A modern publisher might own copyright on the particular engraving. And if the edition included annotations by an editor, perhaps there's something to copyright there.

most of the publishers are copyrighting their engraving. they change the words, create a new harmonization, and then typeset it to their liking. perhaps they are copyrighting a new derivative, but they really can't OWN anything that is in the public domain - they are weasels. Gibbon's age is greater than the years of the combined weasels trying to pull the greedy stunt. just find an older copy and you are good to go. did you search imslp?

Thank you. This conversation is fascinating!

@ Francis: I don't know about imslp. I will look at it.

No one "gives" copyright to anyone. While the copyright in general is granted by the Federal Government, the way it works is that everything is automatically "under copyright" the moment it is created. While there is a registration process available, it is completely unnecessary.

Yes and no. As regards the United States, registration is not necessary to obtain copyright. (It used to be.) But it is generally necessary in order to enforce copyright, as by suing for damages.

One doesn't "copyright" something. One either has or does not have copyright. (It's a noun, not a verb.)

The OED begs to differ!--

ˈcopyright, v.

trans. To secure copyright for; to protect by copyright.

Not true. You "own" a copyright the moment something is created. Judicial enforcement only requires proof of "ownership." Registration is one such proof, but by no means the only one.

No, the general rule is stated in 17 U.S.C. § 411(a): that, except for suits concerning rights of attribution and integrity, "no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title." Thus, the Supreme Court would say in Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 130 S.Ct. 1237 (2010), "Subject to certain exceptions, the Copyright Act (Act) requires copyright holders to register their works before suing for copyright infringement. . . . Section 411(a)’s registration requirement is a precondition to filing a claim . . . ."

Actually, there is a way to prove copyright without registering with the government through the copyright office, and that is to register it with the government through the post office. Put all of your IP into an envelope and send it to your self as registered mail. Keep it in your file. If you ever need to file a suit, simply produce that sealed envelope in court. All the evidence of your ownership has been time stamped by the government and will stand in a court of law. (I haven't had the need to try this yet, but I am waiting for the first publisher to test me on it.)

francis-

The so-called "poor-man's copyright" is specifically disclaimed by the copyright agency.
Serendipitously, the information about that is on the same page that (more or less) verifies MarkT's statement above regarding the need to register as a precondition of bringing suit.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html

Alternatively, you could choose to not exercise your ability to have the State use violence and coercion for the extraction of money from individuals who have done you no actual harm.

Blessed is the man that hath not walked in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stood in the way of sinners, and hath not sat in the seat of the scornful.

Lawsuits are decided by agents of the Federal or State Government. The decisions are enforced by agents of the same government. The ability for a government to enforce its decisions rests on its "legitimate monopoly on the use of violence."

Also Intellectual Property is NOT THE SAME as real property. As follows:
1. If I steal your car, you don't have it anymore. If I copy your music, you still have it.
2. If the government didn't exist, you could stop me from stealing your car by sitting in it with a weapon of some sort. The only way to stop me from (for example) photo-copying your music would be for you to hunt me down and find me.

In fact, to have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?
-1 Cor 6:7 (NRSV)

You shall not steal. You shall not deceive or speak falsely to one another.
12
You shall not exploit your neighbor. You shall not commit robbery. You shall not withhold overnight the wages of your laborer.14

-God

Well there's at least two different issues here, both of which we apparently disagree on, but it's still worth pointing out that they are separate:

1. Is intellectual property the same as physical property? Attendant issues would be questions like "Is copying morally equivalent to stealing?"

I believe: No.
My reasoning: Information, unlike physical property, is not scarce. You can copy my idea, but you cannot truly "steal" it, because I still have it. I cannot homestead an idea.

2. Assuming one has been wronged by another party, is a civil lawsuit an appropriate method of correcting that wrong?

I believe: No.
My reasoning: I do not condone violence or coercion, which are the only tools a government has for enforcing any civil judgement.

Issue 2 is not directly related to Issue 1. I wouldn't sue you for copying my stuff because I don't think you've harmed me. I wouldn't sue you for punching me in the face because, even though you clearly have harmed me, I would not ask the government to punish you on my behalf.

Francis-

Everything I have written that I think is fit for public consumption has already been published to the web, either here or at my blog (musicforsunday.org).

If you think you can make some money by reselling it, feel free. I doubt anyone would buy it, though, since they can already get it free from my site. You might could make some profit if you could find a way to add value, though- which is sort of the heart and soul of capitalism.

If you are successful, you would not have harmed me in any way. In fact, you will have greatly advanced my personal goals in this matter.

However, nothing about my philosophy obligates me to make it any easier for you to do any of that by, for example, emailing it to you in a convenient ZIP file.

Adam:

Your site does not come up on the web. Did you mean .com?

.com yes- sorry

re: altering my mass setting.
That would be a derivative work. I have already specifically granted that right publicly, for all my works.

re: value added
Paper hardly seems like it has wide enough margins (ha ha) to support that business model, but knock yourself out.

re: finding stuff on my site
I need to do a re-organization. In the mean-time, try:
http://musicforsunday.com/category/new-music

Hi, Francis:

Adam is using copyright in an unconventional way. He still does own his works.

Let's think of how copyright traditionally works with music: it makes all rights reserved: no copying, no modifying, no arrangements, no recordings of performances.

The simple alternative to that would be to renounce copyright -- i.e., place his compositions in the public domain -- but then anyone would be free to copy them and modify them and then lock the modified version in copyright, and they would have no obligation to reveal that Adam was the original composer.

Instead Adam is retaining copyright on his works, but granting everyone a separate permission to copy them and modify them -- but with a catch: they have to (1) attribute the original work to Adam, (2) get his permission before selling any publication containing his work, (3) apply these same rules to the modified version, so that others can benefit from it equally.

These conditions are spelled out in a published legal document called a "Creative Commons License". There are several variations on it, depending on which of those three conditions the artist wants to attach to his work.

So the license grants all these permissions, but his copyright on the music still matters. If someone were to violate the deal -- to copy Adam's work without fulfilling the conditions, he would be committing a garden-variety copyright violation and be subject to legal recourse. So the Creative Commons license offers the permissions, while copyright law makes it possible to enforce them.

Adam's blog mentions CC licensing on the pages for hymn texts.

Or do you really not believe in intellectual property, but use the CC system to get the best result under current law?

That's the one.

All of my work has been released under CC: BY-NC-SA, which has specifically the restrictions you laid out:
-attribution is required
-commercial use is restricted
-derivative works must be shared under a similar license

I have actually rethought my position on the non-commercial restriction recently, and plan to update the copyright notice on all my works to reflect my change in philosophy. (For more info about my thought regarding the non-commercial restriction, see my post on Open Source Sacred Music.)

In the meantime: Francis, consider this post my official statement of granting you any commercial license you need in order to realize your dream of printing my music onto paper and selling it to people.

Because we live in a world where copyright law exists, there are two serious problems with simply renouncing copyright and placing everything into the Public Domain:

1. Other people creating derivative works could copyright those works, creating confusion about what portion of the work is restricted and what isn't. This could have the effect (whether legally legitimate, or only perceived) of placing restrictions on my own work which I did not intend to be there.

2. Because the conception of copyright and intellectual property is so ingrained into everyone's psyche, people generally believe that the stupid little (C) at the bottom of copies should be trusted. If you copied my Public Domain work and slapped your own name on the bottom, the credit may never get back to me. I suspect that in a Public Domain world, where idea-borrowing is considered normal, that people wouldn't make such assumptions, and good manners would require people to acknowledge their sources. (This is the case with cooking, by the way. Recipes cannot be copyrighted. However, it is generally considered ill-mannered and rude among professional chefs to not acknowledge where you borrowed/stole/copied your ideas from.)

For these reasons, I release all of my work under a Creative Commons license. As I mentioned, I've recently re-thought by stance on the Commercial use. I'm currently trying to think through the Share-Alike requirement, but for now (at least) derivative works must be released under a similarly free license.

One thing that find particularly interesting about this conversation is that it follows a very predictable pattern. When discussing Copyleft or Free Licensing, there's always initial confusion. "What do you mean?"

But the really fun part of the conversation starts when the conventionalist realizes what the implications are, and then tries to goad the advocate with threats of stealing all the stuff. "I'll print all your music and sell it and not send you a penny!"

This conversation has been had over and over; not just by me, either.- I assure you, anyone espousing Copyleft principles has already thought through the implications of such a philosophy. Shockingly, there exists no great industry dedicated to exploiting the work of people who have already given their stuff away for free.

Well, Adam, you really have been confusing us! You've got all this talk against intellectual property, but so far it's not something applied in action (for understandable reasons.) So for practical purposes someone wanting to arrange one of your Mass parts should disregard the philosophy and just check your CC license statement (if they can find it.)

Thanks for clearing things up here.

"I suspect that in a Public Domain world, where idea-borrowing is considered normal, that people wouldn't make such assumptions, and good manners would require people to acknowledge their sources."

We tried something like that. It was called Eden. Didn't go well.

et al:

[open soapbox]

I thought about removing my posts in my conversation with Adam above because I felt a bit deceived (and baited) by Adam's posts somewhat dancing around whether or not he subscribed to the concept of IP. As it turns out, he does utilize the CCL which is an offshoot of the original Copyright concept, and I suspect a lot of other people wrestle with these concepts daily because of the revolution of web publishing technology.

My philosophy has been to be wise as a serpent but harmless as a dove. I have offered my scores to everyone in the world for many years, indeed since I began composing at 7 years of age or so. I am coming to the time soon in my career, to publish and make my music available for sale. I strongly believe in personal property and of course the wider issue of personal rights. People in power want our rights to be diminished and take all that we create and can do for their own greed and power. Do not be deceived by that thinking. Those concepts are contrary to the Kingdom of God.

Once in the past, I released my rights to a publisher on few of my works, and I have felt slimed ever since. Publishers have been after me to publish with them for years, but they require release of ownership with very little compensation if any. It is exploitation, and I don't feel it is the way of the Kingdom of God either.

I recently published a hymn in the new St. Michael Hymnal, but they did not play that nasty game with me, and I still own my small little hymn. Linda Schaefer, God Bless Her Soul, was very kind to me and did not try to take advantage of me, and is very just and kind in her dealings. I highly recommend that you think about supporting her efforts as she has the right heart and mind in the Catholic Publishing world. I have had conversations with Adam B and Arelene O-Z also, and they have the same generous attitude of mind and heart. It is a rare but sorely needed virtue in the industry of sacred music publishing, to be sure.

Every artist is due his compensation. God looks at our business dealings very carefully. Do not exploit your neighbor. Unfortunately, most of the media, entertainment AND sadly, the church publishing industry DOES.

I will be out to change that game as are a few of my colleagues who are already doing that. The wealth of PD music is astronomical and we are poised to put it in the hands of every church musician in the world with the WWW. I am very excited by that idea.

Thank you Adam, for your offer to publish your music, but I respectfully decline. God Bless you and your efforts. You have my prayers.

{end soapbox}

Music is one thing, but there's also art and writing and other kinds of intellectual property.

As a writer and amateur comic-artist who hopes to make money on my work someday, I sure would be devastated to find someone off publishing my comics or novels on their own, claiming it as their work, and selling them to people. In the age of the internet I see art stolen and reproduced, unattributed, all the time, and it's sad.

There's also things like patents for inventions: wouldn't it suck to invent something, then before you can market it lose all your profits to some greedy dude who got to the manufacturing stage with your idea before you could?

It's possible to steal someone's livelihood by stealing intellectual property, it just depends on how it's done. Copyright definitely needs to be revisited (extending it past the life of the author by hundreds of years...? why??) but it's not a bad concept in and of itself.

my $.02

Skimming down this thread for the first time in several days, without reading a single post, the most clearly indisputable fact is that Charles Giffen is extremely thankful.

What a great example of my philosophy!

If someone copies CHG's thankfulness, they can BOTH enjoy it. Emotions and ideas (unlike cars) are infinitely reproducible.