New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-02-25
CnPYRLGHT IN MUSIC.

manly.
COPYRIGHT IN MUSIC.
II is evident that nothing less than decision
by the Supreme Conrt of tho United States will
settle the question of copyright in music we
commented, several weeks ago, upon decision
by the Circuit Court in Boston IN "Ihe he-
dempton" case, which declared the familiar
process of building up an orchestral score from
published piano score to be illegal. pre-
cisely similar case, on the use of the score OF
Iolanthe,r was argued in the Circuit Court at
Baltimore last week, whcr Judges BOND ana
Morris reached an exactly opposite decision
The findings of the two courts are worth conf
pairing In both the main question raised was
! whether the publication of hbretto OF worK
with panofOrte accompaniment deprived the
composer and his publisher OF their exclusive
right to performances of the work with Orches-
trail accompaniment. In both cases the defend
ants had made what is known rs an orchestral
arrangement from the published piano score,
and they claimed, as they had used In making
this only what had been dedicated 10 the public,
that they had not infringed upon the composers
rights. They argued that they did not pretend
to have the composers orchestral score, but one
which was substantially an original production
of their own.
The ruling of Judges Lowell and Nelson in
"The Redemption case was clear and unmls-
taxable. ave consider it clear" they held,
that dedication to the public of the arrange
"ment for the piano does not dedicate what 1t
does not contain, and what cannot be repro
duced from it. Therefore, the defendant does
mot possess, and has no right to perform Gou-
| "a Dad eat n orchestra.
"If ne should have opportunity to copy it, he
"would not be permitted 10 perform It," On
the direct question of whether new orchestra
ton was an infringement, the Court cited the
| English law that it was, and thus ruled: " a
"musical work of this kind is n single creation
Of which the orcheStratiOn is an esst ntlal part
"every reproduction of it from something else
" is necessarily an imperfect imitation, when
nevertheless occupies the Same field ana may
ruin the original In this respect an opera Is
"more like q patented invention than like
"ronmon book he who shall obtain similar
results, better or worse by similar means,
though the opportunity is furnished by an UNI
protected book. shoud be held to infringe the
" rights of the composer" That is sound
| conity. and ought to he sound law. The Count
remarked that " it would be very difficult 10
nrovr in many cases. whether memory had
/ not had some part IN the reproduction" We
SUPPOSE the Iact TO be that memory ia almost III
varinbly the chief inspiration of these reproduc-
tiins Sometimes the case Is even worse than
/ that. "The Redemption arrangement IN ques-
| ton was undoubtedly largely stolen. twas
we'll known fact that at the successive perform
/ ances of the work in this city arranseIs were
! present taking notes OF the Observation-Disclosures
/ ing il. in fact, as it came from the orchestra.
In the Iolanthe" case the fact that the
orchestral score had been arranged from the
piano score was admitted, and the defendant
went further and confessed he had done the
same thing with previous works of the same
authors. and had gwen performances of them IN
/ public with great success and profit. Judges
Bond and Morris held that so long as the
arrangement" had not been obtained IN any
surreptitIous or unau horned way, but had been
produced toy independent skill and labor, 1t
was obviously 40 far IN original work that 1t
could Itself be protected 10y copyright under
/ our United States statutes That ~, n
musical pirate may steal Il composers ideas, put
| them into different shape, though not change
] the general effect and copyright them rs his
own! That miy be sound law, but Il has very
/ different flavor from that of the Boston Court,
and il has no standing whatever rs equity. Re-
| ferring 10 the Boston decision judges EOnd and
/ Morris say hey cannot concur IN that 50 far ~
il is an authority for restricted dedication.
/ They only agree with it so far as it applies to
decrptiye advertisements. They do not think
! the composers name should be placed upon the
! bills announcing performances of works with
original" orchestration. This is really the
! scope of their decision that Iolanthe - with "A
! stolen orchesration should not be announced as
! Gilbert & Sulhyan's lolanthe,n but simply as
"Ioanthen Without any disposition to reflect
upon tie abilities of the learned judges, this APP
pears very much like bubble. What differ
cnce will it make to the public whether the
names of the composers are on the bills or not
The name of the opera carries the right. All
musical pirates will rejoice over SO easy way
out of their troubles.
II is much to he hoped that test case will be
carried to the Supreme Court. The reputation
of the Massachusetts Circuit Coult is much
higher than that of the Maryland Circuit, and
| there ia good reason 10 believe that the decision
of the former would be confirmed 10y the full
| bench. If we are not mistaken the Maryland
| Court has rendered decision similar to this on
the Iolanthe score in a former case, and was
obliged to stand by its own precedent.
-----
CHANGE ~ THE IRISH CHARACTER.
| Tho recent neUs from Dublin has set the