Re: copyright expiration as a spur to creativity

A description of one of the processes for which this thread is named can be found in Judge Crane's dissent in Gotham Music Service Inc., et al. v. Denton and Haskins Music Publishing Co., Inc., 259 N.Y. 86 (N.Y. Court of Appeals, 1932). This was an unfair competition case involving a public domain song called "Gambler's Blues", which the plaintiff brought out a new edition of under the title "St. James' Infirmary." The defendnant put out a competing edition of the song under the title "St. James' Infirmary or Gambler's Blues." The plaintiff considered defendant's use of the title "St. James' Infirmary" to be unfair competition. The court disagreed. It is not the result that interests me here so much as the words Judge Crane uses to describe plaintiff's use of the song:

     ...the song...became publici juris, and anyone
     was free to use it....No one wanted it; it had 
     passed out of use....The plaintiffs made changes 
     in tempo of the music, added a few verses and gave
     it a new name, 'St. James Infirmary,'...

The process Judge Crane describes--adapting an old tune and adding new words --occurs fairly often in the world of music, but would be far more difficult --in some cases, impossible--in a world of infinite copyright and zero public domain. Yet such a world seems to be the ultima Thule for some.

Tim Phillips
<hrothgar[_at_]telepath.com> Received on Sun Sep 27 1998 - 17:26:42 GMT