IMSLP Forums

For non-lawyers like me, have been reading around IP for interest and thought it might be useful to post some legal background resources:

WIPO, esp Berne Convention
http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/
Berne Convention - generally uses +50 years from date of death of auther
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Conv ... stic_Works

Universal Copyright Convention
http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev. ... N=201.html
The UCC generally only claims copyright for 25 years from date up publication or death of author. Clearly is has been overtaken by Berne in Berne signatory countries. Interesting to see that length of copyright has extended.

Canadian Copyright
- note the specifics are copyright lasts +50 years from the end of the calendar year the author died
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/cipo ... -e.html#11
- mentions works copyright in countries covered by other conventions (Berne, UCC, Rome, WTO)
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/cipo ... t-e.html#8

Arguments for extension of copyright beyond +50 years.
http://www.caslon.com.au/ipguide19.htm#extension
-life +20 to life +80
http://www.caslon.com.au/durationprofile1.htm

Project Gutenberg on copyright http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:Copyright_FAQ
Note that Project Gutenberg claims it is *only* beholden to US copyright law. I suspect that would be easily defeated if seriously challenged.

McGill University music copyright Q&A
http://www.mcgill.ca/music/student/grad ... appendixi/

Review of Napster Case - contains many points very relevant to IMSLP in respect of how one might argue NOT to be liable even when distributing material KNOWN to be infringing copyright, which IMSLP is not. (See especially the legal arguments section and the Betamax defense)
http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v ... as111.html

Gowers Review (UK) makes the case against term extension, at least in respect of recordings. (The horse is already out of the life+70 barn for compositions in the UK)

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/6/E ... rt_755.pdf

Note that Project Gutenberg claims it is *only* beholden to US copyright law. I suspect that would be easily defeated if seriously challenged.

Why is that?[/quote]

Project Gutenberg has been in operation for more than 20 years, and, although it has received a few Cease & Desist letters, these were never followed up after the short replies that can be read on the pglaf.org server.

Some of those publishers have real money, but apparently they did not want to spend that money on their cases.

Article with commentary from 2 Canadian lawyers - free legal advice for IMSLP (Posted by kongming819):
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/13749
...Michael Geist original blog
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2308/125/
...Howard Knopf original blog, including his suggested remedy for copyright overclaiming - forfeiture
http://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/200 ... ersal.html

They refer to a case Law Society of Upper Canada vs CCH Canadian Limited (a legal publisher) - which sets a good precedent for one not having to take responsibility for what users do - in this case the Law Society enables users to copy library materials and has appropriate copyright notices - some users breached copyright. Interesting for a legal publisher to take on the Law Society - a sure lose for them but a win for their lawyer.
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2004/2 ... scc13.html

I read that IMSLP did already have a prominent notice that works being downloaded may to be PD in Europe. In that case, the case of IMSLP is very similar to the LSUC vs CCH one above. UE would lose.

Negative publicity suing Gutenberg may cost more than the gain from a legal action.

With the amount of publicity generated, hopefully publishers would think twice before issuing C and D letters in the future.

WIPO does provide mediation and arbitration services for international intellectual property disputes.

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/arbitration/why-is-arb.html

Interesting to note the intial shorter length of IP Protection under UCC and extensions under Berne convention and in Europe since. I read somewhere some commentary on the tendency to make IP extensions retrospective - which in law is generally unusual. So IP which is public domain can be made copyright when the law is changed. It may be that retrospectivity of law could be challenged.

IMSLP could take UE to WIPO for mediation/arbitration, which would be an interesing test case.

Link to discussion article on "public domain" (Posted by Vivadi in another thread)
http://www.studiolo.org/IP/VRA-TM-SF-PublicDomain.htm

At the extremely pointed end of the stick of international law, we have:
http://mahfouzvsfreespeech.blogspot.com/

...where if you have lots of money, you can sue anyone in any country wherever the law suits you. In this case a US citizen (Ehrenfield) sued by a Saudi citizen Mahfouz) under English law in England for libel, just because the burden of proof in England is on the author. The book was never sold or published in England but 20 copies of the book found its way to England via online ordering!

Commentators are calling it "libel tourism"
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/11/ ... broyde.php
....and maybe to be followed by copyright tourism.