Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Monday 21 March 2005 04:26 am, Rob Myers wrote:
> This should really go onto cc-community. Are you subscribed to that list?

Just did.
>
> On Monday, March 21, 2005, at 02:50AM, drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com> 
wrote:
> >Also, people slap a copyright page on the front of a book without being
> >specific as to what inside is copyright nad what isn't. (Or what can be
> >pulled out without violating the copyright.)
>
> They don't have to. They get copyright on anything they write by default.
> Indeed they don't even have to put the notice on.
>
> >For instance, and I think I posted this before, I bought "The Folksong
> > Fake Book" and while it does not seem to have the standard type copyright
> > notice anywhere that I can see on the first several pages, it does say
> > this on the first inside page that is not the cover - "For all works
> > contained herein: Unauthorized copying, arranging, adapting, recording,
> > or public performance is an infringement of copyright. Infringers are
> > liable under the law."
>
> This ignores fair use/fair dealing, although I suppose that authorisation
> is given by the law in this case.

I have never seen the proponents of copyrights (the big copyright holders and 
those pushing for more rights and harsher punishments) mention fair use. 
Certainly not in materials designed to scare  and terrorise the public into 
not violating copyrights.

Also, fair use is a dangerous thing to rely on if what I have read is 
correct. 
You can be sued over fair use and your use gets judged fair in a trial. Is 
this inexpensive?
>
> >Then on page 355 it has a song titled "Nassau Bound" which it lists as a
> > Sea Chantey from the Bahamas It is a song we learned in school as
> > children. We learned it, and you would probably know it, under the title
> > "Sloop John B."
>
> Ahhhhh. So this is public domain work. There seem to be four ways of
> getting copyright on a public domain work that are possibly relevent to
> this :
>
> 1. Make the work part of a collective work and claim copyright on the
> collective work. So if I collect two hundred folk songs into a single book,
> I can claim copyright on the entire book. 2. Alter or arrange the work in a
> sufficiently different way in order to create a derivative work and claim
> copyright on that. 3. For a written work, claim copyright on the
> typographic arrangement used to present the work (not the text itself). 4.
> For a a song, arrange it in a new way (I think).
>
> Dover Books tend to do 1. They'll collect hundreds of images and claim
> copyright on the collection. They also add an introductory essay to a
> facsimile of a complete public domain copyright work and place the
> copyright at the start of the book.
>
> >The song itself has this copyright notice:
> >
> >Copyright (C) 2000 by Hal Leonard Corporation - where (C) is actually the
> >copyright symbol.
> >
> >Now, how in the world can a presumably american company have obtained a
> >copyright on a traditional song of my country? In the year 2000 no less.
>
> IANAL but if they haven't changed anything they can't (c) the individual
> songs. They *may* copyright the typographic arrangement of the song.

But they do have (C) notices on the individual songs. As well as the 
typographic arrangement, I think it might the presentation in fake book 
format. This is like what is called a lead sheet. Basically, you get the 
melody and the chord changes and you fake the song.

This is all well and good, BUT, the impression given, and I believe the 
impression they want to give, is that the entire thing is copyright by them. 
There is no description of the works being from the public domain and what 
that means to the reader.

This may be entirely legal for them to do BUT...
>
> So you couldn't photocopy the page (typography) but you could type out the
> words and print that (text).
>
> >They claim a similar copyright on Greensleaves which they list as 16th
> > Century English and yet they obtained a copyright on this song in 2000?
> >
> >Same with Molly Malone which we also learned as children and they list as
> >Irish.
> >
> >Same with Old MacDonald Had A Farm which is listed as an American
> > Folksong.
> >
> >I am sure you get the picture. What exactly are they claiming to have a
> >copyright in? It can't be the words and music can it? I mean, that would
> > mean when children sing Old MacDonald in a public place they are making a
> > violating public performance.
>
> TO my mind it has to be the typography.
>
> IIRC it's an offense in the US to claim copyright on something you don't
> have copyright on. I'd love to see such a case brought.
>
> Apparently "Happy Birthday To You" *is* under copyright. Think of all those
> home videos pirating that copyrighted work...

I also understand this to be the case which is why restaurant employees 
usually sing some other happy birthday song.

Funny thing is, I read recently that "Waltzing Matilda" is still under 
copyright in the US and is one reason why the movement to adopt the song as 
the Australian National Anthem is being held back. If they adopted it, they 
would either have to pay royalties to the US copyright holder everytime it 
was played at medal ceremonies of sporting events held in the US, or not play 
it.

In my country we have a phrase: Fun can't done.
>