4 Borodin scores

[Lyle Neff]

Hi,

I have four full-score works of Borodin in miniature score. Here are the specs:

• Symphony No. 1. Kalmus miniature orchestra scores No. 45. No copyright. Looks like 19th c. engraving.
  
  Symphony No. 3. Zurich/London. Edition Eulenburg No. 501. Copyright by M.P. Belaieff, Leipzig/Bonn, n.d. Plate E.E. 6322. "Eigentum von M.P. Belaieff, Leipzig-Bonn, mit dessen genehmigung in Eulenburg's Taschenpartituren-Ausgaben aufgenommen." Looks like 19th c. engraving. (Includes introductory notes by David Lloyd-Jones, Oct. 1962.)
  
  Prince Igor. Overture. Zurich/London. Edition Eulenburg No. 1118. "Copyright M.P. Belaiev, Paris and printed here by permission," n.d. Foreword copyright 1950. Plate EE 6630. Might be a newer engraving than original might have been (thinner, crisper lines).
  
  Finale from Mlada. M.P. Belaieff, Frankfurt. Nr. 374. Plate 439. (c) 1972 by Belaieff. Cover, t.p. and 1st page captions of score in German. From plate no. and engraving style, this must be 19th-c.

Aside from the first one, which seems clearly p.d., which of the other three would be okay to upload?

[Carolus]

1. The Kalmus is probably a reprint of an Eulenburg score. Absolutely OK.

2. The Lloyd-Jones notes are not free, but the rest of the score is most likely free. I note they failed to include a date in the notice, which would very possibly blow it out of the water even if it weren't a scarecrow (Belaieff was notorious for bogus copyright notices starting around 1930, which got even worse after WW II).

3. Skip the foreword. This and the previous were probably both engraved in the early to mid-1920s. Eulenburg did the engraving and issued study scores under license in the USA, UK and other territories while Belaieff, Bessel, Peters, and some other publishers issued study scores under their own imprint using the identical plates.

4. A Belaieff plate 439 (unlike some publishers, their plate numbers are a fairly reliable date guide - though they usually put dates on the scores anyway) places it back in the 1890s. Post it and I'll look over in detail. Belaieff had everything engraved by C. G. Röder in that era (Mitrofan always paid for the best when he ran the show), so it should have that characteristic Röder look to it.

BTW, I have a question for you:

I recently obtained a Bessel vocal score of Mussorgsky's Boris Godunov. It is 250 pages, large format (about 10 x 14 inches), has plate numbers 348-375, is priced at 10 p.c. (Silver Rubles, presumably), and has the censor's approval statement on page 127 dated 18 November 1875. Is this a second edition, third edition? I seem to recall reading somewhere that the first edition was issued in 1872, but I could not remember where I'd read that statement. At any rate, it needs a bit of restoration but I'll naturally post here at IMSLP when it's ready.

[Lyle Neff]

According to Grove Music Online, the first version of Boris dates from 1868-1869, and was rejected by the opera committee because of its lack of a female leading role. The revised version of 1871-1872 was the first to be performed and published -- in 1874.

Don't know what your censor's date of 1875 means, especially on an inner page.

[Carolus]

BTW, the Mlada score (No. 4) is a brazen case of copyfraud. It is merely a reprint of the 1892 original with a 1972 notice attached. I wish I could say this type of thing is rare. Sadly it is not at all rare. Peters took over Belaieff in 1971 and apparently made the new division adopt their annoying practice of affixing bogus copyright notices (they are about the absolute worst one for this type of trick, but are not alone by any means).

[Lyle Neff]

Thanks Carolus.

It looks as if all that Peters/Belaieff changed with the Mlada finale was the lettering (if not also the language) of the caption on the 1st page, and adding "M.P. Belaieff" to the bottom of all the score pages. (Also there was a summary of the action in this edition in German and English, as well as the newer Belaieff grey covers, which I omitted.)

[Vivaldi]

Carolus, do you mean that even if Peters made a new engraving (new layout, notations, page count, everything) of the Mlada score, it still won't be copyrightable because it does not meet the threshold of originality? I wonder how Peters can get away with this for such a long time.

[Carolus]

If Peters made a new engraving, their claim of copyright would be valid for 25 years in the UK, possibly 25 years in Germany, 20 in Italy. It would most likely fail to meet the threshold of originality in the USA and Canada.

However, that's not what happened here. After Peters took over Belaieff (1971), they reprinted the Mlada score from 1892 with some minor typographic changes - they used the same engraving - and placed a 1972 copyright claim. One of the very basic measures of originality - or at least a measure of the number and significance of the errors corrected - is a new engraving. Their claim of copyright would not even hold up in Germany.

This can get very crazy and complicated, though, because there a number of International editions which use old engravings where an editor (like Leonard Rose) has added all manner of slurs, articulations, fingerings, etc. in pen and ink on top of the older score. Another really nasty one has to do with the Mahler critical edition scores. In most cases (as with the 1st Symphony score over at IMSLP), they simply corrected mistakes in the old engraving (the 1906 UE score in that case), then made a copyright claim. There must not have been all that many mistakes to correct if they used the 1906 engraving. There's a point at which having a new score engraved is much cheaper than making numerous painstaking fixes of the kind required to amend an older score.

UE's claim would probably fall in an actual US trial because I seriously doubt that any critical edition would meet the "threshold of originality" as defined by the Supreme Court in Feist vs. Rural. The fact that they simply amended an old engraving would very seriously undermine any claim of originality they might attempt to make. Trouble is, it would cost one over a million USD to actually destroy UE's registered and renewed claim of copyright in court. Got a spare million, Vivaldi? Feldmahler and I know some lawyers who could blow through it in no time at all.

[Vivaldi]

I'm afraid I don't have that much dough. I really hope there are some lawyers out there who could help IMSLP in these instances pro bono.