[WikiEN-l] Question for copyright savvy folks

[Ray Saintonge]

Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>I have just uploaded a scan of the first page of Bernstein's
>Chichester Psalms.  I believe this satisfies fair use in illustrating
>the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chichester_Psalms and I am
>confident it does not interfere in any way with the publisher's
>ability to profit from their intellectual property.  This particular
>scan includes the copyright statement, which is a bonus.
>
>Acceptable?  I would be very surprised if not.
>
>Next up: Duruflé Requiem.  Problem: not much happens on the first
>page, the obvious target for a scan here is the first page of Movement
>II, the Kyrie.  This does not have the copyright statement, although
>of course I put it in the image description.
>
>Acceptable in illustrating an article on the Duruflé Requiem?
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requiem_%28Durufl%C3%A9%29 Probably OK, I
>would say.  Yes? 
>
I don't see a problem with either of these.  The presence of the 
copyright symbol should not matter.  If something is protected by 
copyright it is so with or without the symbol.  Similarly, a wrongly 
claimed copyright is not made valid by addition of the symbol.

>OK, I have a pretty extensive library of scores, and most of them I
>can find a single page, usually the first, which illustrates the work
>well and does not in any way interfere with the copyright owner's
>ability to profit.  But there are some hard cases.
>
>* Works where the work is listed in a section in the article on the
>composer. In order not to overwhelm the article I would be inclined to
>scan a single system, but that does not fundamentally change matters;
>it would not have the copyright on the scan, but it would be on the
>description page, the question is, would fair use justly apply to use
>in illustrating a discussion of the work in an article on a wider
>topic?
>
When applying fair use, or the more rigid fair dealing, credit needs to 
be given to the source.  Adding this to the image caption would be enough.

>* Works where there are multiple editions, for example Copland's Old
>American Songs.  Here I have one of a number of different versions,
>and available in different keys.  Simple Gifts, an iconic melody (it's
>the melody in Appalachian Spring), probably the best known of all the
>American songs he collected.  Melody by Trad, filtered through
>Copland, filtered again by the editors of my edition.  Valid?
>
Traditional songs themselves are not copyrightable.  Copland's 
arrangements would be copyrightable, but if he failed to renew the 
copyright (in 1972 for a 1944 work) it would have gone into the public 
domain.

>Clearly in the case of a short work like windmills of your mind (theme
>from the original Thomas Crown Affair, keep up at the back there) a
>full page is too much for fair use, a single system or two systems is
>the most one could justify.  Would the same apply to Summertime?  It's
>a short work, but part of a whole opera.
>
Gershwin died in 1937.  Were his copyrights renewed?

>I have few reservations about the Messiah, the Watkins Shaw edition is
>now pretty much ubiquitous and Novello publish both that and Prout
>anyway.  Beethoven Missa Solemnis,no problem, only one edition I know
>of.
>
>Mozart Requiem - a problem.  The Novello edition, completed by
>Sussmayr, is far and away the most widely used in the UK, but there is
>a newish critical edition completed by Robert D. Levin which includes
>an amen fugue taken from sketches by Mozart.  Would a single system or
>two systems from that be acceptable in discussing that critical
>edition in the article on the Mozart requiem?
>
It's important to know when and where these editions were originally 
produced.  The original work by Handel, Mozart and Beethoven is 
obviously in the public domain.  Publishers' arrangements may 
nevertheless be protected, but republications do not restart the clock 
except to the extent that they add new material.

>What of scores from ChoralWiki?  That is public domain, I guess we can
>borrow at will?  Or should we restrict ourselves to the same level of
>caution?  Note that some of the stuff on ChoralWiki is actually
>copyright, it's externally hosted, so I would have to watch that of
>course.  Most of them are in PDF format.
>
I don't do anything in music so I'm not familiar with the site.  While 
it's good to check their copyright analysis, the presumption is that the 
material is usable.

>Finally, does anyone have a good, cheap or free converter from jpeg /
>tiff to a more efficient format?
>
Sorry but I know less about these technicalities than I know about 
copyright.

Ec