Please, explain why this edition can be freely downloaded

[fablau]

Hello here,

My name's Fabrizio Ferrari, CEO at Virtual Sheet Music Inc.

I am writing because by browsing your IMSLP website, we have found some editions that might be copyrighted according to the international copyright law. And, if that's the case, we are concerned that other music could be found on your site without the needed copyright permissions (maybe you might have some of our copyrighted digital editions too).

I would really like to have a logical explanation of why we could download, from the following page, an edition by Peters publishing company copyrighted in 1973:

http://imslp.org/wiki/Pour_le_piano_%28 ... _Claude%29

You can download that edition directly from the following link:

http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/57634


According to the copyright law, despite the contents of music may be in public domain (such as the included composition by Debussy), the edition itself may be still under copyright as well as any other copyrights held by any other person that have contributed to that edition (in that specific edition, looks like the editor Eberhardt Klemm, passed away in 1991, could still own copyrights on his own work).

I look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards,
Fabrizio Ferrari, CEO
Virtual Sheet Music, Inc.
Classical Sheet Music Downloads
http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com

[steltz]

Copyright law is not really international, in that different countries deal with editorship differently. For instance, in the country where I live, the edition you are questioning is not legal to download. The students at my university are given a lecture in their first year explaining that editors are covered here for the same length of time as the composers (50 years), and they must check the editors' dates as well as the composers'. However, some countries only cover editors for 20 or 25 years. In the case where an editor is covered for 20 years, this edition would have become public domain in 2012.

[KGill]

It's an urtext edition, though, so Klemm's contributions don't count for full copyright status in Canada and the EU, at least (don't know about South Africa). Not sure why it's not blocked in the US, however - at a guess, it might have to do with its publication being in the GDR.

[Choralia]

In the case where an editor is covered for 20 years, this edition would have become public domain in 2012.

Small mistake: this edition is dated 1973, so, under the "Urtext" provisions, it is public domain everywhere in Europe since many years (maximum protection is 30 years, although most countries opted for 20 or 25 years).

Max

[steltz]

Small mistake: this edition is dated 1973, so, under the "Urtext" provisions, it is public domain everywhere in Europe since many years.

Sorry, I was mistakenly working on editor's death date, not the publication date.

[fablau]

Thank you for your replies and clarification, that makes sense assuming what you state is correct. Where can we find more information about how copyrights are treated from the "publishing company" (edition) side?

Thank you again.

Sincerely,
Fabrizio

[Choralia]

Where can we find more information about how copyrights are treated from the "publishing company" (edition) side?

I'm not sure about what you mean, anyway here are a couple of recommended readings available on the IMSLP website for anyone who wishes to know more about copyright on sheet music and music recordings:

http://imslp.org/wiki/IMSLP:Copyright_Made_Simple

http://imslp.org/wiki/Public_domain

The latter page includes many references to the applicable regulations.

Max

[fablau]

Thank you Max, in particular I can't find what you stated above about "maximum protection is 30 years, although most countries opted for 20 or 25 years"...

Thanks.

Fabrizio

[Choralia]

http://imslp.org/wiki/Public_domain includes the applicable references to regulations. Please check that page carefully, as you'll find plenty of useful information. Specifically, it mentions the EU directive 2006/116/EC, which states the following as far as the so-called "critical" (a.k.a. "scientific", a.k.a. "urtext," a.k.a. "scholarly") editions are concerned:

Critical and scientific publications

Member States may protect critical and scientific publications of works which have come into the public domain. The maximum term of protection of such rights shall be 30 years from the time when the publication was first lawfully published.

Germany is an example of a country that opted for a 25-years term, as per Article 70 of the German copyright law:

Article 70 Scientific Editions

(1) Editions which consist of non-copyrighted works or texts shall enjoy, mutatis mutandis, the protection afforded by the provisions of Part I if they represent the result of scientific analysis and differ in a significant manner from previously known editions of the works or texts.

(2) The right shall be enjoyed by the author of the edition.

(3) The right shall expire 25 years after publication of the edition; however, it shall expire 25 years after its production if the edition is not published within that time limit. (...)

Italy is instead an example of a country that opted for a 20-years term (Art. 85 quater of the the Italian copyright law):

1. Senza pregiudizio dei diritti morali dell'autore, a colui il quale pubblica, in qualunque modo o con qualsiasi mezzo, edizioni critiche e scientifiche di opere di pubblico dominio spettano i diritti esclusivi di utilizzazione economica dell'opera, quale risulta dall'attività di revisione critica e scientifica.

(...)

3. La durata dei diritti esclusivi di cui al comma 1 è di venti anni a partire dalla prima lecita pubblicazione, in qualunque modo o con qualsiasi mezzo effettuata.

Some European countries (typically, those where no major music publishers exist) did not specify any terms. In these cases, one can assume that "critical" (a.k.a. "scientific", a.k.a. "urtext," a.k.a. "scholarly") editions are not protected at all, because they do not include any "original contents", while the presence of original contents is the basic requirement for any intellectual property claim. The 30-years limit anyway applies everywhere in the EU as a maximum.

Max

[fablau]

Thank you very much Max for your extensive reply and information, that's very useful.

All that makes sense assuming that that edition is URTEXT. How can you be sure that that is a urtext edition? Do you simply compare it to the original composition? I haven't checked that on that particular edition, but I assume you do that kind of checking for every uploaded edition? Am I correct?

[KGill]

How can you be sure that that is a urtext edition?

Well, have a look at the title page: Ausgabe nach den Quellen. (There are also a few footnotes that indicate the original score had a Revisionsbericht, see e.g. page 8.) On further examination this appears to be not quite a straight urtext, as someone added a few fingerings here and there, but it seems otherwise to be an extremely careful reengraving of previous editions of the work (it corresponds very closely to the Fromont first edition, for one). I'd say it's debatable whether the scattered fingerings meet the threshold of originality in Canada or EU territories (certainly they wouldn't under German law), and in all other respects this looks like a pretty cut-and-dry scientific edition to me.

[Choralia]

How can you be sure that that is a urtext edition?

Please note that the copyright status at IMSLP is evaluated by a group of volunteers, the "copyright reviewers". To become a copyright reviewer one has to pass a test and demostrate a sufficient knowledge of copyright matters. However, copyright reviewers are not infallible and, whenever a copyright holder follows the appropriate procedure to notify an alleged copyright infringement, the case is reviewed again, and the edition is promptly removed if a wrong evaluation was done initially.

Aside this specific case (very well addressed by KGill), the status of urtext editions can be determined very easily sometimes: even if the edition is not marked as "urtext" by the publisher, it is possible that it is listed under the "urtext editions" section of the publisher's catalogue. As simple as that

Max

[Notenschreiber]

There is an urtext edition of the discussed work:

Claude Debussy, Pour le piano, Urtext, BA 8770, hg. von Regina Back, Kassel u.a., Bärenreiter, 2007.

This edition is protected for 25 years, according to VG Musikedition, a german institution for copyright protection.

It seems to be possible, that someone makes an urtext edition (which is protected) and somebody else makes another one, which is also protected.

[coulonnus]

It's an urtext edition, though, so Klemm's contributions don't count for full copyright status in Canada and the EU, at least (don't know about South Africa). Not sure why it's not blocked in the US, however - at a guess, it might have to do with its publication being in the GDR.

Yes, if you mean the version Leipzig: Edition Peters, 1973. Plate E.P. 12572a and if we read http://imslp.org/wiki/IMSLP:Copyright_Made_Simple it is non PD-US. It is sort of a derivative work.

[Choralia]

if you mean the version Leipzig: Edition Peters, 1973. Plate E.P. 12572a and if we read http://imslp.org/wiki/IMSLP:Copyright_Made_Simple it is non PD-US. It is sort of a derivative work.

I'm not sure about the non PD-US status of this work. In 1973 Edition Peters was under the state ownership of the East German regime, which, at that time, was considered "without any legal validity” by the United States. Recognition of the GDR and the establishment of diplomatic relations only occurred in 1974. It's certainly a rather garbled case

Max

P.S.: the GDR copyright law also stated that works protected by copyright could be used by all parts of a socialist society without the permission of the author. Just to make the case even more garbled where the "rule of the shorter term" applies...