User talk:Carolus/archive5


Archive pages for this user talk page

Copyright tagger fix

Hi there Carolus! Just wanted to notify you that (perhaps you have already realized), the tagger is fixed, and should work with new files now. By the way, I am going to add automatic file tagging based on the copyright tags, so if you are feeling lazy you can omit adding templates to the file entries. :) The tagging will not affect files already tagged.

Please tell me what else I've broken when you find it ;) --Feldmahler 22:20, 23 November 2007 (EST)

Ha, Thanks. Delighted to have the automatic tagging. Schoenberg is just about cleaned up and ready to go. Carolus 22:24, 23 November 2007 (EST)
The file auto-tagger should be up in the next update, but since the change is retroactive, just pretend it is already up :) Good work on the Schoenberg! --Feldmahler 22:27, 23 November 2007 (EST)
P.S. I forgot to say that I end up deciding to pad any 21th century date to two digits (i.e. 2009 => 09), but still keeping the two digit form. I know that having a two digit year for the 21th century when everything else is four digits will seem weird at first, but I'm betting on the fact that we will get used to it as time passes. The reason I prefer two digits is so that the tag does not get very long (plus most if not all of the dates will be in the 21th century anyway). Also, year 0-99 are not valid years, so there shouldn't be confusion between the 1st and 21th century ;)
Of course, if any copyright reviewer just can't get used to it, I can switch back to four digits very easily... I hope this is acceptable! --Feldmahler 22:41, 23 November 2007 (EST)
I don't think I'll have any problem getting used to it. It might help if it generates an auto-tag at the bottom of the page that reads like some of the manual tags I've put in {While public domain in Canada, this work is protected in the USA until 1/1/2048). That's not what I'd consider to be a big priority or anything like it, though. It's just something to remind users that there are publishers out there waiting in dark alleys with lawyers...... Carolus 22:48, 23 November 2007 (EST)
Ah that's what you meant. Well that's very simple to do :) If I forget when the auto-tagger comes up just leave me a note on my talk page. --Feldmahler 22:51, 23 November 2007 (EST)
Hi! Just wanted to say that your new copyright tagger is looking and feeling very good! --Peter talk 12:50, 24 November 2007 (EST)

File removal

Carolus, when you did some cleanup on the Finlandia page (removal of the orchestral score I marked 'TO BE REMOVED') did you also delete the image from the server? I've marked several other files under various works pages of Sibelius' to be removed also, but if you would leave those I'll take care of them at one time when I replace them all sometime after the first of the year. Thanks. Daphnis 16:46, 24 November 2007 (EST)

I tried, but it was already gone - apparently. That's why I got rid of the description on the page. Sorry for the confusion. I'll leave the rest of them as is until you replace with new files - which I am sure will be infinitely better than the old ones were. Carolus 16:57, 24 November 2007 (EST)

File Tagging

Hi there Carolus! I just thought of this, but perhaps it is actually a better idea to not manually add file tags anymore, and wait for the file autotagger. The reasons are that 1) the autotagger will obey the year entries (i.e. the tag will change automatically once the file enters pd), and 2) detailed information from the copyright tag can be put in the file tag. So as long as you set the correct copyright tag you don't have to worry about the file tag :) --Feldmahler 05:48, 25 November 2007 (EST)

P.S. In case you didn't notice I answered your question about the composer list on my talk page :) --Feldmahler 05:54, 25 November 2007 (EST)

Hi, Yes I realized that the Cataegory of ComposersNonPD-USand EU was just the thing I needed when I noticed the mention on your talk page! I did not realize that the autotagger would take care of all the file tags once I put in the years (as I have with all the A's, Bartok, Honegger, and Schoenberg). For some reason, I was under the impression that it only went down to the page level - not the individual file level. That's fine by me and just makes my clean-up task that much easier.Carolus 15:36, 25 November 2007 (EST)
The autotagger doesn't go to the file level yet, but it will soon :) And the autotagging will be based on the copyright tag, including years. In fact, it may not even be a "tag" so much as just a part of the template itself (i.e. like a more verbose and explained version of the copyright tag). But I will figure out how it looks once I finish implementing the new file template :) It should be up and running before Christmas (I will be extremely busy the next few weeks with both school and other stuff). --Feldmahler 16:41, 25 November 2007 (EST)


Hi Carolus. I'm wondering why you systematically change the BGA publisher fields, which I have been standardizing up to volume 38. I always used the standard IMSLP formatting, except the plate number which was sometimes forgotten:

Collection title.  Place: Publisher, year.  Plate xxx.

I assume this is because you created subheaders for groups of files. However, I'm not sure if this is still needed after the files will have been grouped in a multifile template.

Cheers --Peter talk 15:14, 6 December 2007 (EST)

I was experimenting with this format for the Canatas because I thought it might ultimately be easier for users to keep all the BGA items in one place on the respecteive pages over time. With J. S. Bach in particular, there seems to be an almost bewildering number of editions, versions, arrangements and transcriptions - many of which will no doubt eventually find their way onto the IMSLP pages. So, I set up the subheadings to clearly designate the BGA in order set the series apart from all the arrangements, etc. that gets added later. (I changed the publisher field on these because it seemed redundant to list the series in both places.) I thought the Cantatas would be a particularly good section to carry out this experiment as there are certain very popular ones (like 140) which have served served as a basis for numerous derivative works. That way, we could see over a period of time whether my organization scheme was successful in keeping the BGA items in their own space as people add more items. I wasn't planning on doing anything beyond the Canatas, BTW. Carolus 22:00, 6 December 2007 (EST)

Phone call

Hi Carolus! Sorry about the phone call cutting off again... I had meant to add money to the account, but forgot. Of course, Verizon is taking its sweet time to provide me with land phone service... I ordered a month ago and its still not here. I also haven't got a chance yet to have the pleasure of waiting an hour on the phone just to speak with one of their reps.

If it is ok with you, I can call you back tomorrow... I've been wanting to ask you a few things about the planned incorporation too.

Regarding copyright tags, if you had meant manual tagging, then that won't be necessary, as that will be taken care of by the autotagger once I actually get it running. If you meant something else, we can talk about it on the phone tomorrow, or you can e-mail me or leave a note here :) --Feldmahler 20:28, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Hi, I wondered if it was something like that! Will the new autotagging system put in the year of expiration for EU works? For example (even though Bartok's works have already been manually tagged), would it be auomatically putting the year 2016 for composers who died in 1945 and so on?
No... that has to be provided by the copyright tag in question. The autotagger works strictly off the values entered into the copyright tagger for that file.
US status gets a bit more complicated because there are still a fair number of things that were issued after 1922 that weren't renewed, nor had an NIE (Notice of Intent to Enforce) filed before the deadline of 1/1/98. The more popular of these items are still available as reprints from Kalmus, Dover, etc. Thus an automated system only works so well - bu it would at least filter out all pre-1923 publications on those items where the date of first publication is known.
Well, I say "auto"tagger, but the "auto" part extends purely to placing the tags in the file entries; the dates and copyright status is gotten from the copyright tag, and not automatically. The big benefit of this is that tags will automatically change with time if a year is entered into the copyright tag.
The reason I haven't extended real "autotagging" to files is that actual files are infinitely harder to tag, due to different possible parameters (ex. transcriber, etc)...
BTW, I was very irritated by Jonathan Irons' snotty article over at the UE website. Carolus 20:38, 10 December 2007 (EST)
Oh me too, a few days ago when Prof. Geist e-mailed me about it. But at this point they have the upper hand because IMSLP is down, and so arguing with them would mostly be a waste of time, at least until IMSLP comes up again :) However, his article has prompted me to redo the main site, for non-admins of course (see here). --Feldmahler 20:57, 10 December 2007 (EST)
P.S. Just a note to prevent confusion: I'm talking about the file-level autotagger here; both the work and composer-level autotaggers will do real "autotagging" based on the dates entered into the composer template and work page (date of first publication is the main one used, in conjunction with composer death year). However, the file-level autotagger works strictly off the values in the copyright tags. --Feldmahler 21:10, 10 December 2007 (EST)
Hi again, Tomorrow is a bad day. I have a rehearsal in the evening.
No problem; we have plenty of time to discuss these issues, so no need to rush.
At any rate, I had a fairly long phone call with Michael Hart this evening, who is extremely supportive. I think the prospects are very good for IMSLP's resurrection as a Canadian non-profit corporation. Mr. Hart has considerable experience in dealing with threats from lawyers. Gutenberg will be more than happy to host all works that are free in the USA but not in Canada. Carolus 21:53, 10 December 2007 (EST)
This is extremely good news. I'm willing to help in starting a US branch of IMSLP provided that PG will handle the server and legal issues. In fact, I'm willing to start even before the main IMSLP comes up. It might also be nice to still have a conference call with Michael, though there is no hurry.
By the way, I was wondering if you have heard anything from Paul Fleury? --Feldmahler 22:29, 10 December 2007 (EST)
No, I haven't. He was supposed to contact me via the forum but then the forum went down for a couple of days back around Dec. 1. I'll try him again, too. I am of course willing to serve on any board, etc. for IMSLP in both the USA and Canada. Carolus 22:33, 10 December 2007 (EST)
Great (that was one of the questions I wanted to ask on the phone)! Also, no worries about Paul, we have time :) I was mainly wondering whether Paul would be willing to provide support on two things.
The first is whether he (or his lawyers) would be willing to help with the paperwork in the incorporation of IMSLP, in case the University of Ottawa/CIPPIC is overloaded with work and cannot do the incorporation. Mr. Fewer says it is likely that the basic incorporation research would be finished before Christmas, but I know the CIPPIC is overloaded with work, so it may be good to know someone else willing to do this just in case. If CIPPIC can do it it would be great, since they will be serving on the board with us (if all goes well), but just in case.
The second is whether he would be willing to provide legal support in case U-E or another publisher decides to pull this trick again. I am willing to give all awards from the countersuit to Paul or his lawyers, as long as IMSLP is represented for free in the suit itself.
Of course, both has to be in Canada.
In any case, there is no hurry, just contact him whenever you have time :) --Feldmahler 23:03, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Wagner vocal scores: origins and reprints with changes

Carolus, how much do you know about Wagner's vocal scores in general, but more specifically "The Ring"? I know that the early ones were pub. by Schott, and they it was reprinted by Schirmer later in the 1900s but a slightly different engraving. It was later reprinted by Schirmer but even slightly more different with English translations. How are Schott and G. Schirmer related, and do you know any about the metamorphosis of these vocal scores? Thanks! Daphnis 15:39, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Hi Daphnis, Schirmer was Schott's USA agent for Wagner in the late 19th century and early 20th century. That's why you see the parallel issues of vocal scores arranged by Kleinmichel and others. For most of the Wagner operas, Schott was the initial publisher. Schirmer had Schott over the proverbial barrel, so to speak, because nothing issued by them before 1892 had any US copyright status. That's why you sometimes see the same English translation in two different engravings - one by Schott (produced at its Mainz facility) and the other by Schirmer (produced at Schirmer's engraving and printing plant in New York after 1891). I think (though I haven't absolutely confirmed this) that any pre-1891 Schirmer vocal scores are going to be reprints of ones produced by Schott. After 1891 (which was when Schirmer opened its engraving and printing plant) most, if not all, Wagner vocal scores under Schirmer's imprint were actually engraved by Schirmer. I think Schott may have even reprinted some Schirmer engravings after the turn of the century - just to make things even more confusing. Carolus 19:44, 21 January 2008 (EST)

Hi Carolus. In getting back to the vocal scores, I'm going to be uploading over the coming weeks the complete Wagner vocal scores (properly scanned in monochrome at good resolution), but those reprinted by Schirmer. As I'm unfamiliar with the publication info. for these as the engravings are different from the original Schott publications, would you mind giving me a hand with the correct publisher and plate info.? I've posted the first of such vocal scores to Das Rheingold so you can see what I'm talking about. And after all this is done, I'd like to remove the other pre-existing vocal scores as these are considered the main editions and any works that cite passages in Wagner's works do so according to the G. Schirmer reprints (usually by page, system, and then bar number). Thanks. Daphnis 20:27, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Hi Daphnis, I'm away this weekend but will be happy to help with the specific publication info for the Schirmer editions. I'm fairly certain all of these were produced in the decade or two after they opened their own engraving shop and printing plant (1891). Plate numbers are a fairly good indicator of date with Schirmer - which is not the case with other publishers. Besides, as an American publisher, they were generally very meticulous about having the publication date appear on the first page of music as part of the copyright notice. Carolus 00:30, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Carolus, thanks for posting the publication info. for Das Rheingold so soon. Do think it would be prudent at all to keep the other (Schott) vocal score around? It's rather large with poor resolution and having two different printings around may confuse people, especially if they use the wrong one to try and find referenced passages (given as I outlined above in this Schirmer score). Daphnis 19:05, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Hi Daphnis, I'm torn about deleting the Schott - though it is indeed low resolution. There appear to have been two versions of the piece issued by Schirmer, one with the Jameson translation, the other with a translation by H. & F. Corder. Schirmer apparently had a deal with Schott back then, as the score with the Corder translation is a reprint of the Schott, even using their plate number (23504). I think it might be a good idea to move the Schirmer-CDSM score to the top, though. Carolus 19:15, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Godowsky Revised Editions

Hi Carolus, during copyright review I came across the revised editions by Godowsky. The biographical infos and some other paragraphs are written by Emerson Whithorne (1884-1958). Should these editions be reuploaded without prefaces? Edgar Stillman Kelley is not critical since he died in 1944. Regards, Hobbypianist 04:10, 26 January 2008 (EST)

Good catch. The bios and other writings of Whitthorne are still protected in Canada, so they should be omitted. We can have most available on the US site if and when it opens.Carolus 14:52, 28 January 2008 (EST)
ok, I've reuploaded them without introduction. There are still several editions with infos written by Lois Guse and Lewis G. Thomas, both of whom I can't find any dates of birth/death.
Hobbypianist 16:30, 8 February 2008 (EST)
Since the publications are over 50 years old (in most cases over 70), we can mark them 'checked' as to copyright status in Canada and the EU until such time as their death dates surface. Carolus 16:03, 9 February 2008 (EST)

Water Music, HWV 348-350 (Handel, George Frideric)

Dear Carolus, I am wondering why you switched the order in the publisher information field. I think it has been our habit, which I had written down once here, to begin the publication info with the publication title followed by the rest, somewhat resembling scientific citation styles. Peter talk 09:14, 10 February 2008 (EST)

Hi Peter, I was using the format most often found (though it's by no means consistent or universal) in OCLC library records for scores. It's very siimilar to the style format you put up, except that City: Publisher, date, plate number is first and the publication name goes in the next line below. If you prefer it the other way, that's fine with me. Just sort of a habit formed in my student days when we they still used library cards. Carolus 23:37, 10 February 2008 (EST)
Either way is fine with me, but I would like to see one consistent format for the site. I could be wrong, but I think most current references on IMSLP start with the title. --Peter talk 12:22, 11 February 2008 (EST)
You know, I think I agree with the the Series or Collection title going first. See the Schubert Quintet page. Having the Collection title just looks better here. Carolus 20:23, 15 February 2008 (EST)

RoST: EU vs US

Hi Carolus. It came to me that we are currently not applying the RoST for the EU, at least not for US pre-1923 publications. For example, all Godowsky's pre-1923 works, published in the U.S., are tagged "2009". I'm not sure of the publication history of Godowsky, but I assume his works were first published in the US and not in the EU. If we respect the "country of origin" principle in the Berne convention, I believe these works are not protected in the EU. What is your advice? Peter talk 13:34, 23 February 2008 (EST)

Nice one! It may have been a blind spot... --Feldmahler 13:57, 23 February 2008 (EST)

That is indeed a good question, Peter. I think you might very well be correct here, with the exception of those countries (like Germany, France and the UK) which have separate bi-lateral treaties with the US which evidently over-rule the RoST policy that the EU applies to all non-EU works. There was a court case in Germany about Gershwin's music before the adaptation of the life-plus-70 term there which held that Gershwin's works were protected in Germany as long as they were in the USA under the 1891 bilateral treaty that is still in effect. Carolus 23:58, 23 February 2008 (EST)

Schubert Songs

Hi Carolus,

Thank you for your note about the Schubert Songs.

I had read somewhere that "Brahms & Mandyczewski" were the editors, so it stuck in my mind, and I haven't had access to a copy of the whole Critical Complete Edition to check it out.

I'll enter the correct information for the songs I add from now on, and then I'll go back to the start and amend the ones I've already done. It seems like I'm having a break for a few weeks, but I'm busy scanning all the remaining songs so I can upload them in one session.

Do you think you could find out who the editors were for the other volumes in the Gesammtausgabe? After the Lieder are complete I have plans to gradually add other stuff, starting with the partsongs, choral works and some opera fragments I have, and I'm scouring the internet for any other Schubert reprints I can find.

Aldona 04:58, 24 February 2008 (EST)

I typed the above before I went to the Schubert page, and you've already done it! You are truly a legend.

Aldona 05:00, 24 February 2008 (EST)


Hi Carolus, I could make copies of the rhapsodies by Vorisek and several piano works by Tomasek (which I'm going to upload within the next couple of days). All have been published by Supraphon and Státní hudební between 1949 and 1979, so they are in any case PD in Canada. But I'm still quite unsure about determining the copyright term for US and EU...embarrassing, I know :-o, but there's no complete guideline for this so far. According to IMSLP:Grand_Wiki_Cleanup it should be also PD in EU since Vorisek died > 70 years ago, provided these are first editions (what I don't know). Would you please take a look at the piano works I uploaded? Regards, Hobbypianist 15:45, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Hi Hobbypianist, The Vorisek and Tomasek works are public domain in the EU thanks to the 93/98 Directive about copyrights and critical editions. Since both have been dead more than 70 years, the maximum term of protection if they are works published for the first time (Editio Princeps) is 25 years from publication. The maximum term for the edition itself is no more than 30 years from publication. Everything published through the end of 1977 is public domain in the EU generally. Editions published through the end of 1982 are free in the UK and Germany; those published through the end of 1987 are free in Italy. IMSLP has set a voluntary guideline of 25 years, so 1982 is the latest date we'll take for critical editions. We're waiting for some more informed legal opinion on the actual status of such editions in the USA and Canada. Critical editions might not be subject to any type of copyright protection in either country because of the "threshold of originality" issue. Carolus 01:33, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Chopin editions

Thank you for your comments. I gathered information for these two editions in the catalogues because I think most of what we have of Chopin on IMSLP comes from these editors. I have read about the Chopin editions, and I agree it's really a nightmare! I have no idea if the Jurgenson uses the same engraving as the Bote edition. On worldcat there are some entries, which show different plate numbers (somewhere in the 2000s) and different volume contents.

Could you take a quick look at some uploaded Chopin files? I think your eye will easily confirm the publisher. The plate numbers have meticulously been erased, so I'm counting pages now. To me, most works are the Bote & Bock edition, and the Mazurkas from a CDSM reprint of the Mikuli or Joseffy edition.--Peter talk 18:57, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Sure, I'll take a look. I noticed some Mikuli in the Chopin section, but some oddball items as well (like Richault) for a few pieces. Carolus 01:12, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Hi there. I found evidence for the etudes being the Bote & Bock issue in this marvellous treasure: CBN Polona. Too bad the resolution of their scans is not really printable. --Peter talk 14:14, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Hello Carolus. I'm not sure if Bote and Augener used the same engraving. At first sight, the musical content seems identical, but Augener prints were less condensed than the Bote & Bock, which explains the longer paginations. An example is Scherzo no.1; see the Bote & Bock edition and the Augener edition. However, maybe there are still different fingerings or marks which I have overlooked, because it seems strange to me that Augener would do the effort of making a complete new engraving if the content would be exact the same of the Bote issue.--Peter talk 06:01, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
I agree that we once will unravel all Chopin editions. At least, that's one of my utopic views of IMSLP; a complete and commented library of all music ever published. What certainly will help is a very nice second hand book I just received from Amazon; "Piano Music in Collections: an Index" by R. Fuszek; it indexes the contents including page numbers of many collections of piano music of the early and mid 20th century. --Peter talk 14:59, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Haydn sonatas

Are you sure they are from the Breitkopf gesammtausgabe? I thought so first, but the dover reprint on google books looks slightly different. --Peter talk 15:45, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, I'll have to double check. I thought it was the Päsler edition. I don't think it's even the same piece. The typography is similar, but the Google scan of the Päsler ed. has no fingerings. This is another example of why it's important to identify things that are posted. I seem to recall that there were a couple of conflicting methods of numbering Haydn's sonatas before Hoboken came along. Carolus 15:48, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Long pages

Your browser seems to have a problem with long pages. I have reverted your last edit to the Schubert Gesamtausgabe, because you removed half of the page :). I'll split this page to prevent it.--Peter talk 04:54, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, Peter. Hopefully, that will not be a problem much longer, as I'll be installing a new computer in about 2 weeks time! My present machine is an ancient Mac running OS 9.22. It's definitely showing its age (8 years), but has been an exceptionally reliable workhorse that needs to go into retirement. Perhaps I'll send it down to some friends in sunny Florida where it can lay about in a golf cart and sip cocktails. Carolus 23:39, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Thank you for the new Schubert template!

...and for your encouraging words!

I have tried it out on "Widerspruch" (D.865) and it works beautifully. After I have used it once it will appear in the "memory" window of the "add a file" template and it will be even easier and quicker to plug in.

As you can see, I started with the idea of uploading all the Lieder and then I found myself unable to stop. There is something about the sight of all those "gaps" in the Deutsch-listing, (the entries without a link to a file), which is like a red rag to a bull. I would love to see as many as possible of Schubert's complete works on IMSLP, and I'm still scratching around for as many of the little yellow Kalmus scores as I can get my hands on. I try to acquire them one or two at a time so I don't break the bank, but my Amazon source is starting to dry up a bit so I hope other people have access to the ones I don't.

The next few days will be a bit hectic so I probably won't get a chance to upload again until Saturday or Sunday. My weekly cycle goes a bit like this: Saturday - Tuesday: scan and upload like crazy whenever I can in between other tasks (weekend and then half-days at work Mon and Tues). Wed-Fri: full days at work and usually other meetings etc so no time to upload anything. Frustrated and getting withdrawal symptoms by Sat. morning.

(I'm sure there are support groups and good medications available for people with this kind of problem.)

Keep up the good work and here's hoping IMSLP is up again soon!

Aldona 17:38, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

I'll just jump in here and give a very very rough estimate that IMSLP may likely be online in ~3 weeks, which I've been telling a few other IMSLP admins who were inquiring (of course this is very much just my estimation). Carolus knows much more than I do about this, so please feel free to correct me anywhere I go wrong. My estimate is based on me guessing ~1-2 weeks for incorporation itself, and ~1-2 weeks for the transfer agreement. I may be very very wildly wrong, so Carolus please do correct me! --Feldmahler 17:51, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Phone call problem again

Hi Carolus,

Sorry again for the phone call breaking; I never thought the money in my account would be used up so quickly. I'm going to run out and try to get this thing fixed right now. --Feldmahler 19:34, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Just a little clarification on the nice phone conversation we had today about the legal side of things. Basically, I am fine with whatever the lawyers think is needed legally (within reason), as long as we are not required to know (even very basically) the copyright laws of any country other than the one IMSLP is hosted in. Obviously we currently have Canada/US/EU tagging, but that should, I believe, be for our own sake (ex. for mirroring purposes) and not a requirement.
By the way, I'd be very happy if you can notify me as soon as possible when Naxos responds... it'd influence the future structure of IMSLP and branch projects that I have been thinking about. Thanks :) --Feldmahler 00:01, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

I agree. There's no way that we can reasonably be expected to know the copyright laws of 180-plus countries, especially all of the permutations with regard to fair use of downloads of this nature. I think the simple disclaimer pop-up is the best way to go, and I'm fairly convinced the lawyers will see it that way also, especially after I mention the fair-use ramifications. I'll call you after my discussions with Naxos get started. I can understand how it would affect the architecture of brach projects you've mentioned. Regards, Carolus 00:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

I forgot to mention in my e-mail that I will be out from 7-9PM tomorrow (Sunday) for my choir rehearsal, but I'm free otherwise (including tonight), if you want to call me.

Thanks. I'm just about to take off for an hour or so, perhaps I'll call after my return. Carolus 19:14, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Source of music scores

Thank you for the tip about AddAll. I have used Alibris, AbeBooks, Amazon and BookFinder a lot, but AddAll looks like it has a lot of scores that these others don't.

Another good one I have just discovered for antiquarian books is

The limiting factors now will be time (I have just wasted two mornings in a row on searching the above sites for affordable Schubert-Gesamtausgabe scores) and money (there are some things out there that I would love to acquire, but the price is prohibitive and once international postage is added, it just makes them more unobtainable.)

Plan "B", once my pile of yellow Kalmus mini-scores runs out, would be to re-join my old university library or sign up to the Victorian State Library and then try to find/make the time to go in and copy madly.

Great news about the return of IMSLP too. Let's see if we can break the 16,000 score mark before it comes back online.

Aldona 21:57, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Glad I could be of help! There's a very nice used music shop in Sydney called Da Capo Music. They have listings on AddAll, Abebooks, Biblio, etc. I live in the USA, but they ship at reasonable rates even here. They've always been very helpful and responsive when I contacted them. You might look over their listings also. I think we'll easily have 17,000 scores by the time we go up again. Thanks for all of your lovely contributions. Carolus 00:17, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Ah yes, Da Capo - I know it well. That's where I got the Schubert Guitar Quartet (D.96) after hunting for it everywhere.

Speaking of which: If I re-scanned and re-submitted the abovementioned quartet without the preface by Georg Kinsky, would that mean one less copyright headache? (I initially contributed it with the preface because it is such a rare and interesting work, and I thought it would be important for people to have the information about its background. But if it means that it would be accessible to more people, I would be happy to re-do it.) Aldona 03:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Hi Aldona. I did a little research. Peters' 1956 copyright claim holds true only for the English "Foreword" by Joseph Marx (d.1964). The rest, including Kinsky's German Preface, appeared in the 1926 score which the Peters is a reprint of. Caught them! Carolus 03:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

That's good news! I can still re-do the score without the English "Foreword" if you think it would be a good idea, but for now I'll put it towards the bottom of my "to do" list and concentrate on filling the gaps in the Schubert catalog. (And "borrowing" interesting scores from other PD websites. I just can't resist Classical/early Romantic chamber music, especially if there are flutes involved.)

Keep up your good work with the copyright reviewing. You are truly an amazing source of information and knowledge that most of us wouldn't know where to start looking for. Aldona 20:26, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Let me pop in and again offer any help to fill in those Schubert gaps. I'd be happy to procure and scan some of the missing Schubert to help us nearer to a complete catalogue. Let me know of some pieces you're especially lacking and I'll try to dig them up. Daphnis 00:46, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Thank you once again! (I'll leave this discussion on Carolus' talk page for now so you can both see it.) I've listed the works I have in my possession and ready to scan and upload on my scanning queue in the Contributor Portal. The works that are still missing, either because I have not been able to track down a copy or because I have had to direct my priorities elsewhere are:

  • All the symphonies (No.8 is up, but not the Gesamtausgabe edition; the others are still missing except for piano arrangements)
  • All the masses (nos. 5 and 6 have bits of the autograph score up, and the Gloria of no.6 has been uploaded from CPDL)
  • Octets (D.72 and D.803) and Nonet D.79 ('Eine Kleine Trauermusik') (Kalmus Study Score 1034)
  • Gesamtausgabe: Series 14 (Smaller Pieces of Sacred Music) Nos. 1-10 (Kalmus Study Score 1049)
  • Series 16 (Works for Male Chorus) Nos 1-8 (Kalmus Study Score 1060) and 31-46 (Kalmus Study Score 1062)
  • Series 17 (Works for Mixed Chorus) Nos 2-18 (Kalmus Study Scores 1064, 1065)
  • Series 18 (Works for Female Chorus) Nos 7-16 (Kalmus Study Score ?)
  • Revisionsbericht (which apparently has lots of exciting stuff like fragmentary and incomplete works, alternate versions of songs etc)
  • Operas/Stage Works: Alfonso & Estrella, Rosamunde (complete incidental music), Des Teufels Lustschloss (I have the Overture D.4), Die Zauberharfe, Die Zwillingsbruder, Die Verschworenen.

I'm currently trying to compile a listing of the works that are identified in the Deutsch Thematic Catalogue as either "lost", "unpublished/ not printed", or published after 1897 in sources other than the Gesamtausgabe. (Guitar Quartet D.96 is an example, which is already up. If a flute player like myself was in charge of organising the Deutsch catalog it would be known as the Flute Quartet.) I'll post this somewhere (?on my wishlist or user page) when I'm done.

Maybe if each person concentrated on "adopting" one major work like a symphony or a mass, or one Kalmus mini-score, we would soon get the job done. Those of you who have students under your jurisdiction are encouraged to put them to work (I remember what it was like being a senior resident in hospital and being given a medical student or intern to keep as a slave and generally assign menial tasks to ;-))

Aldona 17:27, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

I can post the octets and nonett. Could I post the score from the Neue Ausgabe or must it be from the Kalmus reprint? I'll try to get the parts also. Let me know. Daphnis 21:33, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

That's an impressive collection, Aldona. I look forward to seeing it! I just noticed that there are some scans of scores recently added over at the Internet Archive which have been digitized by various libraries in partnership with Microsoft. The appear to be in both color and monochrome PDF, along with DJVU. The only downside I can see is that some of them have the Microsoft logo appearing at the bottom of every page. Nevertheless, as with the considerable collection of scores at Google Books, there are a number of scores available for free. The only downside is in removing all the pesky logos (=trademarks). Carolus 02:27, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

I didn't know about the Internet Archive - thank you for telling me! This has opened up a whole new Pandora's Box.
And they have the pre-Deutsch Schubert catalog, 'Thematisches Verzeichniss der im Druck erschienenen Werke' (1874) by Gustav Nottebohm! Can we put that on IMSLP under 'Books'? Aldona 00:18, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

Carolus, wouldn't the Neue Ausgabe Schubert be PD in at least Canada under the Urtext law? I'm not too familiar with it myself, but I believe most of the volumes were published in the 60's. Daphnis 00:21, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

Hi, we're following a 25-year rule here. Because the EU 93/98 Copyright Directive has a maximum term of 30 years from publication for critical editions, and certain countries have even shorter terms (Germany and UK = 25 yrs., Italy = 20 yrs.), out of courtesy to publishers we're honoring a 25-year term for the EU. Strictly speaking, it's highly unlikely that a critical edition would meet the "threshold of originality" needed to qualify for protection as an "adaptation" under Canadian law - even if it were published only last week. So, at least for now, any item from the Neue Schubert Ausgabe published before 1983 is fair game. Carolus 00:38, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

So strictly speaking, that would mean that a volume from the Mahler Sämtliche Werke kritische Gesamtausgabe would be fair game in Canada, but because we're being nice guys we're honoring a 25-year system (for the EU) for eligibility on IMSLP? Daphnis 22:06, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, that's basically it. The Mahler Sämtliche Werke kritische Gesamtausgabe was mostly published before 1983, so it's absolutely fair game. It's not even under protection is Austria, which means UE's claim is completely ridiculous. Worse, they didn't even re-engrave the works. They simply corrected some mistakes in the older (ca.1906-1912) engravings. Carolus 16:19, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

Wow, I didn't know that! In that case, are any of these volumes fair game, irrespective of their date of publication? If so I'll make a beeline to the volume containing the orchestrations of the Des Knaben Wunderhorn published in 1998. Thanks. Daphnis 16:54, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

If the volume is published in 1998, it's not fair game. That's because of the 25-year rule we're applying. If it was published in 1978, it is fair game. In other words, our case before a Canadian court would be stronger for a urtext edition published 25-years ago or earlier when the edition is question is already PD in the EU. While we could very well win on more recent editions also - due to their insuffient originality to qualify as an "adaptation" under Canada's statute, our lawyers could more easily fend off even the filing of a suit by pointing out this fact in a response. Carolus 17:02, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

Understood. Thanks. Daphnis 17:04, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

Carolus, how about if a volume from an urtext edition was published more than 25 years ago, but it was revised as a neuausgabe less than 25 years ago. Would this new revision be protected? I'm speaking, for example, of a couple volumes from the Hallische Händel-Ausgabe. The Klavierwerke I (Serie IV, Band 1) was first released in '55 but updated in '93. Would this be permissible? Daphnis 14:25, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

If they're making a copyright claim of 1993 on it, I'd be inclined to not post it. If push came to shove in an actual court battle, they'd have a very hard time defending a claim on a mere update like this, but that's the problem - it would take a court case. It might not even be eligible for the 25-year term in Germany, but (once again) the burden of proof would fall upon us. Carolus 20:03, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

Copyright notice: to be taken seriously? Or just trying to scare us?

While looking around for more sources of old music scores, I came across the following in the digital holdings of Harvard University (Loeb Music Library), I came upon the following:

  • Author : Bach, Johann Christian, 1735-1782.
  • Title : Concertos, harpsichord, orchestra, W. C 62-67
  • Title : A third sett of six concertos for the harpsichord or piano forte, with accompaniments for two violins and a bass, two hautboys and two French horns ad libitum. Opera XIII.
  • Published : London, Printed and sold by I. Welcker [1777]

There is a "Page Delivery Service" that lets you view the pages as .pdf files on the screen, one by one. I'm sure if I apply myself and devote enough time I can save all the pages and put them together with my PDF-merge tool. But then I saw the following stern warning which is linked to each page view:

This material is owned, held, or licensed by the President and Fellows of Harvard College. It is being provided solely for the purpose of teaching or individual research. Any other use, including commercial reuse, mounting on other systems, or other forms of redistribution requires permission of the appropriate office of Harvard University.

Does this mean that this new-found treasure trove is off limits? They also have other nice stuff by various members of the Bach family (J.S, J.C, C.P.E and J.C.F), and a number of Mozart early editions. Aldona 01:21, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

No, this is just a scare tactic. There is no legal basis for them to keep and protect materials that clearly are the public domain. While it certainly is admirable they took the time to digitize such collections, doing so in no way gives them the right of ownership. Upload away. Daphnis 09:42, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

Daphnis is right. This is basically biolerplate put up by Harvard's lawyers. The case Bridgeman v. Corel pretty much destroyed any chance of a claim of copyright on mere scans of public domain two-dimensional material (like music manuscripts). Carolus 17:06, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

I'll definitely put this material on my 'to-do' list, then - when uploading files, is it OK to put "Loeb Music Library (Harvard)" as the scanner? or is this likely to infuriate them, and is there a more diplomatic way of wording it?Aldona 19:33, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

There should be no problem with listing them as the scanner. Sibley Library (Eastman) uses similar boilerplate for all their stuff - and we've never heard a peep from them. One of the librarians there was even supportive of IMSLP in the wake of the UE imbroglio last October. Carolus 00:18, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

Aldona, Actually you don't have to convert anything. Click on "printable version" and you can select to receive all pages in one pdf. Btw, I think I uploaded some scores of the Loeb library already. (see External Links) --Peter talk 03:50, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

Urtext and RoST tags

Hello Carolus. I'm supposing that you use the Urtext tag also for the non-urtext RoST files (eg. most muzika publicatons). I thought it was once proposed to add a RoST checkbox to the copyright tagger, but I have no idea of the result. Is this still to be added, or are we going to tag them with urtext? In the former, I'll remind Feldmahler, in the latter, I'll update the text in the tagger. --Peter talk 12:18, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

Oh, and some recent tagging reminded me to pick up a discussion held earlier about the RoST in the EU vs. the bilateral treaties: I would propose to ignore the possible bilateral treaties and to assume there is a RoST ruling (of course only if the country of origin is clearly proven), because this would be in line with one of our principles that we cannot take in account the copyright law of every possible country in the world, and that it's the end-user's responsibility to take in account local regulations. What's your opinion on this? --Peter talk 12:43, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

I think that your idea about applying RoST to USA works in the EU is a fairly good one. You're right - if we start getting into every obscure treaty (the bilateral US treaties I was referring to go back to 1891), it could morph into an endless game of legal interpretation, which is counter to the overall objective here. (We're not an International Law firm, after all.) Therefore all the Godowsky pieces that are PD in the USA should be retagged as "checked" in the EU slot because there's a high likelihood they are also PD in the EU because of the EU's application of RoST to non-EU works. Godowsky apparently became a US citizen back in 1890 or 1891. If Carl Fischer or other copyright owners inform us otherwise, we can always re-tag individual titles accordingly.

I'm rolling the Muzika into Urtext because that's exactly what we're dealing with most of the time (the Lamm edition of Rachmaninoff's music, for example). As I understand it, under the most rcent Russian copyright law, composers who died before 1942 are public domain, but everyone who died afterwards is restored to life-plus-70. Rachmaninoff is officially under copyright in Russia (though you'd never guess such a thing from visiting the various Russian sites, where even the concept of copyright seems alien) which means that he's theoretically protected in the EU until 2014. A large proportion of Mugiz's enormous output from the late 1920s to the end of the USSR in 1990 was devoted to what could only be described as critical or urtext editions. I'm also setting the bar pretty high on what qualifies as a performing edition, which has a much longer term of protection than 25 years.

As we get more things up for real note-for-note comparisons, the nature of editions like Emil von Sauer's Liszt series will become more apparent. As for the tagger, since Canada does not actually follow Rule of the Shorter Term, we probably should deprecate the RoST tag. At least for now, I think our general rule wrt Urtext editions is pretty fair. The tricky part of that lies with their status in the USA, which is undecided. A number of such editions (Henle, Baerenreiter, etc.) have been registered (and renrewed) with the US Copyright Office, which means it would be a defendant's burden to prove insufficient originality in the event of a lawsuit. Carolus 16:09, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

Thank you for your clarification. My interpretation of the "scientific work" paragraph would me more strict than what we apply here, but since you are submerged in the legal aspects, I'll follow your interpration. If it's ok with you, I'll write down somewhere a concise policy on what is allowed on IMSLP in these cases. --Peter talk 05:37, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

Hi again. I observed another tagging peculiarity. In the case of Urtext, you mostly tag files Urtext for all countries, while I don't tag those specific countries Urtext if the file falls in that country in public domain with normal legislation. (e.g. Beethoven sonatas by Max Pauer). I always tagged this way because I thought of a possibility that Urtext-tagged files would become unavailable (cfr. the unknown status of those files in U.S.) - and also because Feldmahler said to do so :). I think we should achieve a consensus on this one... Cheers Peter talk 17:26, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

The Urtext issue is a knotty one to be sure. I'll definitely talk with Feldmahler about this. For example, when we're dealing with Beethoven Sonatas, the Schenker and Pauer editions were both sold as "Urtext" editions. You're right that there's not much point in tagging the Schenker as such since he's been dead more than 70 years and it doesn't matter what type his edition was from a copyright POV. However, when we get into Max Pauer (d. 1948), the type of edition does indeed matter for the EU - though not in Canada (for Pauer is dead over 50 years) and probably not in the US (unless the actual publication date - never easy to tell with Peters - was after 1922 - but even then the copy I checked out of the local library (an older printing probably from the 1930s) has no copyright notice present. (See my remark on Urtext and USA status below). If Pauer's edition is Urtext, the EU 93/98 directive comes into play (no more than 30 years from publication). An additional part of my methodology is to check and see if Peters have replaced Pauer's edition with that of another editor. If the Pauer ed. is out of print (last I checked it is - Peters appears to have replaced it with an Urtext ed. by Claudio Arrau), this tells me that Peters themselves regard the edition as only being protected for 25 years from publication in Germany (and the EU in general). If there is any advertising or description on a publisher's part using the term "Urtext" or "Critical edition", I will certainly take them at their word. The only exception to this rule is when we have to deal with pre-Mozart works where the issue of continuo realizations come into play. The farther back one goes in musical history, the more original creative content is needed from the editor. Sometimes editions with such continuo realizations are nevertheless described as urtext or critical editions. (There are also certainly a number of very stripped down sketch-like baroque editions out there.) Frederic Lamond's Beethoven edition is another matter. It appears to have been renewed after 28 years in the USA - which means it would take a court case to invalidate the copyright claim. Has Breitkopf sold it as an Urtext ed.? Lamond's edition is still there in my 2002 copy of the Breitkopf catalog with no mention of "urtext", so I tend to think it might not be an urtext edition. As you can see, it gets fairly maddening.
The USA status of urtext editions published after 1922 is generally "unknown" but if items have been reprinted by Kalmus, Dover, and CDSM (like the Martienssen ed. of the Haydn Sonatas and lots of others), it's safe to say that they are PD. Also, if the edition in question was published in the former Soviet Bloc or in what is now the EU between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice (like the Pauer edition), the odds are quite high that it is public domain in the USA because it is ineligible for GATT restoration due to its PD status in country of origin.

Schubert works - first published in the 20th century

Two long-sought-after books appearing on eBay in one day - I think I need to have a cup of tea and a good lie down. Now is not a good time to check my blood pressure.

The first is "Schubert" by Richard Heuberger (1920). According to the Deutsch-catalog this contains the first-ever edition of D.607 (Evangelium Johannes) as well as manuscript facsimiles of D.191, D.635, D.896 and part of D.942. Heuberger died in 1917 so I am sure these are uploadable.

The other, which I am not sure about, is "Der junge Schubert" by Alfred Orel (1889-1967). The book was published in 1940. It contains the first published editions of D.16, D.17, D.33, D.34, and D.35.

Orel also edited quite a number of Schubert works which were first published between the 1920's and 1940's, (some co-edited by O.E. Deutsch 1883-1967).

What would the copyright status be on these works? I am getting a bit more familiar with the whole copyright thing but I'm not sure where these would fall in the rules around first editions, scholarly editions, urtext, etc.

This question will become more relevant as the upload of the old Schubert Gesamtausgabe is completed and the only works left will be the later rediscoveries. One that might have to wait a while is "Die Nacht" (without D-number), which is the most recently discovered Schubert-Lied and was first published in 1990 by Universal Edition (now where have I heard that name before??!!) Aldona 18:53, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Hi, I expect (though one has to inspect the scores to be sure) that all of these fall under the Urtext rule and the Editio Princeps concept. In other words, the Schubert works published for the first time in 1940 had only a 25-year term of protection since Schubert had been dead for well over 50 years by their publication. Editio Princeps allows a 25 year term for works of composers old enough to be public domain that are discovered and published for the first time. It is a concept commonly present in European copyright laws. Canada itself only grants a maximum term of 50 years for such works, so the Orel and Deutsch editions are likely all free in Canada as well. Their status in the US would be highly dependent upon the presence of a copyright notice in the correct form and prescribed location, plus registration and renewal. Since they were already free in their country of origin by 1996, they would not be eligible for restoration under GATT. Carolus 22:49, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Thank you for that clarification.

On a somewhat related note, I am currently trying to open the file of the Schubert Piano Trio Movement ("Sonata") D.28, (another post-Gesamtausgabe publication), so I can have a look. It won't let me, because the file is "unreviewed or not PD in the United States" (presumably the latter = published in 1923).

Two points:

  • According to the Deutsch thematic catalogue, the 1923 Wiener Philharmonischer Verlag edition of this piece is the first ever, and thus would fall under the "Editio Princeps" rule. (Deutsch also states that the 1926 Drei Masken Verlag edition of the Guitar Quartet, D.96, is also "editio princeps".)
  • Does Australia automatically follow the US in matters of copyright, or do we interpret the rules as being closer to those of the EU? I am no expert, but a quick survey found the following "potted summary" in the relevant Wikipedia article: "Prior to the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement, Australia used a "plus 50" rule for determining when a work will enter the public domain. Put simply, a "work" (ie a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work) entered the public domain 50 years following the year of the creator's death, with exceptions. With the signing of the FTA in early 2005, copyright should now be understood as "plus 70", in line with the European Union and other regions." (Wikipedia article - Australian Copyright Law)

Thank you once again for your expert help. Aldona 19:37, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

Hi again, The D.28 Trio Movement is free everywhere except the USA, including Australia. It was tagged verified for Canada and "unknown" for USA and EU. I re-tagged to verified for Canada and EU with a US "get out of jail" date of 2019. Hopefully, you can download now. This is a perfect example of the utter insanity of US copyright. Even though the author died in 1828, the work was first published only in 1923 - with the proper notice and duly renewed 28 years later as required. Thus a Schubert work is under copyright in the USA until January 1, 2019. If it were not for the ridiculous "Mickey Mouse" law (so named because Disney payed $600,000 to have the law changed - though the bribes were officially termed "campaign contributions"), the work would have entered the US public domain in 1999. The Drei Masken edition of the Guitar Quintet, D.96 is free in the US thanks to being published without a copyright notice. Because of the limited 25-year term of Editio Princeps, it's not eligible for restoration under GATT, either.
As far as I can tell, Australia's law is fairly similar to Canada's, with the exception of the 2005 increase to a life-plus-70 term. It was apparently not retroactive, so works of authors who died before 1955 are still free in Australia. Carolus 00:09, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

I tried to open the D.28 again - still no go. The message I'm getting is:

"Error: File is unreviewed or not public domain in the US )."


  • The system thinks that I'm in the US.


  • The system thinks that Australia operates under US copyright law.

Looks like I'll have to wait a bit longer before my fellow piano trio members and I can do some "private study/ research/ non-commercial usage."

And I agree with you - the US copyright situation is madness. I don't think Schubert would have approved - all he cared about was getting his music out to as many people as possible (including giving away manuscripts free to friends and acquaintances - which is why works are still surfacing and being rediscovered to this day.)

Aldona 08:06, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm just going to jump in here because I was the one who wrote that chunk of code.
Essentially, the system currently forces a U.S. jurisdiction on everyone. This is to imitate the situation when IMSLP comes back up, because the owner of IMSLP will be under U.S. jurisdiction. I've chosen this over IP filtering because IP filtering is 1) not practical (too many countries to review for), and 2) way too fragile and prone to error. The number of files that are blocked are actually not that much, projecting to ~5% (currently less than 10% as you can see in the tag counter, should decrease further since most non-PD US files are already tagged). This is a temporary measure (which is why we have not removed the files), and access to the files will be restored when IMSLP returns to Canada, which is planned. :-) Initially IMSLP will be in the U.S., however.
Also, since you have been around here for a long time, and are familiar with copyright laws, I've made you a copyright reviewer, so that you can check untagged files for copyright status. At first this may be overwhelming, but as you get used to checking scores and using the tagging tools it should become easier (don't forget to read the documentation, and do ask when you are stuck on something). Of course, if you just want to tag your own submissions (that you know for sure is in the public domain), that is fine too.
Thank you for all the work you've been doing on IMSLP! :-) --Feldmahler 11:20, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Thank you for the promotion...I must say it feels a bit overwhelming. I may have been around for a while, but "familiar with copyright law"??? I feel VERY inadequate (after all, I still find myself running back to you guys for advice every few days!)

I think I will start by reading the relevant instructions VERY carefully, and then I'll concentrate on tagging my own submissions for a while until I get the idea.

I think my first task will be to check all the Schubert-Lieder and other Schubert Gesamtausgabe uploads.

After all, I wouldn't want all of this new-found power to go to my head ;-) ....Aldona 16:31, 27 May 2008 (EDT)


I have constructed a concise guideline on the copyright review process at IMSLP:Copyright Reviewers, based on the information in Public Domain, its talk page and your talk page. The aim was to summarize the information present on these pages, to have a policy about "special cases" and to help future copyright reviewers. I would be honored if you would like to review this page. Greetings, Peter talk 07:54, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

This is very helpful - thanks so much! I've added a few items to clarify the murky situation in US law (as much as possible) plus a short paragraph explaining the three-tiered tagging system. Good work! Carolus 15:26, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

Scanning Advice

(not sure if you're watching my talk page, so I'll copy it here on yours since I haven't seen a response)

Hi, I noticed that you're going to try and post the complete works of Chabrier. I have a related scanning question (since you seem to be the scanning guru here): What's the best way to get a decent resolution monochrome TIFF from microfilm? I have a nice roll of film here with two Chabrier full scores on it - Gwendoline and Le Roi Malgre Lui. I'd love to add these to our collection, but am not exactly sure what is the best way to convert these to PDFs. Any ideas? Carolus 20:10, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

Hmm, I haven't dealt with microfilm in a long time, but I remember the last time I did I had access to a digital microfilm station that allowed me to dump the images to files with post-processing filters activated. I'll check with my university library to see if they can let me use their machines for this purpose (assuming you'd be fine with mailing me your films--if not I had planned on scanning each of these from the first edition scores anyway). Otherwise, I'd have to do some checking to see what services might be out there for such a purpose. Daphnis 20:16, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
Well, I just checked out the scanning situation, and if you're talking about the full scores to both of these operas, it would take a very, very long time to digitize them using the machines at my disposal. While I wasn't able to test them on music, the results on newsprint weren't so favorable. Because of this, I would only use this as a very last option if I couldn't hunt down printed versions of the scores. How many pages are we talking here? And what's the quality of the microfilm itself? Are the images rather clear? After playing around with it more, if the images themselves are clear and generally about the same quality, i.e. care was taken in creating the film, then it might not be too much of a chore.Daphnis 13:47, 29 May 2008 (EDT)


That is very weird. I thought I removed on each page top the "do not copy this" note, but I must have overlooked something. It is quite embarrassing, but I don't see any watermark any more - it could be my bad computer monitor. Or maybe it's due to different software - I used Acrobat 7.0 and Photoshop CS2. Could you point me to the location of such a watermark ? Is it present in the Durand-Dukas editions too? They come from as well. Although these companies won't stand in court at all, I hope you know I would not post it if a knew this!

Pertaining the US-Urtext problem, I verified the Henle 1955 edition because I assumed it is in public domain in its home country (+25) in 1996 and I didn't see a US copyright notice, therefore not eligible for TRIPS restoration. This rule is not universally applicable? The US-Urtext issue, and the extent to which I should make German Urtext files unavailable for US, is still is not clear to me at all. I propose I tag them in any doubt with U*, and not N*, so that they are easily listed and don't mix up in the CR list.

--Peter talk 05:49, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

I didn't notice the watermark on any of the Dukas editions, just the Muzgiz reprint. I didn't actually view the Henle file. It would be highly unusual for them to have published something without a notice - though nothing is impossible. I'll go over and look it over carefully. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is that it was in the middle of a larger volume - the notice isn't required to be on every single title in a collected volume unless there is a compelling reason to do so. Carolus 15:05, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
I discovered the name - it's also on the Dukas scores - but don't understand how you can see it. When exporting all images the separate image with the name appears, but in the pdf it's completely white. Which pdf reader do you use?--Peter talk 15:46, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
I'm using Acrobat Professional version 8. I also have Reader version 8, but the pro version is the default to view PDFs after they're downloaded. I typically view PDFs at IMSLP in my web browser (without downloading), which is the current version of Safari (now that I have a new machine). I'll look these over in detail and let you know what I see. OK. I just looked at the Beethoven Op.70/1 file (the Muzgiz reprint). I clearly see the watermarked URL "" on the first 5 pages. Thereafter, it disappears. The same appears to be true (first 5 pages) on the Dukas editions and the Muzgiz reprint of Eulenburg for the String Trio Op.9/1. The Henle score for Op.70/1 has a copyright notice 1955/83 at the bottom of the first page - indicating the renewal in 1983, which they always do as a "work made for hire." If I had Bill Gates' kind of money, I might be willing to blow a few hundred thousand (yes, that what it actually would cost) to challenge their claim in court. Until then, I'll have to go along and pretend that it's under copyright. :) Carolus 16:12, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
OK, I'll upgrade to Acrobat 8, in 7 I'm just not seeing the damn thing (Feldmahler doesn't either). And I'll tag all Urtext files that are not clear-cut as U*, and leave it up to you to decide if they get a V or N. I've created a link on the tag finder page "Urtext pool" where all these files will be bundled for your review. --Peter talk 16:42, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for the link. I think you're right about the Schultz cello part to the Beethoven Sonatas not being urtext. He appears to have added quite a few fingerings, bowings, etc. They're probably free in the US because of publication without notice (In contrast to Henle, Peters is notorious for that) and the lack of NIE files persuant to GATT/TRIPs. ( keep a copy of the NIE filings on my hard drive.) If you're OK with it, I think we should remove the cello parts. Carolus 16:51, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

About the upgrade

Hi Carolus: just a heads up on the new news entry on the main page about the upcoming upgrade... send me any comments you have. --Feldmahler 16:05, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Re: Rule of the Shorter Term - USA, EU, Russia/USSR

I think I have a different interpretation of these copyright laws. As a see it, the 1993 copyright law was indeed retroactively applied for 50 years p.m.a., thus protecting all authors who died 1943 and later. The amendment for extension to 70 years came only in 2004, but this was not applied retroactively ([1]), extending the term only for authors who were still under copyright in 2004 - those who died in 1953 and later. That's what wikepedia says in the list of copyright lengths but I cannot verify it, because their link to the original text of the law 72-FL is dead.

To my opinion, the US law would place Russian authors who died before 1945 in public domain if they were ineligible for restoration, because in 1996, the russian 50-year-law of 1993 was still in effect. --Peter talk 08:14, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Have you an idea of what we are going to accept as PD on IMSLP? The 1953 limit seems pretty good to me :~D --Peter talk 11:52, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

For now, I think we'll stick with the 1953 date for Russian composers who remained in Russia. Those who migrated to the west, like Juon, Medtner and Rachmaninoff, will still fall under the life-plus-70 rubric of the EU (though Rachmaninoff in particular is a very complicated case since he became a US citizen). You're right about Russian composers who died before 1946 being not eligible for restoration. Godowsky decame a US citizen in 1891, so everything after that date published before 1923 should be free in the EU as well. Carolus 17:30, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Re:New Users

Carolus, I forwarded you an interesting message from this user to your email adress via your user page. If you don't use that anymore, which way should I deliver it to you? PM on the forums? This user's apparently not doing very well. He's been blocked before (see log why), I unblocked him on his request. If his uploads are messed up, he should be warned. He do reads his PM on on the forum. I can have a look at it only after tomorrow. Sigh... only one day and the frustration of dealing with users not simply reading and doing what's in right in front of them is already coming back. I'll be working out a whole set of templates for common user messages, so that these errands are quickly corrected of their errors (if they ever read their talk page). --Peter talk 19:26, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Email, microfilm, Satie

Hi Carolus. I sent you an email several days ago about our Chabrier opera score project and haven't heard back; I'm not sure if you're still checking that email. I also wanted to ask your help on a matter (as if you didn't already have enough to do) of no great urgency. I'm just about finished with my Satie catalog and have scoured over the Grove list several times, cross-checking it against my own collection and that of WorldCat trying to find any more pieces not uploaded that are in the public domain in at least Canada. After several read-throughs I can only find one, the piano ballet score to Relâche. If you have a few moments, I'd love it if you can use your inside knowledge to let me know if I'm missing anything here. Because I have several users constantly asking me to upload missing Satie works, I've put up some of the more notorious ones that are copyright worldwide on the Satie wishlist. Any help would be most appreciated! Daphnis 20:59, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Rzewski scores

I have read somewhere in the faq ("You can either submit a file you found on some other online collection with music scores and that is not already uploaded here on IMSLP, or by scanning your own scores and uploading them here on IMSLP...") that one can upload scored found elsewhere. So I thought I upload them here so there is some kind of backup. I just now noticed that wima does not allow distributing the scores. so its probably best to remove them again.

As I mentioned before, Rzewski has made a number of his scores available in various places, including WIMA. Also, just because something is in another online collection does not mean that a given item is public domain - Rzewski (a living composer) being a good case in point. Since he's on record as being sypathetic to free online distribution, I'll leave these up until we get some response from Mr. Rzewski. Carolus 21:28, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
I have his email address and can ask him if its ok to publish them here.
That would be wonderful. It would save the copyright reviewers and Feldmahler some time. Ask if he wishes for it to be under one of the Creative Commons licenses. We'll do whatever he wishes in this regard.

Permission Granted

On reviewing the Morales typesets, I noticed the use of this tag, of which I assumed it was for new compositions only. As I was not involved in the creation of this new tag, could you tell me for which cases it is actually meant? The tagging of typesets of public domain works does not yet have a clear cut policy. I assume we won't start investigating the real copyright issues involved in this matter (in which a majority of the typesets would be public domain), but respect the work and demands of the typesetter. What about this:

  • PD (eg Mutopia): VVV - N!N!N! Mutopia seems to have endorsed the CC licenses for the majority of their items now, BTW.
  • CC licenses: VVV, or N!N!N! ?? - N!N!N!
  • no distribution permitted (e.g. WIMA) : NNN and ask or remove - Remove unless permission granted, then N!N!N!
  • no claim or identification: CCC - Yes, use that until someone contacts us and complains.

Of course any original editorial value is subject to copyright and permission is then required.--Peter talk 05:41, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Basically, this tag is for potentially copyrighted items (including new editions and typesets) that have been uploaded by the author himself, or with the author/copyright owner's explicit permission (like Leo Ornstein's works). As with the "New Composition" and "Typeset" categories, there really should not be anything of this nature (or at least very little) that is marked "public domain" despite the fact that some items - like the retypesets one encounters at Mutopia - would almost certainly fail to qualify for any copyright protection in many places around the world. In short, our thinking here is to employ this tag for anything less than 25 years old where we either have explicit permission or where the original hosting site has basically stated (like Mutopia has) that everything on the site is to be freely distributed. The Morales typesets, I gathered from the discussion over at the forum, were OK'd for posting at IMSLP by Nancho Alvarez, whose site they come from. (He's also the creator of these typesets, which are all based on older, PD urtext editions.) For a discussion of why we should avoid using the term "public domain" for new, original works - which really extends to anything that might potentially be under copyright - see my comment over that the forum.
OK, that's clear now, I'll add this to the policy page. So - for practical tagging purposes - typesets are regarded as an original work, whether it is just a copy of a PD score or really a new edition. (enough with the questions without looking for the answers first )--Peter talk 09:41, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Composer corrections

Since it looks like you're one of the all-powerful ones who know how to edit composer pages (I won't even try, especially after works have been added), here are a few I've noticed that have wrong spellings and/or dates:

Veracini, Francesco, Maria (extra comma)

Slacik, Josef - should be Slavík (some older Schubert biographers like Deutsch spell it Slawjk)

Taglichsbach, Thomas - should be Täglichsbeck (31 December 1799 - 5 October 1867)

Johann Nepomuk Capeller should be merged with J.N. Kapeller

Karl Heinrich Graun should be merged with Carl Heinrich Graun

I'm sure there are more but these are just a few that have jumped out at me recently. Sorry if this should be elsewhere but I noticed you were one of those responsible for cleanup and correcting errors like this. Aldona 20:25, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for mentioning these. I'll go over and fix them up ASAP. Carolus 20:27, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

I'll have to do some research on (K)Capeller...might take me a few days as my schedule is a bit all over the place for the next few days.Aldona 23:52, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Reinier Jacobus van der Wal permission

Hi Carolus,

I received e-mail confirmation from Reinier Jacobus van der Wal with permission to post all of his clarinet arrangements on this site. I will be posting more of his arrangements in the weeks to come. All of his arrangements are clarinet related.

Please let me know if I have to change anything on my original post that you ask me about?

--Quintron 14:28, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

by-nc 3.0 tells me only by 3.0 and by-sa 3.0 licenses are allowed for retypesets, but Nancho Alvarez makes it clear that he wants non-commercial use only. Do you want me to manually change it? -Ras1

Yes, if it's not too much trouble. Otherwise we'll take care of it. Thanks..
Thanks! I'll do the rest - I have a lot more to upload...

Musical hoax

Ferdinand David's false attribution of his Chaccone to Vitali is among several well-known "musical hoaxes". See Wikipedia pages for Musical hoax and Ferdinand David. Does IMSLP have guidelines for these works? Hrdinský 19:28, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Bartók Viola concerto

Hi Carolus. I'm looking at the Viola Concerto and am not sure if any of the 3 I can find in WorldCat would be PD in Canada. The one I see most frequently was prepared by Tibor Serly from the manuscripts and pub. 1950 (58p orch. score). The piano reduction score was pub. 1949 based on Serly's preparation and viola part edited by William Primrose (d. 1982). There's also a facsimile of the autograph available and these notes in one OCLC record: "with a commentary by László Somfai ; fair transcription of the draft with notes prepared by Nelson Dellamaggiore." I'm fairly certain the piano reduction wouldn't be PD because of the editor, but as far as the orchestral score is concerned, do we consider a "preparation" an edition of sorts, or would it fall in the PD because of the 50 year limitation? Daphnis 19:52, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Thank you!

Carolus - Thank you so much for tagging that Balakirev/Beethoven transcription! You've absolutely made my day.

Thanks again, and best wishes. Goatfed