>[ She doesn't mention the big (C)-word, so I presume that "Chlo-e" has
>[ passed into public domain and is no longer protected by (C)opyright.
>[ Well, so has "Humoresque" (Dvorak), and there were lots of adapta-
>[ tions of that famous melody.  Would Nan be satisfied with a sub-
>[ title saying, "Interpolating 'Chlo-e' by Neil Moret"?  Don't throw
>[ in the towel, George -- your song is too good to withdraw!

It's copyright 1927, so the claim to copyright of *Chloe* is legit.

There is a principle involved here.  Accept for a minute that the prime
motif of 'Walkin' is sufficiently similar to *Chloe* to pass muster with
a jury - a process that could consume a warren of lawyers for years.
What about the other 99% of the piece?  You mean I should strip off the
title, replace it with "Chloe", state that the *composer* of the piece
is Daniels and I merely an "arranger?"

To hell with that.  It's my composition and I'll do what I want with
it, including withdrawing it from the public and posting her complaint
on the WWW as the reason.  I have other pieces that are as good and
perhaps better.  The tape will be re-edited with "Walkin" taken off,
then she and her dead grand-uncle can wallow in what they think is a
pyrric victory.

George Bogatko - gbogatko@intac.com
http://www.intac.com/~gbogatko

 [ I guess I'll wait for 2004.  :-(   -- Robbie