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 "
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC