Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Tuesday 22 November 2005 04:30 pm, Peter Brink wrote:
> drew Roberts skrev:
> >>A book, a pdf-file, a text-file or an openoffice-file containing the
> >>same expression are all _copies_ of the same work.
> >
> > This would be nice if really so, (and I am not saying it is not so) but
> > then I am confused as to how, say someone who publishes a fake book
> > containing public domain songs can claim much of a copyright in anything.
> > Especially sine they imply that the whole shebang is copyrighted. Can
> > someone who knows comment on this?
>
> If I create a collection of public domain texts, I could claim a
> copyright on my _selection_ of texts. The selection would be copyright
> protected, provided of course that the selection in itself is a result
> of a creative act. The copyright status of the _individual_ texts would
> not be altered.

Yes, I understand that and I see how I used words there that could be easily 
understood to mean what you are talking about. That is not what I meant 
though.

I will try and be a little more clear with a single example:

The Hal.Leonard Coprotation Publishes a fake book called "The Folksong Fake 
Book" ISBN 0-634-01270-3

Now, the only copyright notice I see near the front where you would normally 
expect to find a book's copyright notice is:

"For all works contained herein:
Unauthorized copying, arranging, adapting, recording, or public performance 
is 
an infringement of copyright.
Infringers are liable under the law."

It is the individual songs themselves this have copyright notices claiming 
copyright for the corporations.

Songs like:

Buffalo Gals.
Brown Gal In De Ring.
Bobby Shaftoe.
Blow The Man Down.
Baa Baa Black Sheep.
Auld Lang Syne.Finnegan's Wake.
Greensleeves.
Guantanamera.
Song Of The Volga Boatman.
Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star.
The Sloop John B. (Which they call Nasau Bound)

I hope you get the idea.

Now, what could they possibly be claiming copyright in?

The words? If what I have seen discussed in this thread is true, they could 
not claim a copyright in the words if they have been accurate in collecting 
the original words as they claim to have tried to do.

The music? Again, they claim to have made every effort to retain the original 
versions. So, unless they are being sneaky, this would apply to the words and 
to the music. So how can they claim a copyright in either the words or the 
music to the songs?

The arrangement and / or presentation in fake book form? OK, I can possibly 
see that, but I am not sure as to what sort of copyright an arrangement gets 
and exactly what is meant by an arrangement in this context.

Anyone care to discuss the possibilities?
>
> /Peter Brink
all the best,

drew
-- 
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22drew%20Roberts%22