Post by Beagle June 4, 2005 (1 of 6)
|
|
This is and isn't about music: First, poor old Dorion Records is in bankruptcy; now Hyperion is being squeezed by opportunistic lawyers, on a really dubious copyright point. I can't donate millions, but I might pick up vol 2 & 3 of Monteverdi Sacred Works, and Angela Hewitt's other Bach disc.
Quote:
"Hyperion Records is very sorry to announce that it has lost its defence of the copyright case brought against it by Dr Lionel Sawkins.
"Dr Sawkins claimed musical copyright in four editions of the musical works of Lalande. He lost at first instance in relation to the recording of one of the pieces of music but won on the other three. Hyperion appealed with the leave of the trial judge...."
Read more at:
http://www.hyperion-records.co.uk/
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention
|
|
|
Post by mandel June 4, 2005 (2 of 6)
|
|
Beagle said:
I might pick up vol 2 & 3 of Monteverdi Sacred Works, and Angela Hewitt's other Bach disc.
Does this mean if I find some old classical scores and copy them to a new piece of paper, I will then have made an entirely new composition and can take the classical world to the cleaners for the chance to perform it? I hope the ramifications are not that extreme.
(Edited for rant content)
|
|
|
Post by LC June 4, 2005 (3 of 6)
|
|
I don't know many details, obviously, but this looks fairly crazy:
"If this is how the law interprets copyright and ‘originality’, then Hyperion must accept that the Sawkins editions are in copyright. The judgment means that almost every edition of an out of copyright work will in fact have its own musical copyright because the law will regard it as ‘original’. This will affect classical record companies and performers of classical music as they will have to seek (and pay for) a licence before performing or recording music from an edition.
The judgment also means that the threshold for copyright and ‘originality’ is extremely low. Given that copyright subsists in every fixation of a musical work, this will mean that each time a musical work is recorded, that particular performance could be of an "original" musical work under UK copyright law. This gives rise to the possibility of performers claiming musical copyright in addition to performing rights - something the legislators surely did not intend."
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am not a big fan of copyright lawsuits and I feel sorry that Hyperion had to suffer due to the ambiguities of the law in this case.
However, I am unable to judge the merits of the case since I do not know what the complexities are of creating a "modern edition" of Lalande's work. From what I understand, creating this edition did not in any way give Dr. Sawyer a copyright on Lalande's work - just a copyright on the edition he created.
So from that it seems that Hyperion "could" have created their own edition (if it is so easy) rather than using Dr. Sawyer's, if there is any intellectual effort to trascribe/translate the old edition into this modern edition, I can understand how it could be interpreted that Dr. Sawyer would own that edition - just as a translator of some ancient work into a modern language would give the translator the copyright on "that" translation - though not on the original work.
So it is my feeling that Hyperion mostly suffered from the ambiguity of the law rather than from any unjust granting of a copyright.
|
|
|
Post by akiralx June 6, 2005 (5 of 6)
|
|
Beagle said:
This is and isn't about music: First, poor old Dorion Records is in bankruptcy; now Hyperion is being squeezed by opportunistic lawyers, on a really dubious copyright point. I can't donate millions, but I might pick up vol 2 & 3 of Monteverdi Sacred Works, and Angela Hewitt's other Bach disc.
Quote:
"Hyperion Records is very sorry to announce that it has lost its defence of the copyright case brought against it by Dr Lionel Sawkins.
"Dr Sawkins claimed musical copyright in four editions of the musical works of Lalande. He lost at first instance in relation to the recording of one of the pieces of music but won on the other three. Hyperion appealed with the leave of the trial judge...."
Read more at:
http://www.hyperion-records.co.uk/
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention
A post from the classical recordings newsgroup puts the affair in better perspective:
'The edition was copyrighted long before the recording. It was accepted
as valid and legal by both the Performing Rights Society and the
Mechanical Copyright Protection Society.
Hyperion knew that, Ex Cathedra knew that. After Hyperion refused to
sign a contract with Dr Sawkins, Ex Cathedra promised him they would
resolve the issue with Hyperion, but never did.
At one point Ex Cathedra offered to "buy out" the royalty issue, but
never did. According to the judgment, Dr Sawkins would have settled
for that.
The recording sold 3000+ before it was withdrawn. That would have
amounted to royalties of, say, a bit over 2000 UK pounds.
Dr Sawkins was paid £1278 for 1200 hours of editing work and £1350 for
the hire of parts for the recording sessions. Not many people would be
willing to put in 1200 hours' specialised work for £1278.
Before the recording session took place Dr Sawkins sent Hyperion a
solicitor's letter warning that he would take action if the copyright
issue was not resolved and they went ahead without resolving it. They
ignored that letter and went ahead.
Dr Sawkins warned Ex Cathedra during the recording sessions that he was
thinking of pulling the plug on the whole thing. Ex Cathedra promised
once again to resolve the matter with Hyperion and so he let the
sessions go on, confident that Ex Cathedra meant what they said. They
clearly did not.
The question of damages has not yet been resolved because the matter
has gone to appeal. If Hyperion lose the appeal the matter of damages
will then be considered.
The "million pound" line is entirely made up of legal costs. When
Hyperion lost the original judgment they were ordered to pay, as is
normal, the legal costs of Dr Sawkins. Together with their own legal
costs this left Hyperion with a bill for £400,000 and no doubt this
will be doubled by the appeal procedure.
Dr Sawkins has not asked for a million pounds and I cannot see any
Judge offering him more than a few thousand in damages.
It was agreed during the court case that without the work of Dr Sawkins
the recording could NOT have taken place.
Both Hyperion and Ex Cathedra broke the law, knowingly. It was a
breach of copyright which neither party cared about breaching at the
time.
Dr Sawkins turned to law as a last resort. Hyperion claim it is not
company policy to pay royalties on works they regard as out of
copyright and have taken their stand on "principle".
Hyperion could have hired their own expert to do the work and claimed
copyright themselves (and probably would have done) but my guess is
that they would have found it hard to hire someone to do 1200 hours
work around the world for £1278.
The most Dr Sawkins stood to gain for his work was around £5000. I do
not even consider that adequate for the research involved. The
royalties in question are under £1 per CD. He always copyrights his
editions and has received fees from other companies.
Everyone who enjoyed the CD, and I believe it was very favourably
received, can thank Dr Sawkins for the fact that it even came about.'
From what I hear, Dr Sawkins asked Hyperion for a few thousand pounds - and they told him to get lost, so they have only themselves to blame.
|
|
|
Post by Peter June 6, 2005 (6 of 6)
|
|
Thanks very much for posting this information, which does put the case in perspective. A sad affair, indeed.
|
|
