IMSLP Forums

I can't understand, why Britten is totally excluded from the library, since, for example, his Simple Symphony is known public domain and I don't see any logical reason to not have it in IMSLP.

Can you tell us how or through what source you know his Simple Symphony (written 1934, published 1935) is public domain?
Please read this page: http://imslp.org/wiki/Public_domain

First of all, this post doesn't really belong in Sticking Up for Copyright, because it effectively is wanting a piece (or composer) to be in the public domain, rather than wanting a piece in the public domain to be considered under copyright. I can't quite work out how to move individual posts to a new topic, so I'll leave it here for now.

Probably more importantly, Britten died in 1976. The only works that don't go according to death date are those that were published in the US prior to 1923. At that point, Britten was 10 years old (possibly 9, depending when in the year we are talking about). It is not likely that he published anything before 1923.

The shortest copyright term that IMSLP recognizes is 50 years from death. That means Britten is protected in those countries until the end of the 50th year after he died, i.e. the end of 2026. He will come into public domain, but only in those countries, on 1 January 2027.

How on earth would you think any of his works would be public domain?

Again, can Ben Britten be uploaded? NO!

This is really pity, britten has a lot of interesting works like simple symphony that are great for ensambles and orchestras ... not going to find any britten here. But i found this works with it parts on a russian page. hope that helps you.

Most of those large Russian online repositories of sheet music do not obey copyright laws at all; there is much to be found that is totally illegal there and most everywhere else. Please don't post links to the site(s) here, though, or they will have to be removed - IMSLP actively discourages linking to illegal sites that contain files that cannot be obtained here, as we cannot be seen as encouraging illegal activities even if we host no illegal files ourselves.

steltz wrote: Probably more importantly, Britten died in 1976. The only works that don't go according to death date are those that were published in the US prior to 1923. At that point, Britten was 10 years old (possibly 9, depending when in the year we are talking about). It is not likely that he published anything before 1923.

If I understand aright and I'm not sure I do, there is one other at least partial exception, and that's works published in a certain timeframe (even after 1922) in the US without copyright datestamp- that is, n.d.(xxxx). (of course, they have to have been published that way; for a person to scan them in that way removing evidence of the copyright stamp as I am sure some people - I truly do not have anyone in mind, sincerely and not disingenuously... - have done, whether or not they think it is, is most likely a form of fraud.)
Eric

It's complicated, but basically the following conditions would have to be in place for a Britten work to be free in the USA.

1. The work was published under authorization without a copyright notice, or with a defective copyright notice (either in the original printing, or in a reissue). This includes wrong year, incorrect claimant, wrong location of notice, etc. (A Soviet reprint or re-engraving - issued without any authorization - does not qualify here).

2. The copyright was not renewed 28 years after its initial publication.

3. Assuming either of the above is in play, no NIE (Notice of Intent to Enforce) was filed under the GATT/TRIPS amendments. NIE's filed later than 1998 might not be enforceable, but that's only one interpretation.

A work published or republished without notice or with a defective notice was injected into US public domain the minute a copy was sold in the USA. Any item not renewed entered the US public domain after the expiration of the initial 28-year term. The only remedy for either of these was to file an NIE under GATT. The NIE filings are all online, so searching the copyright office database will generally find them. Britten's principal publishers, Boosey & Hawkes and Faber, were both quite aware of the notice and renewal requirements of US law. The chances of any work of his being free in the USA are very small.

I've always been confused about one point of this, though it goes offtopic by a considerable margin and for that I need apologize.
a) copyright renewal 28 year etc. - I thought copyrights could only be renewed if something was actually substantially (depending on the country) done to the work.
b) in which case (again, depending depending depending) the original, unedited work* might be considered no longer in copyright while the edited work would be the one now copyrighted.

*some works, of course, first published in edited form (and perhaps never yet published in unedited form), e.g. Wilhelm Hill's string quartet which was first published by his biographer posthumously, and other examples, some better known- including any works (the Hill may be an example, I don't know) found in manuscript (e.g. among a composer's papers, or like Vivaldi's Manchester sonatas, sold to a patron who then sold them when in penury who then... ... and found centuries and countries later somewhere else...), edited and then published (like the Bartok viola concerto recently discussed.)

I fear I may not be making any sense here... which fits, since I have been rather confused on this point to the, well, point that I can't quite identify where. That approximates it, though.

No, you're confusing a new copyright for a revised version with the optional renewal term under the old US law. The standard term for anything was 28 years. All one had to do was publish something with the compliant notice and the work was protected for 28 years (registration not actually required). If the copyright owner wanted another 28 years of protection, they had to a) make sure the original work was registered; and b) file the renewal application in a timely manner (before the 28 years were up, calculated from the actual date (including month and day) of first publication. That's why one often encounters registrations made in the last year of the 28-year term. A common practice was to send in the registration and the renewal at the same time.

For a revised version (a new copyright altogether), it had to be substantially amended over the original. Stravinsky's 1945 Firebird suite is a good example. Substantially different from the 1919.

probably should have known that already..., but better now than not at all- thanks!!

Carolus wrote:No, you're confusing a new copyright for a revised version with the optional renewal term under the old US law. The standard term for anything was 28 years. All one had to do was publish something with the compliant notice and the work was protected for 28 years (registration not actually required). If the copyright owner wanted another 28 years of protection, they had to a) make sure the original work was registered; and b) file the renewal application in a timely manner (before the 28 years were up, calculated from the actual date (including month and day) of first publication. That's why one often encounters registrations made in the last year of the 28-year term. A common practice was to send in the registration and the renewal at the same time.

For a revised version (a new copyright altogether), it had to be substantially amended over the original. Stravinsky's 1945 Firebird suite is a good example. Substantially different from the 1919.

This Clarify me a lot, thanks.

Although not to do with copyright, the question of the opus numbers
of the early works on which the Simple Symphony was based have been
rightly queried. On Wikipedia and elsewhere, the opus numbers of the
early piano sonatas and suites are wrongly quoted as Op5, Op38 etc.
The correct opus numbers should be J Op5, J Op38 etc. as listed in
the complete thematic catalogue.
Wikipedia article:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Symphony
Thematic catalogue:-
http://www.brittenproject.org/works/?gr ... 0&offset=0
Relevant pages:-
http://www.brittenproject.org/works/BTC323
http://www.brittenproject.org/works/BTC434
http://www.brittenproject.org/works/BTC337
http://www.brittenproject.org/works/BTC339