The copyright may have elapsed on the original composition, but a specific arrangement of a public domain composition may be entitled to copyright protection as a derivative work. For example, the song "Scarborough Fair" pre-dates the modern concept of copyright, but Simon & Garfunkel's performance of the song contains novel elements that are subject to copyright.

(see article 802.6) https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap800/ch800-performing-art...

I am aware of that. In this case it was played from sheet music by a professional organist.

> The modifications to the sheet music could grant the person who sold the book a copyright.

Do you have a citation for this?

Here's some discussion on the matter that indicates that a transcription can be, but a lot of what I've seen is much like the rest of copyright, and it's a hot mess and very specific to what the circumstances are.

The "might have a claim" about that topic in my original post is pulling a lot of weight for me.

I assume the claim didn't come from that organist. But would it be an infringement if it was?

They could include "paper towns" in the music, but that's not what these automated systems are looking for.

This is preposterous.

Transcription takes time and effort. Time and effort equals a copyright.

If it were at all common, copyright would cease to function. E.g. someone could, in theory, write Romeo and Juliet word-for-word from their own imagination and then apply for a copyright. How on earth would enforcement work? There's no distinction between the copyright-free Shakespeare version and the newly copyrighted version, so do performers get to choose which version they're acting under?

If you're concluding copyright is impossibly complicated, vague, and confusing and the only reason the system works at all is because hashing out the details in court is either a nuclear option between two large companies, or enforcement on a large scale against small actors is basically impossible (but will unpredictably come down like a ton of bricks on some unlucky individuals), then you'd be right!

A specific arrangement of words, music, or light (in the case of film) are well protected. Painting & sculpture, perhaps less so; fashion, dance, and architecture, sweet fuck all. Which all have as much if not more creative input than an arrangement.

How I think they should be handled? Same as fashion or architecture, only direct copies in the same format are protected, everything else is derivative.