Quote: Original post by Derakon
If you want to compose music similar to that of an existing composer, then the best thing to do is to just listen to a lot of their music. I personally find that my improvisations tend to imitate whatever I've been listening to lately.

No, that's not what I intended on doing. I was taking an existing composition and playing it with strings instead of piano. Not calling it a new song that just rips off the old one.

Just for reference, there is absolutely nothing wrong or illegal about being inspired by an existing piece of work. People make art that's similar to existing art all the time; the key is that it's only similar, and thus there's a significant amount of original work going into the new piece.

But this doesn't sound like an issue for you. You should be clear of any infringement problems if you get the sheet music for the piece you want to convert. It'll probably be easier to transcribe that way, too.

You're free and clear as long as you aren't playing from someone's copyrighted arrangement of Beethoven's piece.

Quote: Original post by Kenbar
The recent disney case brought US copyright in line with the rest of the world - it is unlikely to be extended again...

Really? Linkey, please? I haven't heard about any copyright term cases since Eldred, which we (the public) lost, pretty much saying Congress can extend copyright whenever they want.

I'm pretty sure it's the life of the author plus 75 years, or 90 years for corporate copyrights, until Congress gets enough donations to extend it again. The public doesn't really care, so it will keep getting longer.

Quote: Original post by nagromo
I'm pretty sure it's the life of the author plus 75 years, or 90 years for corporate copyrights, until Congress gets enough donations to extend it again. The public doesn't really care, so it will keep getting longer.

There's a difference between not caring and not having the money to affect the lawmakers.

Anyway, the most logical thing Disney and the like can do is to try to make it so that the copyrights the company owns is "active" as long as the company exists (+ perhaps 50-100 years, though I can't say who'll benefit from that). That way Walt Disney's (the person) works are copyrighted by the company until it goes out of business. The only problem I can see with it is with music and books etc. Who owns the copyright, the artist/writer or the publisher? Perhaps the recordings themselves are owned by the publisher, while the lyrics/score is owned by the artist.

EDIT: With new works it's easier. The person would be able to transfer the copyright from himself to the company. The Walt Disney example is harder - since he's dead he can't sign the transfer papers himself, so a court must decide in this case. Personally I think they'd win.

Quote: Original post by frostburn
he only problem I can see with it is with music and books etc. Who owns the copyright, the artist/writer or the publisher? Perhaps the recordings themselves are owned by the publisher, while the lyrics/score is owned by the artist.

Depends on the contract. Book authors fare much better than musicians. Book authors typically retain copyrights. Musicians typically don't.