for it.

Rick "who thinks a little judgmentalism can still be instructive" Denney

[Rick Denney]

Then there is "fair use." So if I bought said book, I can make a copy of it, that I write on to make notes for performance.

Thomas, fair use does not make it possible to make a copy just because it is for personal use. Fair use makes it possible to quote an excerpt for the purposes of academic study or critical review. The key word there is "excerpt". So, I think you are right, but for reasons you didn't mention that may affect understanding.

And it is not possible for a person to add a new copyright unless they add copyrightable editing. This could be an arrangement, but it could also be dynamic markings or phrasings. Thus, Herb Wekselblatt's version of one of the Bach Cello Suites is copyrightable (because of his dynamic and phrasing markings), but an ur-text edition is not. Torchinsky's excerpt books are claimed to be straight photocopies of the original parts, so there's nothing copyrightable if the original is already in the public domain. His comments at the front, however, are copyrightable.

But that is a legal issue. There is still the issue of rewarding those who do real work in putting togerther what would be hard for the rest of us to put together. Thus, even though Gordon Cherry's CD contains only public-domain music, the effort he went to to make it available to us deserves reward, and that's why I gladly paid for it and recommend others to do the same.

Rick "thinking copyright law is mighty confusing and getting worse" Denney

[ThomasDodd]

Then there is "fair use." So if I bought said book, I can make a copy of it, that I write on to make notes for performance.

Thomas, fair use does not make it possible to make a copy just because it is for personal use. Fair use makes it possible to quote an excerpt for the purposes of academic study or critical review. The key word there is "excerpt". So, I think you are right, but for reasons you didn't mention that may affect understanding.

Yeah, I short circuited a little. But it's a stickiy point from me, given the complete loss of fair use today. The secon sentence wasn't related to the first. That has to do with what copyright actually protects. One is supposed to be ably to make copies all day long, without infringing, untill you distribute those copies.

But that is a legal issue. There is still the issue of rewarding those who do real work in putting togerther what would be hard for the rest of us to put together. Thus, even though Gordon Cherry's CD contains only public-domain music, the effort he went to to make it available to us deserves reward, and that's why I gladly paid for it and recommend others to do the same.

And if I have a use for much of that material, I'd buy the disc. If i just need one or two files though?

And don't get me started on out-of-print materials, or stuff owned by defunct companies. I've got pictures I cannot get reprints/copies of, because they are on professional paper, stating the copyrights belong to someone else. But that business closed 15 years ago, and I the rights were not transfered. Try finding a place that will take that explnation. My father did portrait photos.He died 8 years ago, all his business materials were destroyed (negatives in particular). But the pictures were printed on paper with a copyright notice, so I cannot get picture he took of me duplicated.

Rick "thinking copyright law is mighty confusing and getting worse" Denney

The DMCA and the perpetual copyright are making it much worse. Automatic copyright was bad enough. Go back to the first versions. You apply, get 14 years. You can apply for a 14 year extension, but you must apply for that. That was good enough when publishing and distribution was difficult, given the ease of that today, it should be plenty of time.

BTW, how do you make "fair use" of a move on DVD? Say you want to include a scene in on a fan site for an actor.

[Rick Denney]

My father did portrait photos.He died 8 years ago, all his business materials were destroyed (negatives in particular). But the pictures were printed on paper with a copyright notice, so I cannot get picture he took of me duplicated.

You inherited those copyrights, presumably, and should be able to demonstrate ownership therefore.

What do you mean by "duplicated?" Send me an email--I might be able to help you.

Rick "who occasionally moonlights as a professional photographer" Denney

[ThomasDodd]

My father did portrait photos.He died 8 years ago, all his business materials were destroyed (negatives in particular). But the pictures were printed on paper with a copyright notice, so I cannot get picture he took of me duplicated.

You inherited those copyrights, presumably, and should be able to demonstrate ownership therefore.

No, my mother did. And she disposed of those negatives, remaining equipment and such before she moved to TX.
The real trick is, most place see the paper and won't do the work. When it's a pictuire of me from 20 years ago, the often don't belive it me, and the sure don't believe my father took them. There is no name on the photos, just the pro-grade paper warnings.

Still, What abnout all the other people he made pictures for? Shouldn't the be able to get copies now? The have no way of contact me or my mother, since few people in the area know where we are. They kmign know the business name, but finding us would be next to impossible.

I picked this as an example, since I have direct envolvement. But the same hold for 20-30 year old recordings, that are out of print, or old arrangements that no one has to sell. There are lot's of old recording I'd buy if I could, but thhey are quite rare finds. The copyright holder is no longer interested in making money on those right, so they should become public domain.

The point of copyright was to encourage publishing the work, so that it would be available to the public. Giving the hoilder the ability to make some money on their work, without other ripping them off with clones. That is far from what it is used for today.

And why isn't a portrait a work for hire, or shared copyright between the artist and the subject? If I pay you to take/paint my picture, that's a work for hire. As the subject, I'm as important to the work as the you are. Without me there would be not picture to argue over.

[Rick Denney]

And why isn't a portrait a work for hire, or shared copyright between the artist and the subject? If I pay you to take/paint my picture, that's a work for hire. As the subject, I'm as important to the work as the you are. Without me there would be not picture to argue over.

Anything can be negotiated. But the ownership has value, and has to be paid for. Paint artists do not own their paintings after they sell them, and can no longer profit from them, though they may have a case if someone copies them with the intent of defrauding the public. In the case of photography, though, most photographers make their money from enlargements, made after the delivery of the initial prints. But if you are willing to pay them, they'll even give you the negatives so you can make your own enlargements.

And I think you are overstating the difficulty in getting reproductions made from photographs that have copyright notices on them. I've had many such documents reproduced, and in nearly every case the statement "I own the copyright" or "I have permission from the copyright holder" is enough. At most, they may make you sign an affadavit, which releases them from responsibility if it turns out you are fibbing. I know many photographers who would never think to ask the question if the copyright owner was no longer in business.

Furthermore, the copyright holds whether there is notice given or not, so places that will reproduce photos with no notice but not those with notices are demonstrating that they don't understand copyright law.

I don't disagree with your position that copyright law has departed from its original purpose and that it protects too much, I'm just trying to make sure people here understand what it is, because music is one of the battle zones in copyright law and understanding is protection.

Rick "do not break the rules before learning them" Denney

[ThomasDodd]

And I think you are overstating the difficulty in getting reproductions made from photographs that have copyright notices on them. I've had many such documents reproduced, and in nearly every case the statement "I own the copyright" or "I have permission from the copyright holder" is enough. At most, they may make you sign an affadavit, which releases them from responsibility if it turns out you are fibbing. I know many photographers who would never think to ask the question if the copyright owner was no longer in business.

The places areound here nolonger take them. So I'd have to send the off to a shop to get it done. I even tried going digital. I scanned one, did some touch up work, and took it to be printed. They said I couldn't have taken the shot, so I was trying to illegally copy a picture. One place told me that on a picture I took recently with a digital camera hooked up to good lights.

Furthermore, the copyright holds whether there is notice given or not, so places that will reproduce photos with no notice but not those with notices are demonstrating that they don't understand copyright law.

As above, if they think it was done professionally, and you don't have the negative, they won't do it. If it's om marked paper that's a big clue that it was professionally done.

Remember this is a small town. I've seen similar misunderstanding in othe media too, but photography is one most people run into.

PM me if you want to continue the photo stuff. Copyright is a big issue for musicians, but I've gone on a tangent. I found a decent printer, and just do the stuff myself now. But his former customers likely have problems, and I wish they didn't.

[WoodSheddin]

topic took a tangent. gonna lock it up for posterity.