a quote from the same source
Then there's the question of theft. Defenders of Sharp grow furious when they hear such terms. [119. I'm thinking in particular of C J Bearman. See his 'Cecil Sharp's Somerset Folk Singers' and 'Cecil Sharp in Somerset'.] 119 Sharp can be presented in almost Biblical terms as a suffering, ageing man, working almost alone, dedicating himself with a selfless, single-minded intensity to the preservation of a folk heritage. How could anyone call this secular saint a thief? It must be remembered that for much of his life folk song wasn't simply a passion for Sharp, it was also a career. He earnt his bread and butter by talking about and teaching folk song. Inevitably, he had to present himself as an authority on the topic, and this led him to downplay or deny the influence of other collectors.

But more seriously than this, Sharp actually copyrighted much of the material he collected: if not the original tune or dance, then his arrangement of the tune or dance.
Legal experts Richard Jones and Euan Cameron note: 'The "folk" were seen to have passed on the folk song, but had no conception of this process and, in consequence, made no creative contribution to the song.' [120. On the question of copyright, see: Richard Jones and Euan Cameron, 'Full Fat, Semi-Skinned or No Milk Today - Creative Commons Licences and English Folk Music,' International Review of Law, Computers and Technology 19:3 (2005), pp.259 - 75 (p. 263).] 120 On at least one occasion, a dance troupe realized the implications of his actions, and denied Sharp permission to use their material. [121. Theresa Buckland, '] 121 Sharp's collecting was not a two-way street: he gave nothing back to the people from whom he took material.
   Another argument [above] against Steve Gardhams description of an Amateur.
The Amateuer Baring Gould
apparantly did give his singers money or and show interest in them as people