I was writing a Wikipedia entry for Virgil Fox (the organist) and I wanted to quote his introduction to the Bach Toccata and Fugue in Dm (BWV565) from the album "Heavy Organ" because I thought that it nicely summed up his approach to music (especially as constrasted with that if E. Power Biggs), but I didn't want to run afoul of the copyright police, so I thought I'd ask here first.
The quote is:
''There is current in our land (and several European countries) at this moment a kind of nit-picking worship of historic im-po-tence. They say, they say, that Bach must not be interpreted and that he must have no emotion, his notes speak for themselves. You want know what that is? Pure unadulterated rot! Bach has the red blood. He has the communion with the people. He has all of this amazing spirit and imagine that you could put all the music on one side of the agenda with his great interpretation and great feeling and put the greatest man of all right up on top of a dusty shelf underneath some glass case in a museum and say that he must not be interpreted! They're full of you know what and they are so untalented that they had to hide behind this thing 'cause they couldn't get in the House of Music any other way!''
I would argue that it would fall under any reasonable definition of fair use, but I'd like to get a second opinion before I cause any trouble.
Just for future reference, assuming quoting the text is permissible, where would attaching an MP3 of that introduction fall? I don't think it is worth it in this case, but I was just wondering where the edges are.
Is there a standard way to footnote such entries?
Thanks,
Mark H. Zellers
* The Zellers Family mzellers@pacbell.net [2004-04-16]:
(...)
I would argue that it would fall under any reasonable definition of fair use, but I'd like to get a second opinion before I cause any trouble.
For me, it sounds like quoting a passage of a book or quoting a part of a scientific paper, which is quite reasonable. But IANAL.
Just for future reference, assuming quoting the text is permissible, where would attaching an MP3 of that introduction fall? I don't think it is worth it in this case, but I was just wondering where the edges are.
This I dunno.
As to footnoting the entries, I cannot say either.
Pedro.
The Zellers Family wrote:
I was writing a Wikipedia entry for Virgil Fox (the organist) and I wanted to quote his introduction to the Bach Toccata and Fugue in Dm (BWV565) from the album "Heavy Organ" because I thought that it nicely summed up his approach to music (especially as constrasted with that if E. Power Biggs), but I didn't want to run afoul of the copyright police, so I thought I'd ask here first.
Assuming the article isn't just this quote (which I'm sure it isn't), there is no problem with this at all. This is a paradigm case of simple and perfectly acceptable "fair use" that is going to be fair use for just about any conceivable re-use of our material.
I would argue that it would fall under any reasonable definition of fair use, but I'd like to get a second opinion before I cause any trouble.
Yes, it's fine.
Just for future reference, assuming quoting the text is permissible, where would attaching an MP3 of that introduction fall? I don't think it is worth it in this case, but I was just wondering where the edges are.
I think that questions like this are hard to answer a priori -- it just depends on the full context of what we're doing in any given case. As you say, in this case, it doesn't seem particularly on-point ("worth it") to include it, but in other cases, I think that including it would be valid.
--Jimbo
As a very similar example, a while ago I added a 22-second clip of a song to [[House music]], which not only serves as an (imho excellent) example of house music, but also to demonstrate the quotation that had been previously added to the page about house music.
"Not everyone understands House music; it's a spiritual thing; a body thing; a soul thing."
Now, while I'd be the first to admit the lyics in house music are at the very bottom of the spectrum of "high quality" or "deep" lyrics (it's dance music; it's not supposed to make you think), I think the quotation is apt.
But besides that, I think the sample is an example that approaches the borderline but doesn't cross over into not being fair use.
- David
Jimmy Wales wrote:
The Zellers Family wrote:
I was writing a Wikipedia entry for Virgil Fox (the organist) and I wanted to quote his introduction to the Bach Toccata and Fugue in Dm (BWV565) from the album "Heavy Organ" because I thought that it nicely summed up his approach to music (especially as constrasted with that if E. Power Biggs), but I didn't want to run afoul of the copyright police, so I thought I'd ask here first.
Assuming the article isn't just this quote (which I'm sure it isn't), there is no problem with this at all. This is a paradigm case of simple and perfectly acceptable "fair use" that is going to be fair use for just about any conceivable re-use of our material.
I would argue that it would fall under any reasonable definition of fair use, but I'd like to get a second opinion before I cause any trouble.
Yes, it's fine.
Just for future reference, assuming quoting the text is permissible, where would attaching an MP3 of that introduction fall? I don't think it is worth it in this case, but I was just wondering where the edges are.
I think that questions like this are hard to answer a priori -- it just depends on the full context of what we're doing in any given case. As you say, in this case, it doesn't seem particularly on-point ("worth it") to include it, but in other cases, I think that including it would be valid.
--Jimbo
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org