Creative Commons and IMSLP

[Starrmark]

I notice that a considerable number of contemporary composers are posting scores on IMSLP under the Creative Commons license. I am not familiar with the details of Creative Commons, but I gather it is possible to publish under Creative Commons a work to which one holds the copyright while reserving SOME of the rights under copyright. For example, a composer might publish his orchestral score under Creative Commons, while retaining for him/herself all rights concerned with public performances, the production of instrumental parts used in performances, arrangements and piano reductions.

Is this correct? -- and if it is, would IMSLP make available on its website such a scanned, copyrighted, Creative Commons orchestral score which users of the site could download freely - but they could not copy out instrumental parts, perform in public or arrange -- without permission from the copyright holder. In other words, a Creative Commons license in which SOME of the copyright holder's rights are still reserved.

If IMSLP would post such a score on its website, what information would such a score have to display?

MS

[Carolus]

Yes, it is indeed possible. We even offer our own "performance-restricted" license for just this purpose. I really recommend that you see the other thread as there is now a situation under way where one of the Ebay characters who sells CDs and DVDs of "The World's Greatest Horn Music" or something similar has actually duplicated a copyrighted work by a living composer from this site. Fortunately, our composer used a CC license limiting sharing to non-commercial use which should enable us to put a speedy end to this nonsense. Not all CC licenses would prevent someone from doing this, however. It's the wild west out there, so please read the CC license terms carefully!

[Starrmark]

I was very much interested to read your positive reponse to my inquiry. I've spent the evening pouring over the various CC licenses available on IMSLP. They are very complex and somewhat confusing, despite all the explanations. (A comparative table might be of considerable help sorting out all the fine print.)

Here are some questions that occurred to me as I was going through the material.

Which CC license would permit ONLY the downloading and non-commercial printing of an orchestral score posted on IMSLP ? I.e, no generation of orchestral parts permitted; no arrangements, transcriptions, or reductions permitted; no commercial use of the orchestral score permitted; and, above all, no public performances of the work allowed without a performance license from the copyright holder (or his representative.)

Can an orchestral score with a CC license get posted on IMSLP if it bears the imprint of a music publisher (who holds the copyright)?

Can the score display the following statements?: "Public performances of this score in all countries must first be licensed by XYZ Edition. Orchestral parts are available only on rental from XYZ Edition. Any orchestra that performs this score in public under license must report all performances either to [e.g. ASCAP] or to the performing rights society in its country that is affiliated with [e.g. ASCAP.]"

In which countries does the CC license have real legal standing? For example, let's say an orchestra in France downloaded this hypothetical CC orchestral score from IMSLP. Let's say they had the instrumental parts copied out, and they performed it a dozen times in France without first obtaining permission from XYZ Edition. Could this hypothetical orchestra be sued in France for copyright violation under the CC license? Does France, or England, or the EU recognize the CC license in their law courts?

Too many questions, I know. Thanks in advance.
MS

[Carolus]

I realize that it can be a bit daunting to read absorb all of the wrinkles and possible ramifications of the CC licenses. The one thing they all have in common is that they do not place any sort of restrictions on performances or display. Personally, I recommend that composers employ our own performance-restricted counterpart to the CC license for items subject to full-force copyright (meaning original works and arrangements only, since ASCAP, BMI and other performing rights societies around the world do not collect on editions). This license is essentially a full-dress copyright with the exception that the file covered can be freely distributed, copied, and disseminated from user to user, only on a non-commercial basis, with no permission granted for either derivatives (whether arrangements or part extraction) or public performances. The composer, publisher, or other copyright holder remains the owner of the copyright. The score can contain all of the statements pertaining to performance and broadcast (which is really just a type of performance) you mention and can be a locked PDF, since part of the "no-derivatives" restriction prohibits any modification of the file. The work, once posted, should remain freely available at IMSLP.

The creative commons licenses are in force in a large number of countries. Since the above-mentioned performance restricted license is merely a single limitation upon a copyright, a license to distribute freely on a non-commercial basis only, copyright protection around the world still applies thanks to Berne and other treaties.

[Pquantick]

I hope that you can help me.

I’m an amateur composer and I want to use IMSLP to publish my music.

I’m pretty sure that the BY-NC-ND-4.0 meets my needs but I wondered about the PR prefix in relation to performance rights.

From the posts (by Carolus - including the horror stories of the illicit publishing of media on Ebay) which are very helpful, it seems that including this would offer further protection.

2 questions – (1) is it needed if you don’t belong to a performing rights organisation and (2) does the PR prefix mean that to perform a work a user needs to contact the composer for permission?

Thanks

Peter

[Choralia]

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, bla bla.

(1) is it needed [to use a performance-restricted licens] if you don’t belong to a performing rights organisation[?]

No, it is not needed. It's an option that you may select or not. It's mandatory only when the author is associated to a performing right organization that does not allow the author to define any exceptions to the general rule where the performing right organization is the only entity allowed to collect performance permission fees on behalf of the author.

(2) does the PR prefix mean that to perform a work a user needs to contact the composer for permission?

Not necessarily: it means that performance requires permission (and usually the payment of a performance permission fee) from whoever manages the permission rights, such as the author himself/herself, or the performing right organization (if present) that manages permission rights on behalf of the author.

Max

[Pquantick]

Brilliant. Thank you so much for your reply.