Hi guys.
I was recently pointed to Mahler's first where a 1967 Austrian score is uploaded. Feldmahler mentions there that in Austrian copyright law there is a similar exception as the German scientific work protection. However, I couldn't find anything like that in the law text made available on WIPO.
Austrian copyright law - Urtext?
Moderator: Copyright Reviewers
-
Carolus
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2249
- Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 11:18 pm
- notabot: 42
- notabot2: Human
- Contact:
Actually I made a mistake here, Peter. I was the one who told Feldmahler that it would be OK because I was thinking of the Czech law about government works (like the Dvorak critical editions) which has a similar net effect to that of the German Urtext law. You're right, the Austrian statute appears to have no special provision for Urtext editions, so it's possibly protected in Canada as well.
The odd thing about the Mahler critical edition is that nothing was actually re-engraved. So, the question arises as to what, if anything, constitutes an original contribution on the editor's part - especially in light of the fact that the editorial changes were evidently few enough that UE didn't even bother to re-engrave the works? Contrast this with Novak's edition of the Bruckner symphonies, which were re-engraved except in the cases where he basically reprinted Haas's score.
We should probably come up with a more-or-less official IMSLP stance on this, as it will no doubt arise again. My own inclination is to let the Mahler stand unless UE actually barks - to call their bluff, essentially. On the other hand, if someone has actually gone to the trouble to re-engrave a piece, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt - hence the policy of policing the posting of new typesets (engravings). I think Canadian law actually grants a new typeset 50 years unless it falls under the rule of the shorter term as with Germany. There are also several instances where a performing edition has been made by taking a PD score and inserting numerous slurs, fingerings, articulations, and the like by hand (often rather crudely). That's a different case than the Mahler 1, which certainly appears to be the 1906 UE score with a few corrections inserted. The habit of affixing a copyright notice in everything - even obvious reprints of long-PD scores - is a widespead one that only clouds and confuses the issue even more.
The odd thing about the Mahler critical edition is that nothing was actually re-engraved. So, the question arises as to what, if anything, constitutes an original contribution on the editor's part - especially in light of the fact that the editorial changes were evidently few enough that UE didn't even bother to re-engrave the works? Contrast this with Novak's edition of the Bruckner symphonies, which were re-engraved except in the cases where he basically reprinted Haas's score.
We should probably come up with a more-or-less official IMSLP stance on this, as it will no doubt arise again. My own inclination is to let the Mahler stand unless UE actually barks - to call their bluff, essentially. On the other hand, if someone has actually gone to the trouble to re-engrave a piece, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt - hence the policy of policing the posting of new typesets (engravings). I think Canadian law actually grants a new typeset 50 years unless it falls under the rule of the shorter term as with Germany. There are also several instances where a performing edition has been made by taking a PD score and inserting numerous slurs, fingerings, articulations, and the like by hand (often rather crudely). That's a different case than the Mahler 1, which certainly appears to be the 1906 UE score with a few corrections inserted. The habit of affixing a copyright notice in everything - even obvious reprints of long-PD scores - is a widespead one that only clouds and confuses the issue even more.