IMSLP Forums

This question is more for my general education than for any specific piece.

From time to time I see references to copyright having been renewed, so I would like to learn under what circumstances a company can renew copyright?

Renewal of copyright applies only to the USA for works published between 1923 and 1963. Starting with works published in 1964, all renewals were automatic. The law in effect in the USA in the period 1909-1977 specified an initial term of 28 years from publication, followed by a renewal term of 28 years, which was later extended to 47, and ultimately 67, years. That's why a work first published in 1923 can be under copyright for up to 95 years. Everything published before 1923 is the USA public domain, while items published 1923 and later may be under copyright (provided all of the proper conditions have been met, one of which can be the filing of a renewal after 28 years). The renewal requirement applied to all works, whether they were published in the USA or elsewhere. The GATT/TRIPs amendments were an attempt to nullify the renewal provisions for foreign works published in that period - provided that certain requirements were met.

From what I gather about US copyright laws from Carolus' informative posts, it would seem that a huge amount of music published after 1923 is now PD in the US. To be eligible for protected status in the US, a work published between 1923-1963 must meet two criteria: (1) the publication must have included a proper copyright notice; (2) the copyright was renewed after 28 years. There must be untold thousands of musical works published between 1923-1963 that do not meet these two conditions, and consequently are no longer protected. But how can we, the public, find out which works fall into this unprotected category. If there are Kalmus reprints or the score is accessible in IMSLP, then its unprotected status is obvious. But how about all of the other unprotected musical works? Since the renewal requirement applied equally to music published both in the US and outside the US, it is obvious that most music published outside the US during this period was never renewed. I have lots of old editions with no copyright notice. Who knows which post-1923 works are still protected, and which are not? In order to determine the unprotected status of post-1923 musical works, it would be necessary to examine the published scores for the presence of a proper copyright notice; then it would be necessary to make a visit to the Copyright Office and check its files for renewals (since I do not believe this information is available from an online database.) Consequently, the public is ignorant of the status of most of these works, In general, it assumes that ALL post-1923 works are still protected -- when, in fact, they are not. What we have here is a vast segment of the repertoire effectively denied free access to the public, which in fact legally owns it. This de facto protection is based on ignorance of these works' true copyright status.

IMSLP is helping to rectify this frankly outrageous situation by posting online some works that fall into the above category. But the 1923-1963 scores on IMSLP represent only a tiny fraction of the total of the unprotected scores from that period. What is called for, it seems to me, is a user-contributed online database of information regarding the copyright status for post-1923 works that are now in the public domain in the US for either of the above two reasons.

MS

One of our goals is to obtain scans of the renewal volumes for the Catalog of Copyright Entires which cover renewals made between 1951 and 1977. This will show which items first published between 1923 and 1950 have been renewed. If something was not renewed, it could still be protected via the "restoration" provisions of GATT/TRIPS (Section 104, I think). Nevertheless, access to these volumes would likely reveal quite a list of non-renewals - many of which would ineligible for GATT restoration.

Carolus, this is probably a stupid question, but:

Carolus wrote:Starting with works published in 1964, all renewals were automatic.

What renewal period is automatic, i.e. is a work published in 1964 and written by a composer who died in 1970 protected till 2066?

Anything first published between 1964 and 1977 is still governed by the term of first publication plus (a possible) 95 years, regardless of when the composer died. The renewal term became automatic starting in 1992 (1964+28). Something published in that era can still be public domain in the USA - if it was published (even once) without a notice, or with a defective notice. So, a score first issued in 1964, with a proper notice, will be protected in the USA until 1/1/2060 as things stand right now.

What is the exact format for a proper copyright notice? I gather that if the slightest detail were changed, the copyright notice would be invalid. What about music published in foreign countries, with foreign languages, possibly using different alphabets such as Cyrillic, Arabic, Japanese, Chinese, Hebrew and Greek? For such a copyright notice to be valid in the US, did it have to conform to our law or theirs?

MS

Until 1977, the notice format had have three elements present, and had to be printed on the first page of music or the title page (front side). The three elements were:

1. The word "Copyright", the abbreviation "Copr.", or the symbol "©", followed by
2. The first year of publication, and
3. The name of the copyright claimant.

This was required irrespective of where something was published. Publication without notice, or with a defective notice, injected a work into public domain the day a copy was sold or distributed in the borders of the USA. A copyright secured by publication with a valid notice could be destroyed by reprinting the work with a new date, without notice, a defective notice, etc.

After 1978, the notice requirement was less stringent, and claimants could file amended registrations to cover items issued accidentally with defective notices. In 1989 (March), the notice requirement was abolished. Things first issued from March 1989 onward do not require a notice. However, earlier publications that are reissued still have to bear the original notice for the copyright to remain in force.

The GATT/TRIPS amendments (effective 1/1/1996), enabled foreign claimants whose works were injected into the US public domain due to failure to meet the notice requirements to "restore" the works to copyright status provided certain conditions were met (like the work not being PD in its country of origin) and the necessary NIE was filed withy the copyright office during the 2-year window allotted (1996-1998). While it is technically possible for NIEs to be filed after the window's closing (1999), it is unclear whether such a "restoration" is legally enforecable in the USA. (Yet another opportunity for lawyers to litigate as the meter runs.) This is why all those Shostakovich and Prokofiev works issued by the USSR State Music concern (GMIM, Muzgiz, Muzyka, etc.), available in inexpensive reprint editions (Kalmus, Dover) for decades suddenly all reverted to "rental only" from G. Schirmer, who can now charge whatever they feel like the market will bear for a study score, etc.