Re: [microsound] copyright...

[Tad Turner <tad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 6/20/02 at 4:19 PM, earphone <earphone@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> does a copyright still serve a function when referring to 'microsound,
> lowercase, etc.', because it could be stated that the recordings are
> artifacts of copyrighted, patented, and trademarked hardware,
> software, and/or design processes?
> 
> is the manipulator of these deigns and processes actually a
> creator (as stated in common copyright law)?

As I don't think any of us are lawyers, I don't think we'll get too far
speculating about the fine points of these issues. There are two
precedents worth looking at though:

First, in the case of Jazz in the 30's and 40's, if Columbia released a
recording of "Stardust," Hoagy Carmichael would receive royalties for
having authored the tune. Columbia would retain the rights for the
"performance" and the "musicians" (in this case improvising composers of
the stature of Louis Armstrong) would simply get paid for the session.
Copyright law, I believe, still doesn't acknowledge the creative
interpretation of others' work.

(I believe this is why Prince has been rerecording his songs. Although
he is the copyright holder on the music, Warner maintains the copyright
on the preformances...)

Second, "data" generally isn't copyrightable, for example a bit-mapped
font such as Apple's "Chicago" can be used by anyone, although Apple
might still try to sue over it.

I believe that vector descriptions may also be in the same boat. I had
understood that the whole motivation for Microsoft's creation of the
True Type format was that the font outlines are described
algorhythmically and hence eminently copyrightable.

Bill Gates' dad is, after all, a copyright lawyer.

-Tad