[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug #383316: Derivative works for songs



On Fri, 25 May 2007 11:30:07 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:

> Francesco Poli wrote:
> >We must determine what is the preferred form for making modifications
> >to the song.  I'm not sure an Ogg Vorbis + MIDI form qualifies...
[...]
> I believe that for a recording to be DFSG-free, we need *both* 
> copyrights to be licensed in a DFSG-free manner.

It seems to make sense.

> 
> For modifying the *song*, the preferred form is almost certainly sheet
> music or the equivalent.  MIDI files are actually very close to sheet
> music,

And indeed, I would be satisfied with the MIDI file as source for the
song, as long as the MIDI file corresponds to the complete song (and not
to one instrument only, for instance...).
I do not happen to know if this is the case here, and that's why I said
"I'm not sure".  A clarification should be sought, IMHO.

[...]
> For modifying the *recording*, the preferred form is likely the 
> recording itself.  Overdubs, post-processing, and sampling 
> are common ways in which derivative works are made from a a
> *recording*. For this purpose, an Ogg Vorbis is likely to be exactly
> right.

I'm not really convinced: we must ask the person(s) who made the
recording.
If there are non-lossy-compressed recordings of the separate tracks,
they could be preferred for making modifications.

> 
> So I believe we want to have both the Ogg Vorbis and the MIDI, and
> that probably really is the source.  (Unless there's a higher-quality
> master recording and the Ogg Vorbis is a lower-quality version, or the
> MIDI  doesn't actually contain all the data in the sheet music, etc.)

Your parenthetical sentence just expresses the concerns that I had in
mind when I said "I'm not sure".  A clarification is needed.

> 
> Now, it would be preferable to be able to regenerate the 
> recording from the MIDI.  Which would mean including the 
> soundfonts (instrument descriptions, basically) used.  So the question
> of whether *they* are free is also important.

Really important, IMO.

> Here's a legal
> question:  Do you need a copyright license for the soundfont in order
> to distribute  or modify the recording made using them?

I don't know, but I'm afraid we need one, as long as the soundfonts are
copyrightable works by themselves...


-- 
 http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html
 Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through?
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpmjWCi49Rgg.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: