Copyright

[David Boyce]

Let's not bury it until it's accurate!

There is no copyright in piano number *information*.

The piece of information that a Splodgett and Sons piano number 26,000 was 
built in 1936, or even the entirety of Splodgett and Sons numbers and years 
for their whole output, is not, as information, copyright.

Copyright protects an "original work". It does not protect ideas or facts.

Even though you had to go to great lengths to obtain the Splodgett and Sons 
information to compile a book, perhaps hiring a digger to excavate the site 
of their factory which burnt down in 1950, unearthing their ancient safe 
with their records in, and going to  an expert to have the smoke-blackened 
record books deciphered so you can put the numbers in a book, all your work 
and expense counts for nothing as far as copyright in the numbers is 
concerned.

What WOULD be protected as an "original work" would be the TYPOGRAPHICAL 
ARRANGEMENT of the information as it appears in your book. Thus, anyone 
photocopying or scanning a page of your book would be infringing copyright.

Only if you reproduce by scanning, photocopying or other mechanical means, 
the pages (or a single page or part of a page) of Pierce, are you infringing 
copyright.  The publishers of Pierce may wish you to think otherwise, but 
that's the law.  It might be unfair that all their work in collecting number 
information over the years counts for nothing, but that's the law.

To use another example: Suppose you are writing a history book. You make up 
a chart of the US Presidents, with significant events in their presidencies, 
cross-referenced to other things, with clever use of colour to make it all 
clear and visially appealing.  Your book gets published.  Now, there is NO 
copyright in the information as to which presidents were in office in which 
years, or in what happened in those years. They are facts, ideas.  But what 
IS copyright, is the "original work" you have produced - your chart, as a 
typographical layout.  If anyone were to scan it and put it on a web site or 
in another book, without your permission, they would be infringing 
copyright.

With regard to the various piano atlases, Pierce, the UK, the European, the 
Japansese, it is only  by a kind of "gentleman's agreement" that they 
respect each other's information content.  The publishers of Pierce may 
breathe threats of fire and murder if we exchange information about numbers 
here or anywhere else, but if they brought an action for copyright 
infringement, they would stand very little chance indeed of success - check 
the precedents in US copyright cases!

"Fair use" with regard to Pierce, would allow for reproducing perhaps part 
of a page exactly as it is in the book, *for purposes of criticism or 
review* - for example, to show how clearly laid-out the tables/lists are.

I am not here arguing, of course for wholesale dispensing on here of lists 
of numbers found in Pierce - we should all be "gentlemanly", I am sure. What 
I'm arguing for is accuracy when we touch on matters of legislation.

(Copyright  law varies from country to country, of course, and some 
countries have very little in the way of copyright protection. On the other 
hand, many countries have reciprocal agreements to apply the other country's 
copyright law to works originating from that country. US and UK copyright 
law are in any case extremely similar).

Best regards,

David.





"OK, people, once again:

Telling somebody a piece of copyrighted information is "fair use" and 
allowed.

Posting copyrighted information on a public e-mail list constitutes 
"publication" - whether for profit or not, it's irrelevant. (You can't 
publish it i n your church newsletter either.)  Publication of copyrighted 
information is a violation of the copyright.

Now let's bury this once and for all.

Israel Stein "