28-05-2005 01:51									#1
	rewrite = copyright? Suffering from ads?

Ooh, this one could be fun (well, not for Hyperion, but...)

http://www.soundgenerator.com/news/...?articleid=5483

quote: Dr Sawkins had claimed musical copyright in a selection of works by composer Lalande. The Four editions of the composer's musical works had been prepared in a new version by Dr Sawkins, who then claimed copyright over the new versions. Dr Sawkins lost at first instance in relation to the recording of one of the pieces of music but won on the other three. Hyperion appealed with the leave of the trial judge. Hyperion's principal objection to the claim made by Dr Sawkins was its contention that a performing edition does not amount to a new and substantive musical work in its own right unless the performing edition is original, in the sense that it amounts to a new musical work. Thus, Hyperion contended that if an edition is an arrangement or interpretation of an existing musical work then it may obtain copyright as an original musical work. Dr Sawkins expressly made clear that he was not contending that his editions were arrangements of Lalande's music. . . . The judgment means that almost every edition of an out of copyright work will in fact have its own musical copyright because the law will regard it as 'original'. This will affect classical record companies and performers of classical music as they will have to seek (and pay for) a licence before performing or recording music from an edition. The judgment also means that the threshold for copyright and 'originality' is extremely low. Given that copyright subsists in every fixation of a musical work, this will mean that each time a musical work is recorded, that particular performance could be of an "original" musical work under UK copyright law. This gives rise to the possibility of performers claiming musical copyright in addition to performing rights - something the legislators surely did not intend.

...or, alternatively, the possibility of performers slightly reworking a popular song, claiming it as an original, and performing it without worrying about annoying copyrights...

	28-05-2005 02:04									#2
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I don't agree with the sky-if-falling interpretation of the ruling.

I don't have a problem with a subsequent work -- which is not substantially similar with the original -- having it's own copyright.

One example would be the old disco song "A Fifth of Beethoven." The composer of that should be able to collect royalties if others decide to record his work.

On the other hand, if he tries to collect royalties on recordings of the original Beethoven's 5th Symphony, he deserved to be lynched...because the works are not "substantially similar."