Re: A bottomless pit of plagiarism

In article <102opsk$1i55n$1@dont-email.me>,
Gary McGath  <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:

On 6/15/25 4:17 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>

 
[Hal Heydt]
Alternatively, if the story wasn't originally copyrighted in the
US, the US may not have recognized the validity of the copyright.
See, for instance, the reason for the premier of the G&S oparetta
_The Pirates of Penzance_. 

>
Gilbert and Sullivan solved that problem, after losing a lot of
potential royalties, by filing for copyright in the US. To do this, they
had to put on a US production of the operas they wanted to protect.
>
Tangentially related, but I just happen to have posted a blog article on
it this morning, which I wrote a few days ago: For most of the 18th
century, printed music was considered uncopyrightable in Great Britain.
Johann Christian Bach, the son of Johann Sebastian Bach who had moved to
London, filed a lawsuit against a publisher that established in 1777
that it was copyrightable.

[Hal Heydt]
IIRC (it gets mentioned on KDFC fairly regularly), JC was the
youngest surviving son of JS.  He also gets referenced as "the
London Bach" or "John Bach".  There were a *lot* of musical
Bachs...