Status request, Graupner Double Concerto

[Irishmaestro]

Just wondering about potential copyright status of Concerto for 2 Violins in G minor, GWV 335 by Christoph Graupner. It was published by A-R Editions in 1996 - but also seems to have been copied out twice by Friedrich Noack (about 1942?). Both of Noack's copies (Mus Ms 1729) have been digitised by ULB Darmstadt. Crucially, they contain evidence of having been prepared for performance - the first copy contains a realised harpsichord part, and the other contains what appears to be a rehearsal mark.

Does either of these qualify as a copyright date? More specifically, does editing it violate any copyright claims that A-R might have?

[Notenschreiber]

As far as i can see - not being an expert fo these questions - there are no copyright problems here. The AR edition is apparently not a first edition. Maybe it is protected as an urtext edition, by the work itself is public domain.

[Carolus]

Again, here's a case where the Motezuma decision comes into play - at least in the EU (probably elsewhere too). When something is copied - even copied out by hand - and sent to another place, the definition of "publication" has been met as far as the law is concerned. The work has been distributed. This is (for once) an eminently reasonable court decision. A-R's edition and the editorial contributions of it's editor are still protected as such - even in Germany. What they have no right to claim is a copyright upon the original work itself. Copyrights operate very much like real-estate in that the true ownership passes to the heirs of the author. The absurdity which has arisen over notions like editio princeps - with libraries and publishers making claims to works for which they really cannot prove legal chain of inheritance - was dealt a fairly serious blow by this decision. The burden of proof now falls on the one making the claim. One of the underlying principles of copyright is that the ownership of the physical object in which a work is embodied (like a painting or a manuscript) is separate and distinct from ownership of the copyright to the work itself.

[Irishmaestro]

Yes, it's a fairly ridiculous state of affairs that someone can copyright a 300-year-old work (or, at least, claim to do so) simply by being fortunate enough to publish it before anyone else. I presume, then, that I could potentially claim editio princeps for the few Graupner cantatas I've edited. Not that I'd be so mean, of course.

I'll keep going with that edition, then. I presume that, since the Violin Concerto in A Major GWV 337 was first published by Friedrich Noack in the 1950s, I can continue editing that too.