User talk:Carolus/archive2


Burleske's original edition

Hi Carolus, Hobbypianist you were really experienced in music publishing and told me you'd maybe know! I'm trying to find which is the first(s) publisher(s) of the Strauss' Burleske and if by the way, it is still possible to find this/these first(s) edition(s)! Thanks


Here is the first edition information:

Full score: Leipzig: Steingräber Verlag, 1894, plate 515b, 75 pages
2-piano reduction: Leipzig: Steingräber Verlag, 1894, plate 515a, 36 pages

It's been reprinted by Kalmus, Luck's, Marks, and Dover, Eulenburg also issued a study score, which may be a reduced size reprint of the original, though I haven't confirmed that. If you want to try and find an actual Steingräber copy (the imprint was still around as late as the 1950s), go to to the advanced search page and enter Strauss in the author field and Steingraber in the publisher field. You might get some hits. Be sure to read the descriptions to determine if its a full score or a reuduction (the page count is a clue for that). Generally, the larger format items (10 x 13 inches or ca.26 x 34 cm) are pre-1920, when most publishers went to the smaller 9 x 12 format. Good luck! Carolus 04:26, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Hi Carolus! Thanks a lot! That is amazing! I'm now wondering how you can find all this information! That's impressing! Thanks again for the information about the Burleske! Cesarcui

Neue Liszt-Ausgabe..

Are they really published in budapest? NLA would not be PD anyway because both editors have passed away in the recent 30 years, but here is an interesting link from Stockholms Music Library, were Bärenreiter is mentioned as the publisher (utgivning). But it's published in Budapest anyway? --Funper 18:54, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Hi, Funper. The series began publication in 1970 by Editio Musica Budapest. It would therefore be governed by the Hungarian copyright law pertaining to editions. EMB is stil in business, and the series became a joint venture with Baerenreiter starting in the 1980s. I think this was probably something more than a mere agency because Baerenreiter's name appears on the actual imprint in addition to EMB on a couple of copies I've seen personally. If it could be proved that Baerenreiter is indeed the publisher of record - meaning that you have an actual copy that has only a Baerenreiter imprint with no mention of EMB to be found - the 25-year rule of German copyright law for critical editions comes into play. That translates as anything 1981 and before being PD regardless of whether the editor is alive or dead. The other wild card here is the Hungarian copyright law, which I know very little of apart from the fact that it follows the basic EU requirement of life+70. Germany, Austria, and the UK all have the more limited 25-year terms for critical editions or editions which are basically re-engravings. If Hungary has such a provision, I think it would be OK to post the pre-1982 editions at IMSLP due to Canada's adherence to the "rule of the shorter term." Carolus 19:10, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

So if the German publisher Bärenreiter is mentioned in the edition (wihout any imprint of Hungarian EMB) the 25-rule comes into play, unless it accually turns up that Hungary has a 25-year term provision. But Hungary has accepted the shorter term rule: end of the section, "useful list", but the problem is that shorter term isn't 25 years in hungary? --Funper 19:32, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Wow... Austria adheres to the 25 year rule as well? If that's true, I have a very nice scan of Mahler's 1st waiting to be submitted (published by Universal Edition in 1967 in Vienna) :) --Feldmahler 19:52, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, Austria has, but what about our beloved Hungary?! --Funper 19:56, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
We'd probably best double-check the Austrian law, since I'm going on memory here! The key thing to find out is if the Hungarian law applies the same limited term for critical editions instead of the standard life-plus-70 term. It might have done so with Hungary's joining of the EU, or even before during the communist era. I think the case is extremely weak for arguing that the primary publisher is Baerenreiter - for the reasons listed above. Hungarian law applies for the NLA because the primary publisher is EMB, and most if not all of the editors are Hungarian. The basic term in Hungary is life plus 70 of the last surviving author - the same as it is everywhere in the EU. However, if Hungary, like Germany, Austria, and the UK, only grants only a limited term for critical editions (because of the originality issue), Canada's would follow suit because Canada employs RST. You've done a wonderful job of posting Liszt at IMSLP. I can understand why you'd really like to include the NLA volumes. My only complaint is with the S# system, where different versions of the same piece get vastly different numbers (like the orchestral versions of the tone poems vs. the piano versions)! Why'd he do it that way!? Carolus 20:01, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Here's a link for the Hungarian Copyright Law. It looks like editions fall under their category of a "collection", the term of which would appear to be 70 years after publication. Sad to say, it means that we probably cannot post any NLA titles here at IMSLP. Carolus 20:14, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Who needs NLA? There are plenty of non-hungarian scores at Stockholms Music Library, particulary one on the whole Symphonic Poems, which reminds me to buy a scanner... Haha regarding numbers, Liszt didn't bother himself with opus numbers, S numbers are provided by Humphrey Searle, he is the one to be blamed..! Reason why they aren't submitted all togheter is that I want it to be "catalouged" in a correct way, I dislike "AWP":s. --Funper 20:23, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
What's an AWP? It's not a big deal as long as it's easy to find all the versions of a given work for ease of downloading when someone is doing a comparison or studying them. At any rate, I expect that IMSLP now has the biggest Liszt collection on the net, so keep the scans coming! Carolus 20:29, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
AWP (artificial work page) is a (very) broken concept that yours truly invented ;) Basically, it means grouping together works into one page that otherwise have no natural grouping (see the AWP of Schubert's songs). I know the idea is wrong and makes it hell to maintain (very hard to find which work is actually on which page), but I haven't yet thought up a better scheme (especially for works as numerous as Schubert's songs)... However, AWPs are discontinued, and no one should be creating them (submit them to separate work pages instead) :) --Feldmahler 20:33, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Add the Song-"prefix", e.g. Song, [title], Op.[#], this will hide them in the S-corner of the category.. --Funper 20:37, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Two things about templates :)

Hi there Carolus! It may be a good idea to use "Preview" before saving a template, just because each template save makes IMSLP a little bit slower for the next hour or so (it has to process every page that links to the template)... previewing is generally a good idea for all pages, but especially for templates :)

Also, I'm not sure whether it is a good idea to use a font size larger than normal web font size (9px) for templates? They look rather huge on my computer... maybe it is better to selectively enlarge chunks of the text if necessary, instead of the entire template? :) By the way, the changes to the template do not take effect on the pages until the page cache is purged, which could be up to 3 days... just in case you are wondering why most of the work pages still have the old font size for the template. --Feldmahler 02:57, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Hi, Thanks, I'll use the preview feature. They look huge on your computer? The look nearly invisible at 9pt on mine! That's why I thought going to 11 might be a reasonable compromise. If you wish, I'll change back to 9, or would it be easier for you to revert? Carolus 03:01, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Hmm... you know, I think there may be a better way :) It being very small on your computer but not on mine is probably because the font size is fixed rather than variable depending on the browser setting and screen size (I don't have a large screen at all). We should be able to get around this by not using fixed font sizes, but rather variable ones (maybe percentage values?). But I'm no site design expert, so I'll have to dig around... and right now is pretty late, so I'll look into this tomorrow :)
By the way, thanks for all the work you've done tonight on IMSLP! :) --Feldmahler 03:10, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

I think you're right - using percentages works! They are used in the designs for the "FileNonPD-US" template, where they are set to 95%. Let me know how that one looks on yours. Carolus 03:15, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

FileNonPD-US template looks perfectly fine on my browser :) --Feldmahler 03:16, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Shall I then go ahead and change all the templates to 95%? Or, do you have a faster way to do it in one shot? Carolus 03:18, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Nope... someone will have to manually change the templates sooner or later :) --Feldmahler 03:22, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

OK, I'll go ahead and change them to 95% before I knock off for the night. Carolus 03:24, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Some copyright questions

Hi Carolus, I have a few questions concerning copyright:

The following is actually clear for me, but I want to be on the safe side. Dover replaces in some reprints the original titles by English ones and sometimes also adds English translations (e.g. for tempo indications or instructions). I think, this is no significant change, is it? Can I upload it or would it be better to remove the added title/text?

The next one also refers to reprints: on the first page of an edition one can read: "Selected works as reprints of the first editions of publishing company... Edited by ..." and also on the next page "Reprint of the first edition 1880". But on the first score page they put a copyright mark at the bottom "c. 1998 by...."! Are reprints still under copyright here in Germany? I can't imagine that. Of course, the musical note and a short comment about the composer at the end of this edition are protected, but I do not intend to scan this anyway. Could this be another effort of publishing companies to conceal public domainness?!

On some Szymanowski scores from Universal Ed. there's the text: "Revision 1993 according to Complete Edition". But it seems for me as if they only reprinted the original edition, the copyright date at the bottom of the page also seems to be the original one, e.g. "c. 1907". So, what did they actually revise? If there had been any important changes/modifications, I'm sure they would have changed the date. I think, I can upload it, can't I?

Many thanks :) Hobbypianist 13:53, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Hello Hobbypianist,

All three cases you mention certainly do not qualify for copyright status in the USA, nor so they qualify in most of the world. Simply put, there is insufficient originality involved. Mere correction of mistakes is not an original contribution of authorship, though a new engraving or typesetting does qualify for a limited term of protection in some countries (Germany and the UK, for example) because it is an original design or layout of the music. Merely reprinting an older score and correcting a few obvious errors doesn't even meet the very minimal standard employed by US courts. A new compilation, consisting of reprints, could qualify if it's unique and original ("Collected Songs" by a single composer doesn't qualify but "Songs to texts of Shakespeare" by 12 different composers might). As for the Dover translations, if they are extensive - like a preface or a paragraph of description - they might qualify as a translation. Simple title translations probably would not. Same for simple performance directions. Carolus 17:32, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Hi Carolus, thank you very much for the clarification. I'm relieved to hear that and can start scanning now... Hobbypianist 05:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

A little note about the IMSLP page delete feature

Hi there Carolus! Just a little note about the "IMSLP Page Delete" special page... use it only when you want to delete the page and all the files on it (i.e. due to copyright reasons). If you just want to delete the page (and not the files on it), simply use the "delete" tab on the top of the page :)

I'm just saying this because of the accidental deletion of Henselt's Op.2/6 file; even though the file entry is moved to another page, the file itself is still needed, so deleting only the old page (and not the file on it) would be good :) But! I was able to restore the file from backups, so everything is fine now :) --Feldmahler 04:10, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, I realized that after I did it! Thanks. Carolus 23:58, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Albinoni (and Caldara?)

Hi. I'm not sure if this is the way to answer previous messagge.... Yes, I'm the copy holder of my submission (albinoni parts) I'm Carlos Ramírez Guzmán (Quaerendo). I don't know about any Caldara submission. It was not me...! Any way, the person who posted the Albinoni's scores, posted also (later) the separaate parts, so if you consider, remove mine.... Regards.

Oops... my fault. I copied Carolus' entire comment to your talk page, instead of only the bit about Caldara. And Carolus, apparently there are two Quaerendos ("Quaerendo" and "Quaerendo Invenietis")... hence the confusion :) --Feldmahler 19:51, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks - both of you Carolus 02:56, 29 May 2007 (EDT)


Hi Carolus,

For the Orch Score:

i got the full orchestral score of elgar cello concerto from somewhere in a forum,and i just didnt noticed that it is still in copyright protection(since a copyright renewal was done). i think this should be deleted..

For the Solo Version:

The solo version(whice you described as "recent") was indeed a version by China publisher "People's Music Publishing House". unfortunately, this original score does not cite the resource of autographs, so i would say it is their own work. The original score was really "old" ( i guess my teacher have brought it for like 20 years), and the score stated that the first publication date is 1972, and republished in 1978. however,they didn't stated that the score is copyrighted(i have take out few of other publications by them and the results are the same.)

and forgive me for my poor English!

Many thanks :) --Hei8701 07:38, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Empty work pages

Hello Carolus, just to remind you that the two work pages Piano Concerto No. 2, K. 39 (Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus) and Piano Concerto No. 16, K. 451 (Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus) which you have created on May 26, currently don't have any submitted files. --Leonard Vertighel 16:18, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Hi Leonard, I was hoping that the person who posted all the other Mozart concerti would add these shortly. You can get rid of them if necessary. Carolus 18:19, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

There is no hurry, if there is the chance that the files are added shortly, we can wait. I was just cleaning up some empty work and composer pages (I have deleted some 50 of them, some dating back to 2006). Delete them only if it seems unlikely that the files will be added soon. --Leonard Vertighel 18:29, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. I'll keep a watch on them. Carolus 18:32, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Chopin-Etudes Op. 10

As I put in the workPage, the file was taken from e-mule, so I don't have many information about the publisher. Anyway, I know two things: firstly, has the same edition, and they claim that all their scores are PD; secondly, I have got an identical edition (same number of pages, same measures per page...) but with the dedication in spanish (and without the words brown Index 59), that dates from 1912; so I think it is in PD.

--Guifre 14:24, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

Hello Guifre, I'll have to do some more research on these, but the engraving itself looks more recent than 1912. It's pre-computer for sure, but it looks as if it dates from the 1960s or 1970s. I won't take them down unless they prove to be Vienna Urtext or something similar. Thanks, Carolus 23:44, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

CD Sheet Music

Hey Carolus, I was wondering what the status of posting music from cdsm is? Is it OK as long as their logos have been cropped out from every page? Also, would it be necessary to take out the text (composer name - piece title) that they add at the top of every page as well since that wasn't part of the original edition? I read the thread on it in the forum but it didn't seem as if there was a general consensus there. Since we are not supposed to list them as the scanner, are we also not supposed to list their name in the publisher section also and instead use something like "widely available source", "commercial provider", etc.? Thanks.--Mitch 19:40, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

Hi Mitch, The composer-name / title headers and page numbers inserted by CDSM on top of the scans are not protectable under any copyright or trademark laws, while the CDSM logo is a trademark that can't be reproduced without permission. Just make sure the CDSM logo is removed from every page it appears on. It's probably best to be a vague as possible if you elect to cite a scanner, like "widely available source" or better yet leave the field blank altogether. While there is absolutely nothing illegal about removing the CDSM logos and posting altered copies of CDSM files, it's still best to not draw undue attention in light of the litigious society we live in. Your doing a great job at tracking down the original publisher on all the stuff you've been posting, BTW. It makes copyright verification much easier and I really appreciate it! Carolus 23:41, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

I went to the list of uploaded files, clicked on the old Cui Op.31 and reuploaded one without the first couple pages (Image:Cui - Op.31 - 3Waltzes.pdf) but it doesn't seem like it replaced the old file. What is the procedure for doing this correctly? Thanks.Mitch 00:25, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

It doesn't look like it. I recommend that you get in touch with Feldmahler on the technical fine points of re-submissions. He'll know exactly what you should do. Carolus 00:29, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Dover authoritative editions

Hi Carolus, I'm not quite sure whether I can upload some scores from Dover. Often they say clearly in the introduction that the scores are reprints but sometime they only mention that they are from 'authoritative editions' or 'early authoritative editions'. Can they be treated like normal reprints? Hobbypianist 04:41, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Hi Hobbypianist, Dover is being a bit coy when they use that terminology. It's much the same with us when it comes to CDSM scans. In most cases, it's a Muzika edition that they've reprinted. They probably just don't want any editors from the Soviet days (some of whom are still alive) to start screaming when they reprint a Muzika score and hire an American lawyer to harass them. You should feel free to post away to your heart's content. If any of the works in question were actually protected, Schirmer (whose parent company bought Muzika during the great sell-off of the 1990s) would have shut down Dover in a 'New York minute' (about half a second). The only case where you should be cautious with are a number of Prokofiev works that Dover reprinted back in the 1970s and 80s. Those were actually restored to copyright protection in the US. (They're free in Canada, though). Carolus 04:57, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Carter Brey Haydn Cadenza

Hello, I would like to know why you deleted the Carter Brey - Haydn Cadenza. I found it on the site [1] where he himself uploaded it and tagged it as public domain. Wouldn't this then be ok? Sorry if it isn't but I am just curious as to the fact. Thanks for your help.

I found more information on the Haydn Cadenza look here Carter Brey Cadenza. What do you think? Is it ok? Or is it not allowed? Generoso 11:22, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Hi Generoso, Thanks for the info. We tend to be pretty cautious in cases where there is a possible copyright violation - especially when a living author is involved. I'll check out the links and get back to you. As a general rule, we require that the person who posts an item by a living author have written permission from the author to post it at IMSLP if they are not themselves the author. The Carter Brey cadenza could trun out to be an exception to the rule. While Mr. Brey may have authorized his cadenza to be posted on Mutopia, it doesn't mean that he would necessarily be OK with it being posted at IMSLP, though you are certainly free to ask. Carolus 15:38, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

OK, I just looked over the Mutopia info. I think it's probably OK to go ahead and post this here at IMSLP. Carter Brey seems to have explicity placed his cadenza into the public domain. Even so, since it's the work of a living author, I recommend that you use the CC license when you post it. Sorry for the confusion! Carolus 15:52, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for checking it out for me. One question, should I list it under Haydn or under Brey (I would think Brey as it is his work, but then again it is a cadenza to a Concerto? Any thoughts? Thanks again for your help.Generoso 16:00, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

I think listing it under Haydn would be more useful to any prospective cellists visiting the site and looking for pieces to perform. The Haydn Concerto is fairly well known. It's fine to list under both, but listing under Haydn should take priority. Carolus 16:03, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Ok, Thanks for your help. I'll put it under Haydn then. Generoso 16:08, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Here is the page check if it is done right, Thanks Cello Concerto No. 2 in D major H.7b/2 Op.101 (Haydn, Joseph) Generoso 16:42, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Looks good. I moved the page in order to put in the rather frumpy Hoboken format-style (Hob.VIIb:2). I'll go ahead and verify. Thanks! Carolus 16:51, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Debussy's "Images" transcribed by Garban for solo piano - eligibility

Carolus, Lucien Garban made transcriptions of Debussy's Images for solo piano back in the 40's (I think) and were published in '52 by Durand. These are NOT eligible for upload to either of IMSLP's servers (because of Garban's death being less than 50 years ago)? Just want to be sure. Thanks for your work! Daphnis 11:17, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Sad to say, no. Unless you can prove that Durand neglected to renew after 28 years - in which case they could be posted on the US sever. However, the likelihood of Durand not renewing a copyright is a bit like that of a blizzard during July in Alabama - theorectically possible but exceedingly rare. Carolus 15:43, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Shostakovich reprinted by Dover

Carolus, another query regarding the scores reprinted by Dover of Shostakovich's work. None of these reprints are currently public domain because of the GATT treaty restoring them all? I'm a bit unclear as to what this treaty did, who imposed it, and what effects it had the majority of Russian works at the time. I ask because I have a copy I bought around '92 or so of Shostakovich's preludes and fugues AND have already scanned the entire book (200+ pages, including the huge Op.87) and wanted to know if, despite the GATT treaty, this Dover reprint would be PD. Thank you again. Daphnis 18:44, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Question: what, other than Op.87 (and I would guess Op.34) is in the book? Shostakovich wrote some preludes Op.2 and a set of five preludes for a collaborative work, all composed between 1919 and 1921. If they were published pre-1923, they might be PD, even if the whole book isn't (I guess). Physicist 20:56, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
Yes, those 3. The 5 Preludes, Op.34, and Op.87. That's the thing. I'm not sure how the GATT treaty revocation comes into play in this situation. Were, in fact, these works in public domain before the treaty and after back in copyright? Daphnis 21:01, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
I believe that everything first published before 1923 is public domain regardless of the GATT; what I'm not sure of is whether GATT automatically copyrights works, or whether there still needs to be renewing for compositions first published between 1923-64? --Feldmahler 21:10, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Hi, GATT automatically "restored" all post-1922 works published overseas to a full (95-year) term as long as the NIE was filed, irrespective of whether or not the work was renewed. The works that were actually renewed (typically by publishers like Durand and Ricordi) were protected for the 95 years anyway. The only Shostakovich works that have a hope of being PD in the US are the early ones mentioned by Physicist. If they were actually in print by 1922, they are free in the US regardless of GATT.

To answer Daphnis' original question: All of the works in the 1992 publication were restored as of Jan. 1, 1996. Dover took the volume in question out of print at the time and sold any stock on hand as remainders. Kalmus similarly had a huge 'fire sale' of Prokofiev and Shostakovich works at the time. All are controlled by Schirmer now. Carolus 17:29, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Reprint edition under copyright

Hi again :), Hug & Co. in Zurich published the Decameron, op.69 by Karg-Elert in 1924. Though the editor clearly says that the new edition is a reprint of the 1924 ed., two copyright warnings (both in modern letters) have been placed on the first score page (c1924 by Hug & Co, Zurich and Neuauflage (Reissue) c1991 by Hug & Co, Zurich). I uploaded the preface (see file list: Karg-Elert_preface.pdf), so you can read the relevant sentences at the end of the english version (please delete the preface after reading...) You said that even minor corrections would be no reason for copyright. Can I upload it? If yes, would it be better to completely remove the warning in such cases in order to avoid any misunderstanding? thanks. Hobbypianist 07:59, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Hi, OK I read the preface. From the editor's description, it would appear that this is basically the same score as the one first issued in 1908. The 1908 score was reissued in 1924, and Hug is claiming copyright on both the 1924 reissue and the 1991 reissue. My suspicion is that their claim is bogus. Unless Karg-Elert did substantive revisions on the music for the 1924 reissue - like adding new music, deleting music already there, re-writing sections, etc. - any claim to new copyright on a 1924 reprint is highly questionable. Correction of a few errors from the 1908 printing does not qualify them for a new copyright, and a few additional corrections made in 1991 likewise does not qualify for yet another copyright. You would have to find a 1908 printing to make sure of this, of course, but one really good way to make this determination in a rough way would be to look up the piece in OCLC/First Sarch and compare the page count of a citation for a 1908 score with that of a 1924 score. If they're different (more than two pages off - since some librarians count title pages, blank pages, etc), Hug could have a valid claim. If they simply reprinted the 1908 score with a few alterations, they don't have a leg to stand on.Carolus 17:28, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Hi, well I don't have a Login for OCLC...I will try to find information in online databases of some large libraries in Europe. But theres something I don't understand yet: if Karg-Elert really made significant changes for the 1924 edition, he would be the editor of the 1924 ed. and Hug would have copyright for that score until the composer's death + 70 years in Europe, this would mean until 9. April 2003. If an unknown editor made changes the publisher would have copyright 1924+50 years (in Canada), this would mean 1974. And the difference between the 1924 edition and the reissue 1991 are only minor corrections according to the no matter he made changes or not its PD, isn't it? Why could Hug have a valid claim? Draheim says that this edition includes the 1924 reissue in one volume, so can mere combining of several volumes be a reason for copyright?
Another thing just came into my mind: a lot of scores from CDSM, Dover, Elibron etc. are uploaded here. The result of a discussion in the forum some time ago was that it would be better not even to mention CDSM as scanner. What about Dover, Elibron and LC (you remember that guy who complained about the Heller the way, does LC stand for Library of Congress?)? I myself uploaded scores from Elibron and LC but I wasn't sure, so I didnt mention them. Should such companies be kept secret generally or is only CDSM a trademarked word? Hobbypianist 08:04, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

Hi again, I can certainly understand how this can create a great deal of confusion. The bottom line on the Karg-Elert is this - It's public domain. Hug's claim to copyright on the 1924 reissue would still be in force, if it's a valid claim, only in the USA due to the USA's 95-year term from date of publication for works published before 1978. If Karg-Elert re-wrote sections of the work for the 1924 reissue, they would still be public domain in both Canada and the EU - even if they are protected in the USA. Hug's 1991 claim covers only the preface, in reality. Combining several volumes into one does not entitle them to a new copyright.

The CDSM issue has nothing to do with copyright, but with trademark law. None of the scans of public domain works CDSM sells are covered by copyright in Canada, nor would they qualify for copyright protection as computer files in the USA. The viability of their copyright claim under EU laws is arguably more valid, but even there the whole issue of originality comes into play. CDSM's logo, however, is protected as a trademark and therefore must not be reproduced. The same rule would apply to Elibron's logo, Dover's logo, Kalmus' logo, or any corporate logo. A logo is a symbol, combined with a particular design and typeface. Mere citation of a company name in plain type is not a reproduction of their logo. LC (Library of Congress) is a division of the US government who is not entitled to make trademark claims. There seems to be a certain mindset present among a number of libraries and archives that their holdings are somehow protected by some sort of magic perpetual copyright, which they alone control - desite the fact that their institutions are supported with public funds and the manuscripts or printed works they own have been public domain for decades if not centuries. Carolus 20:48, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

Hi, indeed, all these different copyright regulations can be a bit confusing, but thanks for the clarification :). I dind't know that you were talking about the US 95-year term. Ok, then I will upload it soon (without preface and those copyright marks). Hobbypianist 07:05, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

Satie: Sports et Divertissements (manuscript vs. engraving)

Carolus, I don't know if you're able to check on this or if you might have any inside info. since you're a fellow Francophile, but I'm curious to know the status of Satie's Sports et Divertissements work. The manuscript facsimile is in PD as it is the version included in the CD Sheet Music set, but do you happen to know if it's also the facsimile in the Dover reprint? According to my hunting, the first engraved edition was done in 1964 by Musique Contemporaine of Paris (later Salabert) bearing the plate number M.C.194. Salabert later reprinted this same engraving under their own name in 1987. I have a copy of this and to me, the only changes aside from the obvious engraving would be the translation of all of Satie's indications, yet no editor is named anywhere I can find. Do you think this would be PD material? Daphnis 00:41, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Hi, The Dover score is a reprint of the facsimile ed. of 1914. Publication of the engraved score you mention in 1964 means that particular score could be protected in the US if there's an editor, assuming it has a copyright notice in the prescribed place (title page or the first music page). If they failed the notice requirements - at any time, including republication by Salabert with a 1987 notice instead of the 1964 notice - it's thrown into the US PD because it's not eligible for GATT restoration (the composer being PD in the country of origin), unless they (Salabert) claim the editorship is sufficient to warrant protection and a court agrees. Less than 50 years ago means it is protected as a publication in Canada, too. I think you'll have to wait until Jan. 1, 2015 unless you can prove publication without notice or with defective notice. Carolus 01:02, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Then I'll probably have to wait as on the first page (containing music) it bares both the '64 copyright by Musique Contemporaine, and the '87 copyright by Salabert. Rats...I was hoping the engraving and translations wouldn't be sufficient to retain a copyright claim. I guess the manuscript copy will have to do. Thank you for checking. Daphnis 09:09, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

The odd thing is, I think I saw somewhere a Demets or Rouart score from around 1918 of the piece that was engraved. I can't help but to wonder if the 1964 score is a reprint with a scarecrow notice. I'll look around and drop a line if I find anything out.

Hmm...While looking through the WorldCat I see an edition by Luciene Vogel dated 1914, but the descriptions of this edition in multiple records might indicate that it is also a facsimile of the manuscript. Other than this I've found no earlier or later (aside from the ones I mentioned) edition that specifically mentions a printed version. Let me know what you find, please. Daphnis 18:31, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Editor Lothar Lechner

Hi Carolus, a user asked for the missing page of Albeniz's Suite espagnole Op.47. Well, I played some pieces from this nice Suite and thus have the score, it's from Schott (No. 5068, 09643), reissue 1996, edited by Lothar Lechner...the same like the one on IMSLP. I could't find closer information about the dates of his birth and death, it seems that he edited some works the 50s, but I'm not sure whether it's public domain. Maybe you know more about him, could you please check this? If it turns out to be PD, I will scan and upload the missing page. Thanks, Hobbypianist 04:17, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Hi, The Lechner edition is much older than 1996. I did a search on WorldCat for Lechner and find editions going back to 1914, with the latest one being 1955. I expect his editions are PD in Canada as it is likely that he died before 1957. The Schott "Einzelausgabe" plate numbers (different from their regular plate numbers) were past 4000 by 1922. I expect the Albeniz was actually done in the mid to late 1930s. I think you're free to post it here. Carolus 18:38, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Kirchner Copyright Question

Hello Carolus, sorry to bother you with another copyright question (I'm trying to get down the intricacies of copyright law but there are still areas where I run into confusion). Anyway, I was wondering what types of actions or editorial corrections result in the creation of a new copyright when a piece is reissued. I ask because I have quite a few Theodor Kirchner scores that were reissued in the late 1990's on into the 21st century. The publishers are Amadeus Verlag-Bernhard Pauler & Breitkopf & Hartel. These editions have new covers and prefaces which would obviously have to be removed but they also go on to state in the preface something much like the following.

"This edition is based on the first edition. A few minor printing errors have been corrected without comment by the editor, and several cautionary accidentals have been added where necessary" signed the editor. Or in another "only a few previously missing articulation signs have been added."

Are these types of actions enough to give new copyright status? I thought I had read somewhere on the site that they weren't but all these editions have new copyright warnings from the 1990's. Anyway, I uploaded the file "Kirchner_-_Op.8-54_-_2_Scherzi.pdf" for you to take a look at. You can go ahead and delete it either way once you take a look at it as even if it isn't under copyright, I would need to upload a version without the preface, covers, etc. Every one of the other editions I have pretty much say the same thing about what minor changes were made, so if you can give me a ruling for this one it should be applicable for the others also. Thanks again.Mitch 01:32, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Hi Mitch, Corrections of errors, especially the relatively minor ones listed here, made to an engraving more than a century-and-a-half old would not hold up in any US court, or even in most European courts except for maybe France (and it's very dubious even there). The preface, name and logo of Amadeus should be removed (as you plan to do). If they can't even pay a Finale or Sibelius engraver to produce a new engraving, I don't think IMSLP is under any obligation to observe their claim of copyright - especially since it is a bogus claim. My general policy here is to respect re-engravings that are less than 25 years old unless they are explicitly stated to be public domain (as with Mutopia scores). Post them and cite the original publisher, date of publication and plate number, putting them in italics if the info does not actually appear in the scan itself. You've certainly been posting an interesting colleciton here - keep up the great work! Carolus 02:51, 20 June 2007 (EDT)


Hi Carolus. Not long ago you deleted some scores on Liszt that were published by Bärenreiter.

"bärenreiter. urtext. maybe recently published since the other one on "Carousel de Madame Pelet-Narbone" seemed to be as recent as 2003.

Carolus: Yes, it was from the Baerenreiter 2003 collection. Had to be removed, sad to say."

But here I find something else. They are all a part of the "Drei späte Klavierstücke" collections published in -69, 34 years before the one you claimed. Here: Image:Kassel Bärenreiter - Drei späte Klavierstücke first edition 1969.pdf, I have compiled all three pieces into the original collection. You will see at the bottom of the first page:

(C) 1969 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel

--Funper talk 15:40, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Good detective work! The only reference I could locate was for the 2003 collection. Apparently Baerenreiter "recycled" them from the 1969 publication. They're Urtext, published in Germany, and over 25 years old. They're public domain in Germany, which means they're public domain in Canada as well, thanks to the rule of the shorter term. It looks like you knocked the legs off their claim and are free to post them! Carolus 18:29, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

They got it coming! Were did you find the data on those? I need references (can hardly find any these days). --Funper talk 20:13, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Hi, I found my info on WorldCat. Fortunately, my local public library has access and they give patrons the password to access from home. Carolus 20:16, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Muzika 1977

Cover: Score:

Shouldn't this be PD? The engraving is very similar to Neue Liszt-Ausgabe. --Funper talk 16:29, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

The link to the music pages didn't work, though the one for the preface did. At any rate, the editors lised for the 1977 Muzika score are transliterated Z. Gardonyi and I. Selenyi, which certainly appears to be a transliteration of Zoltan Gardonyi and Istvan Szelenyi of the Neue Liszt Ausgabe. I'm willing to bet it's a Muzika reprint. The USSR was quite notorious for its complete non-observance of copyright laws, so it's hardly surprising that Muzika simply reprinted EMB whenever they felt like it. They reprinted many of Copland and Britten scores issued by Boosey and Hawkes as well. One can find a number of such scores on the various Russian sites, too. Carolus 20:51, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

Files by Mikimanson

Hi Carolus, a few days ago I received an email from Mikimanson (in Italian, because he has major difficulties communicating in English). It seems that he is the author of the typesetted scores he submitted. I tried to explain that he should make it clear on the work page, and that he should choose an appropriate license, but I haven't heard from him since. However, I think that his files should not be deleted for now. --Leonard Vertighel 07:17, 22 June 2007 (EDT)


Hi Carolus, sorry for bothering you with another question. Are really all scores from Supraphon PD or are there any exceptions? Lots of my scores have plate numbers like H 4973/H 7233, is that a revision of an older edition? I think almost all scans are from the series edited/revised by Jan Novotny in the mid-80s. Can I upload them? What about c 1989 Bärenreiter Editio Supraphon Praha (some have this mark)? Hobbypianist 14:57, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

The plate numbers you describe are almost certainly a revision of some type (my bet would be that some pages have been re-engraved) of a previous edition. Supraphon took over the Prague publishers Hudebni Matice and Urbanek for sure, perhaps others as well, in the wake of the communist takeover in 1947. Because of the Czech law, all Supraphon pulications before 1989 are considered issues of the government and therefore public domain. The single exception to this rule would be for the works of Czech composers who were alive between 1947-1988. All pre-1988 Supraphon editions are apparently PD in Canada, which means you are free to post them. In 1989, Supraphon was purchaed by Baerenreiter, which shifted the country of origin (for copyirght purposes) to Germany. Presumably, all post-1981 works are still protected in Germany and elsewhere in the EU since both the Czech Republic and Slovakia are members. Carolus 12:24, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Ok, thanks. I`ve just sorted the Smetana scores. I'm going to upload all the pieces I could identify as parts from the series 'Klavirni skladby' Vol.1-6 edited by Novotny. Since I have volume 6, I know its from 1987 and thus PD in Canada (author Novotny says in the preface: "During revision...I was guided by principles similar to those of earlier volumes." Hence I think volumes 1-5 are also PD...) On the other hand I'm not sure of those with the mentioned double numbers and pieces from Vol.7 ( > 1987 ?), so I'll omit them. Hobbypianist 14:44, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Salieri La Tempesta di Mare

Hi Carolus,

the origin of my score "La Tempesta di Mare" is a manuscript of the "Österreichische Nationalbibliothek" at Vienna. I did the typesetting by myself, so no copyright is violated. Please restore my contribution.

Notenschreiber 09:55, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, Notenschreiber. Your contribution was not identified as being your own typeset. I'll see if it's possible to retore. If not, please post again and I'll issue the verification. Carolus 14:21, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Scores from Denis Bouriakov


I have seen you are trying to delete the transcription of two movements of a suite by Bach (1) that I uploaded due to copyright issues. I don't understand why do you think that score should be removed, because there are in the IMSLP other files from the same library with no Copyright Review advises. If you change your mind, please let me know, as I would like to upload more scores from that site. Thank you. --Guifre 12:25, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

Hello Guifre, The problem with the transcription of the Bach Suite from Bouriakov is that we have no idea of who transcribed the piece and no idea of who published it. I'm not planning on removing it right away, but would really like some more information about it. Just looking at the file, I would estimate that it is of fairly recent vintage and has a high chance of being under copyright. Bouriakov has plenty of public domain works on his site but has a fair number of things that are copyright as well. He appears to be fairly ignorant of copyright laws, but he's actually less ignorant than some of the other Russian sites, who will literally post anything and everything. The best recommendation I can make is to post works in their original medium: Avoid transcriptions of orchestral works for band, arrangements, etc. Also, I recommend you visit the Historical Publication Info page and look over some of the publisher pages there along with the the detailed info on copyright vs. public domain here at IMSLP. Transcriptions and arrangements are protected as long as original works are in most places. In Canada, that's the lifetime of the last surviving contributor plus 50 years. Editions are another matter, because many editions as recent as 1981 are free in Canada. Carolus 15:03, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for the explanations! --Guifre 08:09, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Copyright help

Hi Carolus, could you see if I am missing anything here. Thanks. --Funper talk 16:06, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

Hello, Funper. I looked it over and added some clarification about the basic legal rationale for regarding EMB editions as public domain, which is similar to that used for editions prepared by Muzika and Artia / Orbis / Supraphon. Carolus 14:51, 6 July 2007 (EDT)