IMSLP Forums

Carolus and others: I'm trying to determine if the 1993 rev. ed. would be protected despite the minuscule editorial work done by Peter Bartók mentioned in the forward:

The major correction concerns metronome numbers...Other than a missing accidental, no musical errors could be found. Typographical errors in the Roumanian titles have been corrected. Some suggestions for interpretation are as follows...Therefore nothing was added in the revised edition.

It seems to me this is the loosest definition of a new edition I've ever seen, and since the first publication was by U.E. in 1918, could we consider this public domain?

I seriously doubt his claim to copyright as a derivative work would hold up in any court. That's the problem, though - we'd have to go to court to prove it. Peter Bartok is quite notorious for being willing to indulge in lawsuits (as in the big one w/Boosey & Hawkes over the Concerto for Orchestra back in 1995/96).

He's claiming copyright. It's less than 25 years old. The burden of proof would fall upon IMSLP to prove public domain status of his alleged "edition" by demonstrating the the "threshold of originality" failed to be met. If we had a couple of hundred of grand to throw at lawyers, it might be entertaining to blow him out of the water in court. Soon or later, this issue (the extent of copyright protectability of editions and alleged editions) will have to be addressed by courts in both the USA and Canada. BTW, even under Germany and the EU critical edition provisions, I doubt that Peter Bartok's claim would hold up, since there has to be some difference between the new edition and the original, even if its only the engraving or typographic layout (as in the UK law).

Can we have a comprehensive list of published (online or printed) or known court decisions on musical scores and theor legal protection? Thanks.