[r-t] Ben Constant's Yorkshire Royal

[Mark Davies]

JEC writes,

> You can consequently infringe a patent even if you didn't know of the
> previous invention, whereas you infringe copyright only if you have
> copied.  The analogy was meant to help in sorting out how we think about
> (ringing) compositions.

Having thought about this, I have come to some sort of conclusion in my
mind.

Compositions are more like patents.

They are like patents because, if you reinvent the exact same composition,
you can't really put your name to it, can you. See my Rosie Thurstans
example. The original composer is the one who composed it, whether or not
you knew about it.

You *can* invent a variation of an original, and then it is yours; but you
should cite the original, just as patents must (I think?) cite the 
inventions they are based on. And then we, in ringing, have a new term to 
describe the "inventor": arranger, not composer.

But compositions are not exactly the same as patents. For one thing, no
central body is checking them for duplications!

MBD