UE update Thursday 25th October

Vivaldi · Post by **Vivaldi** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 3:33 am

Also, even if UE can claim this life+100 copyright in an Austrian (or Mexican) court of law, would they be able to enforce this WORLDWIDE? Highly doubtful given the sovereignity of each country (read: Impossible).

jhellingman · Post by **jhellingman** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 9:45 am

Vivaldi wrote:Mr Irons is setting a dangerous precedent here. Suppose a composer born and lived in Mexico his whole life and sold the copyrights of his work to UE. Would UE claim copyright for the work using Mexican copyright law of life+100 years worldwide where most countries have only life+50? Think about it.

They will try (and probably have an obligation to their shareholders to do so if it maximizes profit). They already claim Spanish life+80 copyright terms on a Czech composer, based on complex EU copyright rules.

miguelm97 · Post by **miguelm97** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 2:51 pm

I recently sent an e-mail to UE asking why they included G. Mahler in the composers list that should be removed from the site. I didn't understand it because Mahler died 96 years so is works are PD.
Mr. Irons replied to my e-mail (in a very polite way I must say) and explained to me that Mahler works were on that list because they were published by UE.
I have all Mahler symphonies in book (Dover editions) and have my own scans so I asked a friend of mine here to send me the first movement pdf to check it.
After checking the file, I must say that UE had all the right to ask for the removal of this work from the web site. In the first page footnote you can see that the work is copyrighted by UE.
This lead us to another question...
People that have web sites distributing PDF scores should have the care of erasing any mention to the publisher, this way they will not have publishers asking to remove their works or threating with a law sue. In many of the sites included in your list of other PD sites distributing PDF scores, you can´t find a reference to the publisher in the scores. Why? Take a guess...
I think that in the future, after the reopening of IMSLP, people should only upload scores that do not have any reference to the publisher, in order to avoid any legal problems.

Kalli · Post by **Kalli** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:05 pm

I dont't believe that ereasing will beware you of copyright charges!

dolhuis · Post by **dolhuis** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:13 pm

After checking the file, I must say that UE had all the right to ask for the removal of this work from the web site. In the first page footnote you can see that the work is copyrighted by UE.

Well a footnote that a work is copyrighted doesn't make it magically stay out of Public Domain forever. Only if it has been published less than 50 years ago, it is not in the Public Domain in Canada, otherwise it is in the Public domain, even if each page is covered in copyright notices.

On the other hand:

People that have web sites distributing PDF scores should have the care of erasing any mention to the publisher, this way they will not have publishers asking to remove their works or threating with a law sue. In many of the sites included in your list of other PD sites distributing PDF scores, you can´t find a reference to the publisher in the scores

Erasing a footnote or reference that a work is copyrighted doesn't move it magically into the Public Domain. That only happens when it is published over 50 years ago, copyright footnote or not.

The only choice for an institute like IMSLP hopefully becomes is to do it the right way, not by erasing reference to publishers in the hope to scrape free from prosecution.

emeraldimp · Post by **emeraldimp** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:53 pm

Just as a side note, while IMSLP did occasionally remove publisher TRADEMARKS from scanned editions, it had nothing to do with copyright issues, but rather, obviously, trademark issues. In most cases, we did our best to include information on the publisher of the original print, and, when possible, reprints.

jhellingman · Post by **jhellingman** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:55 pm

miguelm97 wrote:In the first page footnote you can see that the work is copyrighted by UE.

You may be enlighted by reading this article on copyfraud:

http://www.law.nyu.edu/JOURNALS/LAWREVI ... nyu303.pdf

emeraldimp · Post by **emeraldimp** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:56 pm

Also... copyright rules vary by jurisdiction, but date of publication seems to only be relevant (in most countries) for new critical editions (or works originally published posthumously).

aepensky · Post by **aepensky** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:59 pm

miguelm97 wrote:I recently sent an e-mail to UE asking why they included G. Mahler in the composers list that should be removed from the site. I didn't understand it because Mahler died 96 years so is works are PD.
Mr. Irons replied to my e-mail (in a very polite way I must say) and explained to me that Mahler works were on that list because they were published by UE.

This sounds like repeating the big lie over and over in hopes of making it true. As far as I know, you can't get a new copyright on a piece of old music simply by publishing it. If you add anything besides the notes (fingerings, editorial notes and comments, etc.) then those parts can be copyrighted and may not be reproduced. But I don't think simply re-typesetting the notes would be considered new material eligible for copyright. It is the habit of publishers everywhere to assert, blindly, that if they have printed it, you cannot reproduce it. That is not true if it is public domain material and nothing new of value was added to it.

miguelm97 · Post by **miguelm97** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 4:44 pm

dolhuis wrote: Well a footnote that a work is copyrighted doesn't make it magically stay out of Public Domain forever. Only if it has been published less than 50 years ago, it is not in the Public Domain in Canada, otherwise it is in the Public domain, even if each page is covered in copyright notices.

On the other hand:

Erasing a footnote or reference that a work is copyrighted doesn't move it magically into the Public Domain. That only happens when it is published over 50 years ago, copyright footnote or not.

The only choice for an institute like IMSLP hopefully becomes is to do it the right way, not by erasing reference to publishers in the hope to scrape free from prosecution.

You missed my point here...
I'm not saying that just by erasing the copyright reference the work will become Public Domain. What I'm saying is that in the case of scores that already are in Public Domain but are published or edited by a certain company will allow that company to sue anyone that is distributing their score for free.
For instance, you decide to found the "Dolhius publications", you publish Beethoven's 9th symphony (is Public Domain) and you see that your edition is available for free download here you can ask IMSLP to remove it or take legal actions against the site for hosting the file. The work is PD but the edition is not.
IMSLP had the PDF file of "Treatise on Instrumentation" by Berlioz, I suppose the work is PD (suppose because Strauss revised it and enlarged it so I don't know how this works since Strauss is under copyright in EU) but the edition probably is not and if Kalmus (the publisher) decided to sue the site they maybe had the law on their side.
I think it works this way but I might be wrong...

carmar1791 · Post by **carmar1791** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 4:50 pm

In Italy a new retypesetting , that is like the original (urtext) without adding a slur is protected for 25 years.All kind of new printed editions are protected for 25 years . I don't now in other nations....
Greetings Carmar

dolhuis · Post by **dolhuis** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 6:08 pm

What I'm saying is that in the case of scores that already are in Public Domain but are published or edited by a certain company will allow that company to sue anyone that is distributing their score for free.

Altough I'm still not a lawyer, I think this is not correct. If the edition is not distinguishable from the PD work it's not copyrighted, even if the publisher puts his name and copyright on it. And if you remove the name of the publisher, but it's still recognizable as his edition, because the editing is significant, it still is copyrighted (unless printed more than 50 years ago). Both situations allow that company to sue, but in an ideal situation only the latter will lead to removal of the score, completely indifferent to if you choose to edit out the name of the publisher and/or his copyright notifications.

For instance, you decide to found the "Dolhius publications", you publish Beethoven's 9th symphony (is Public Domain) and you see that your edition is available for free download here you can ask IMSLP to remove it or take legal actions against the site for hosting the file. The work is PD but the edition is not.

What I have to do to claim copyright is significantly alter it, if I just reproduce it without change, I cannot claim copyright. Otherwise all the published pdf's are copyrighted by their respective scanners, and I'm quite sure they're not.

jhellingman · Post by **jhellingman** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 9:20 pm

carmar1791 wrote:In Italy a new retypesetting , that is like the original (urtext) without adding a slur is protected for 25 years. All kind of new printed editions are protected for 25 years. I don't now in other nations....
Greetings Carmar

Some countries (to mind come the UK) have these kind of restrictions on typographic layout, but as far as I know, not Canada, and certainly not the US. (That is, unless the typography is so highly creative that a copyright is warranted, which typically is not the case.) However, since IMSLP already takes into account additions by anonymous editors, no editions printed after 1957 where supposed to be on the site anyway.

jhellingman · Post by **jhellingman** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 9:21 pm

dolhuis wrote:What I have to do to claim copyright is significantly alter it, if I just reproduce it without change, I cannot claim copyright. Otherwise all the published pdf's are copyrighted by their respective scanners, and I'm quite sure they're not.

Unfortunately, you need to alter nothing to claim copyright (see the article on copyfraud cited above), however, the be entitled to it, some creative rework will be required.

dolhuis · Post by **dolhuis** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 1:25 pm

Unfortunately, you need to alter nothing to claim copyright (see the article on copyfraud cited above), however, the be entitled to it, some creative rework will be required.

I have to admit that that is what I meant: I cannot justifiably claim copyright in such a way that it will hold up in court, when I reproduce public domain material without significant change.