Copyright Review: CDSM

Post by **Peter** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:40 am

Funper added a series of Liszt publications of CDSM. Although the CDSM logo was removed, the company's name is mentioned as the scanner. Is it wise to do this? Shouldn't it be better to remain silent about them?

Post by **imslp** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 6:35 pm

Indeed, it is a good idea to not put trademarked strings in the submission. While my limited knowledge of trademark law tells me that IMSLP shouldn't be infringing just by having that string (since we are in no way claiming that we are CD Sheet Music or anything), it is still a good idea to avoid the nooks, crannies and traps that are possibly present in the trademark law by not having the trademarked strings on IMSLP.

Like security, it is a good idea to have multiple layers of protection!

Post by **Carolus** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:31 pm

I agree. It is conceivable that even the use of the trademarked name - "CD Sheet Music" in anything apart from a discussion about it - could be the subject of a lawsuit, whether or not it would hold up in court.

Post by **Funper** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 12:30 am

We could mention "Commercial provider" instead?

Post by **Carolus** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 9:28 am

I expect that not mentioning it at all, or mentioning it only in the most vague of terms, is the best course. While it's 99.5% certain that CDSM's claim of copyright on PDF files made from scans of public domain scores would not stand up for long in either a Canadian or a US court, it would still cost IMSLP considerable attorney's fees to defend itself from a suit. In US courts, a losing plaintiff does not typcially have to pay the defendant's attorney fees and court costs. It might be different in Canada, but IMSLP's wide US readership and close proximity would almost certainly result with a suit in US District Court regardless. Something like "widely available source" should be sufficiently vague, since it can mean anything.

Post by **Funper** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 12:26 pm

So Carolus, you mean...

Scanner: "Widely available source"

?

Post by **imslp** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 4:48 pm

Yep... I think that is what Carolus meant; and I agree with Carolus that there is simply no benefit to using the CDSM phrase in the submission. Something like "widely available source" is fine, though leaving it blank altogether is fine also

Post by **Funper** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:44 pm

i don't know, widely available source sound so vague, how about "commercial provider" instead?

Post by **Carolus** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 3:42 am

The potential problem I see with "commercial provider" is that there are, realistically speaking, only a few of them. CDSM is the biggest, then there's EveryNote (now available via Amazon), plus a few folks who seem to hang out at E-Bay. Elibron offered downloads for pay at one point, but longer does so. So, "commercial provider", while a first glance appearing to be vague, is a narrower term than one might imagine at first since there are probably no more than 25 firms at the very outside doing this on a commercial basis. That's why I recommended "widely available source" - a term so vague it could mean almost anything.

I imagine that as far as potential competition (and therefore a potential lawsuit target) is concerned, IMSLP's rapidly expanding free library could constitute a significant challenge to the commercial viability of CDSM and like enterprises. The quality of scans is similar overall, and IMSLP offers a wider variety of different editions with far better attribution as to excatly what has been scanned. CDSM's Chopin volume, for example, appears to be a maddening hodgepodge of various editions, with no attribution of any sort. Why should a potential customer pay 2.75 a download or $18.00 per CD-R when they can download the same stuff plus additional, better identified options here at no charge whatever?

The print publishers are definitely watching IMSLP, and some have expressed concern, but even those who extensively reprint public domain works realize that printing, paper-quality, and binding are all factors that make the product they sell something that's ultimately quite different from an electronic file. I would not be at all surprised if it were CDSM who basically shut down the site bh2000 for a couple of years through threats of a copyright lawsuit - instead of a publisher. IMSLP has already experienced at least one unfortunate incident of cyber-vandalism, so it's always best not to draw attention to oneself when there are folks out there who may view IMSLP as a mortal threat to their enterprise.

emeraldimp · Post by **emeraldimp** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 7:57 am

Carolus wrote:...IMSLP's rapidly expanding free library could constitute a significant challenge to the commercial viability of CDSM and like enterprises...

Hmm, and for some reason, I'm okay with that. It could have something to do with my anger when they snatch up public domain works and then deliberately mislead in regards to what, exactly, they own the copyright on (if anything).

Post by **imslp** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 7:16 pm

Carolus stole the words right out of my mouth

(figuratively of course).

nerd011235 · Post by **nerd011235** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 6:49 pm

This is a bit more technical regarding CDSM. I have access to many of their volumes via library, and I also have access to Acrobat Professional (via my dad), which as you probably know is a PDF editing software. My problem is, I can't figure out how to remove the CDSM logo from the page. Does anyone else? For an example of what I'm talking about, see the file at "The Castle (Europe, James Reese)"

thanks,
nerd

Post by **Peter** » Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:53 am

the files are encrypted which means they can't be edited without a password. you should remove the encryption with some specialised software or use another program than acrobat...

Post by **daphnis** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 6:13 pm

I don't quite see how just mentioning a (reprinting) publisher by name opens us up to any potential, even if minute, chance for legal action? For example, how is mentioning that a piece reprinted by CDSM different from noting it being a Dover Publications reprint, or a Kalmus/Master's reprint? Surely if we're discouraging noting it coming from CDSM then the same logic should be applied to other popular reprinters as well.

Post by **Leonard Vertighel** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:34 pm

Soo... is it then more or less (in)official policy to not mention CDSM but to mention external websites as the source, even if said websites claim a (bogus) copyright on their files? Not a problem for me, but isn't there a slight contradiction?