Could I upload PD music that I typeset from commercially available, close to urtext, edition (c) 2007 ?

[daniel.enochsson]

I wonder what the recommendation is for submitting music (which would be re-typeset by me) where the music itself it clearly PD (composed in 1652 and exists in manuscript from that time) but my source is a commercial edition with copyright 2007? My source is most likely urtext, as the preface mentions "In our edition we have followed the original very closely. Besides the original clefs, note values and ties, we have above all replicated the beaming of the original manuscript"... Their changes from the manuscript consists in changing note values that extend over bar lines to tied notes and replacing cancellation of key signature from sharps (if the key signature was flat) or flats (if it was sharp) to naturals as is the practice today.

This would probably take a bit of time if I start on it since I'm not used to notating, but it would be nice to give a little back to users of imslp. Obviously I have the music already so it would just be as a service to the musicians using imslp. I don't want to undermine sales of the edition either, so I'm not sure how to handle it. I expect the publisher will not be too happy if the music is made publicly available for free using their edition as a source...

Thanks,
Daniel

PS. I live in the EU and my source is published in the EU if that has an impact on the legal considerations.

[bicinium]

If you did that, then it wouldn't be the first time as IMSLP already hosts such user-created typesets (including one of my own). The important part is that your typeset should not contain any creative additions introduced by the urtext edition (such as fingerings, phrasings, interpretative markings). The changes you mentioned are purely orthographic so are not covered by copyright protection (at least according to IMSLP's interpretation) so you should be OK. Urtext editions are supposed to avoid creative changes by definition, yet some don't...

If you're concerned with undermining the sales of the edition, then I wouldn't go through with this. For instance, I fear that the profits of Yorke Edition (whose efforts in augmeting double bass repertoire I greatly respect) are being undercut by third-hand typesets of some popular pieces they brought to publication, e.g. this and this. After all, many people now go to IMSLP to find info about a piece and why buy a score if the first thing you see is a free one? The best thing you can do (at least, this is what I have been doing) is to procure a scan of the manuscript somehow, such as by ordering a reproduction from the library it is held at. Upload that, and also post a link to the modern edition so that users have both the original source material for study as well as a pointer to a modern edition for performance purposes, rewarding the editor's efforts. The only reason I made my retypeset of that Hoffmeister concerto is because the manuscript is in a private collection and impossible to get a hold of, whereas many current performances and arrangements are based on very bad 20th century editions which had no respect for authenticity. This tipped the scale for me in the tradeoff between public good and the editor (whose efforts I really appreciate). To sweeten the deal, I re-introduced the errors from the manuscript by applying the editor's notes in reverse, and also made the score obtuse to read, so as to compete with the Henle edition as little as possible.

I hope this gave you enough food for thought to work it out for yourself.

[daniel.enochsson]

Thank you an exhaustive reply,
I'm torn between wanting to make the music more easily available and not wanting to affect the publisher. I think since it's quite easy to find the edition and it's not prohibitively expensive I'm going to cancel my plans to make a public domain transcription. I have to find another project to give back to the community.

All the best,
/Daniel

[Sallen112]

If you did that, then it wouldn't be the first time as IMSLP already hosts such user-created typesets (including one of my own). The important part is that your typeset should not contain any creative additions introduced by the urtext edition (such as fingerings, phrasings, interpretative markings). The changes you mentioned are purely orthographic so are not covered by copyright protection (at least according to IMSLP's interpretation) so you should be OK. Urtext editions are supposed to avoid creative changes by definition, yet some don't...

If you're concerned with undermining the sales of the edition, then I wouldn't go through with this. For instance, I fear that the profits of Yorke Edition (whose efforts in augmeting double bass repertoire I greatly respect) are being undercut by third-hand typesets of some popular pieces they brought to publication, e.g. this and this. After all, many people now go to IMSLP to find info about a piece and why buy a score if the first thing you see is a free one? The best thing you can do (at least, this is what I have been doing) is to procure a scan of the manuscript somehow, such as by ordering a reproduction from the library it is held at. Upload that, and also post a link to the modern edition so that users have both the original source material for study as well as a pointer to a modern edition for performance purposes, rewarding the editor's efforts. The only reason I made my retypeset of that Hoffmeister concerto is because the manuscript is in a private collection and impossible to get a hold of, whereas many current performances and arrangements are based on very bad 20th century editions which had no respect for authenticity. This tipped the scale for me in the tradeoff between public good and the editor (whose efforts I really appreciate). To sweeten the deal, I re-introduced the errors from the manuscript by applying the editor's notes in reverse, and also made the score obtuse to read, so as to compete with the Henle edition as little as possible.

I hope this gave you enough food for thought to work it out for yourself.

This is mostly correct although keep in mind we follow the EU's definition of a limited copyright term of 25 years for Critical/Urtext editions since publication from present year, and that the material does not contain enough original material by any editor in the edition to qualify for copyright protection. A bad actor about this is Henle, which they actual "Market" there material as "Urtext" but alot of the time we come across is editors putting in additions already on the music itself and that on the title page includes "Edited by" this person, which turns out these are NOT always Urtext material, but sometimes they do actual published true Urtext editions but this not always the case from them. Baerenreiter is always a great publisher for Urtext editions as 90% of the time of what I have seen, they stick to the original manuscript material for engraving music. They do have editors in the editions, but this is only in the preface sections with text about the piece that is original enough for copyright protection. Since the source edition your referencing Daniel is less than 25 years, it is NOT recommended you use that edition to typeset off of, as Bicinium points out, use the manuscript or a public domain published edition to create your typeset.

[bicinium]

This is mostly correct although keep in mind we follow the EU's definition of a limited copyright term of 25 years for Critical/Urtext editions since publication from present year, and that the material does not contain enough original material by any editor in the edition to qualify for copyright protection.

This confuses me somewhat; I thought that, for retypesetting urtext editions, the 25 term does not matter as long as the urtext criterion is satisfied because the copyright term only protects the engraving, which is replaced altogether by the new typeset.

Bicinium points out, use the manuscript or a public domain published edition to create your typeset.

I actually meant just upload the public domain source and forget about making the typeset, because it'll slash into the publisher's profits regardless of the source used. Although, at least in this case you wouldn't be using the editor's own efforts against them (aside from the fact that the publisher may have raised awareness about the piece in question which made you want to typeset it in the first place).

[Sallen112]

This is mostly correct although keep in mind we follow the EU's definition of a limited copyright term of 25 years for Critical/Urtext editions since publication from present year, and that the material does not contain enough original material by any editor in the edition to qualify for copyright protection.

This confuses me somewhat; I thought that, for retypesetting urtext editions, the 25 term does not matter as long as the urtext criterion is satisfied because the copyright term only protects the engraving, which is replaced altogether by the new typeset.

The engraving has to be at least 25 years of publication if it is a critical edition to be eligible for upload on here. Less than that is too recent. If it is your own typeset, sure you can upload it with permission.

Bicinium points out, use the manuscript or a public domain published edition to create your typeset.

I actually meant just upload the public domain source and forget about making the typeset, because it'll slash into the publisher's profits regardless of the source used. Although, at least in this case you wouldn't be using the editor's own efforts against them (aside from the fact that the publisher may have raised awareness about the piece in question which made you want to typeset it in the first place).

Its not going to infringe into that publisher's edition as long as your not referencing the publisher's edition or using them as a source for your new edition, only the manuscript in this case because that is public domain. They cannot come after you if your using a public domain source for your edition.