|
Originally Posted by LeHah
Its not under public domain. I dont know the nuances of the law but the Holst Foundation is there to purposely keep the trademarks in place on the works of the composer.
|
Trademarks? So the sound of a piece of music can be a trademark now? I understand relatively well the notion of copyright as it applies to music, but I can't fathom how trademarks apply. I can imagine the name, logo, and distinctive likeness of a given performer being trademarks, but I wasn't aware that his music would be subject to anything other than copyright.
I have to ask, is this the appropriate time to bring up the notion that the big companies are distorting the nature of and intended function of copyright law? There's a reason why copyrights are supposed to be finite. It's a part of the deal. If a creator (of any kind) would like legal protection for his right to control the reproduction and distribution (among other things) of his work, then the flipside is that it's supposed to become freely redistributable after a certain length of time. That length of time should, of course, be long enough that the composer (or other creator) should be able to reap the benefits of his work for the extent of his natural life, but it was not originally intended to be an indefinite period, which is what the big corporations would like.
Most amazing jew boots
85242
35212
Soluzar