At 11:00 AM 5/22/2005 -0400, you wrote:
a CC license, or a handwritten note attached to a pigeon's leg doesn't really matter. Do, however, remember that not all CC licenses are the same. Most of the "usual" CC licenses work for us, but, for example, the "Founders Copyright" CC license doesn't.
This is exactly what I was wondering about. Are you familiar with the CC 2.0 licenses? All require attribution. I am not familiar with the license you mentioned above, so I think that might have been phased out. That's why I asked if CC licenses are acceptable since I know there are different licenses that the authors or performers can use. Which ones are not OK for PG?
I'm a little unclear about what we're talking about here. You're saying "composers", which implies original work or original arrangement of a work, but from pre-1923. A direct note-for-note copy of sheet music from the public domain to a new format like MIDI would never be copyrighted in the first place, at least in the USA, so a CC license would not apply.
OK, sorry I was unclear on this. I guess I used improper wording. According to almost all sites with classical MIDI works, i.e. performances based on the sheet music, there seems to be two different issues. One is the sheet music itself, which of course is in the public domain. The other is the actual MIDI performances. Almost all performers copyright their MIDI files, using the argument that they are an original performance of a classical work. They would probably acknowledge that the original sheet music is public domain, but their performances aren't. Many are unclear as to what can be done with their files but most allow personal, noncommercial use only.
Only derivative works would, and then, in either case, the PD status of the original would need to be demonstrated: there's an awful lot of sheet music out there now that has been put into copyright by some editing or arrangement post-1923. This is one of those things that is difficult to discuss in the abstract; you'd need to establish clearance on a case-by-case basis, and you'd have to establish it with Greg, since he signs off on the not-straightforward cases.
Unfortunately, I don't have a specific case in mind yet. My idea is to get as much general information on this as possible, draft an email message briefly explaining CC and PG, asking the performers to first consider a CC license and if they are willing to do that, also mention PG, and see what happens. I do have specific sites in mind, but I am wondering if this is something worth pursuing. If there are going to be legal issues to deal with that would prevent PG from accepting the files because of possible clearance issues, I probably won't bother. I have found many artists and performers to be very difficult and generally want all their questions answered up front. They would of course want their rights protected, or at least some rights, which is why I would mention the CC licenses first. If I am going in the wrong direction with this or if anyone has a better approach, please tell me. I would like to see the music archive expand, but I don't want to create lots of unnecessary work for Greg since there might be a chance that the MIDI would not clear anyway.