Copyright protection warnings on contemporary composers

[reccmo]

The WIMA contributor Jennifer Paull has sent me an email complaining on copyright protection warnings, 'All works by this person are still under copyright in Canada, the EU, Japan, and elsewhere and are thus subject to deletion' on contemporary composers represented in IMSLP's Amoris collection (music for oboe d'amore).

She writes

What on earth does this mean? I thought we had sorted out the (c). I find this very confusing although it is written in my own language. As you know, I am the (c) holder for all the works published by me. The exception is the James Gardner 'Charge' in which his name is clearly shown as the (c) holder on the score.

Actually I've been wondering about this myself. I find this disclaimer also on my own composer page, even if I explicitly publish my own compositions and arrangements in IMSLP under CC conditions. This is true for all works by contemporary WIMA composers, now transferred to IMSLP.

Maybe the confusion is associated with the wording of the warnings: they might indicate to some readers that downloading scores by these composers is illegal. Could the wording of this warning possibly be modified in order to avoid confusion?

[Carolus]

We probably need to set up a separate copyright legend for contemporary composers since the present one (used for all composers either still alive or dead less than 50 years) also mentions works published before 1923 in the USA, which does not apply to any living composer that I know of. Note that the present legend actually does mention the Creative Commons licenses in the second sentence.

[Rob Peters]

I'd say that just removing "and are thus subject to deletion" would do the trick already, since that's something that contemporary contributors to IMSLP DON'T want to happen.
Or maybe it could be replaced by something like "and are thus subject to deletion, unless the uploader is also the copyright holder" or something like that.

[reccmo]

I'd say that just removing "and are thus subject to deletion" would do the trick already, since that's something that contemporary contributors to IMSLP DON'T want to happen.
Or maybe it could be replaced by something like "and are thus subject to deletion, unless the uploader is also the copyright holder" or something like that.

Upon further thought: I imagine an IMSLP user (download use) may read the first sentence otherwise than a contributor. Maybe it should be clarified that this warning applies to contributors planning to upload works by that composer.

[heatherreichgott]

I found this confusing at first, as well. The relevant information, "An exception is if the person or copyright holder allows IMSLP to use the works in a manner similar to a work in the public domain," is buried in the middle of the paragraph that follows the red print.

What about:

Unless the composer or copyright holder of these works allows IMSLP to use them in a manner similar to a work in the public domain, the works are subject to deletion. All works by this person are still under copyright in Canada, the EU, Japan, and elsewhere. The works are also probably copyrighted in the U.S. if first published after 1923. If you are the composer or copyright holder and wish to give IMSLP permission to use these works, please choose the "Creative Commons" or "Performance Restricted" license instead of "Public Domain" when submitting the file (or edit it to such, if already submitted). In such cases, it is necessary to put a copyright notice with the copyright type somewhere in the file, to prevent confusion. (See public domain.) (See more information about Creative Commons and Performance Restricted.)
This message will be removed when the works enter the public domain naturally.

[Peterdyson49]

How about about a positive statement when we upload our scores? " I, the copyright holder have uploaded this work (these works) into the Petrucci Library so that it may be downloaded and reproduced at will without breach of any copyright laws extant worldwide. The date on which it will be public domain is therefore not relevant." No doubt there is a better legalistic wording but I think positive plain language is appropriate.

[dwscores]

I would support such a thing, for one...