About Edition copyrights

dsoslglece · Post by **dsoslglece** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:31 pm

Hi,
I've scanned a score, solo parts and orchestral parts from an Ysaÿe's work, but I'd like some more data about the way things could have been copyrighted.
The score is the old one (composed in 1924) from « Les Éditions Ysaÿe » probably published before Ysaÿe's death (1931), and so present no problem...

I've had that score given to me long ago by Antoine Ysaÿe the last son. I got then the orchestra parts from the « Bibliothèque Royale de Bruxelles », and it looks like it is exactly this same edition (same letters and so on). So, that should be OK too...

But for the solo string quartet parts, I remember having bought them from Shott-Bruxelles... but it seems that they used the old same parts as the original ones, since they are exactly identical for any aspects...

I know that Schott was for quite long time already, the place having the last of Ysaÿe's music, having gotten it from Antoine a decade or two before his death (around 1983), and I wonder if that is still considered as the old edition or else...

Anyway, if this is the case, I could of course redo a whole setup with Finale, from those parts or even from the manuscripts of them that, are not completely identical to the printed music.

So, if someone could advise me, it'd be very nice, since I'm just waiting for this to upload the whole batch of Ysaÿe's « Harmonies du soir »...

There is a second thing:

I've had on uploading something else, a message saying that one can only upload a maxi of 10 Mb... is that really true ?? since for instance, this score from Ysaÿe (23 pages, scanned gray scale 300 dpi, compressed png [lossless], and PDFised) weighs by itself 18,4 MB... and I dont think it would be such a good idea to reduce the definition of it...

I've read on here about another compression though: CITT, that I never used before, but it seems anyway unobtainable on Photoshop, and available only in some departments from Acrobat pro, but at the moment, I have trouble connecting Acrobat to my scanner, dunno why... anyway, I don't think it could compress much better than png...

Answer to this one would greatly help me, and I would be grateful for it...

I'm am on Mac OS X 10.4.11
Adobe CS 3
Acrobat pro 9

Thanks in advance

carmar1791 · Post by **carmar1791** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 8:25 pm

Max 100 M for each file but more if you ask permission before uploading.
If you use png file I think it's ok.I use png too and it's quite good (300 dpi B&W or grey scale for scannig.)
About copyrights you have to check if there is some editor and what is his date of birth and death.If there isn't an editor and the score and parts are older than 25 years it's ok for Europe.
By the way this isn't the right place to ask about copyrights , move your post to "copyright status request" section.Some admins more expert will answer to you.

Greetings

dsoslglece · Post by **dsoslglece** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 9:26 pm

Thanks Carmar1791, for the data...
Also, I didn'tknow there was such a forum (I'm only three days here)... I'll do what you suggest, better to be 100% sure.

horndude77 · Post by **horndude77** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:25 pm

To get the CCITT Group 4 compression save it as a tiff. I've never used photoshop, but you can save it as a tiff b&w ccitt compressed with gimp or imagemagick (that what I normally use). Grayscale is fine for scanning and image manipulation. Lately I've started scanning to grayscale, deskewing the image, and then converting to b&w. For uploading however unless there is a good reason it should be b&w. This keeps filesizes low. Also daphnis had some advice on when to use 600dpi vs. 300dpi here.

dsoslglece · Post by **dsoslglece** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:46 pm

Thanks for your answer, but in Photoshop, there is no place I know to compress CITT 4 ... when you have a tiff file, you can compress it jpeg or zip, and that's all... I'll continue to investigate anyway.

and, for the B&W or gray scale, I'm sorry, but really grey scale is better, since B&W doesn't produce the proper round curves (notes are only curves!!) but stairs like curves...

It is logical, since you only have black pixels and white pixels, so it has to follow the curve as a stair case... When one uses grey scale, inside the "steps", you have some darker or lighter grey pixels... just do it once both ways, and use a big zoom to look at it: after all nobody is obliged to believe anything but it's own experience.

In fact when you perform an OCR, B&W is very badly recognized by the OCR program (even with Acrobat pro)... and so it is, with the musician eye trying to read the music...

600 dpi should never be necessary only for high precision photographs and so on, but of course, if one uses B&W, one has some time to reduce the size of the steps... but doing so, one doubles the weight of the file, and so, one looses the benefits of low weight B&W.

Post by **Carolus** » Sun Sep 28, 2008 1:40 am

Ysaÿe should present no problem. The source score and parts you describe were apparently published before his death. The fact that Schott is the agent for the composer's work is irrelevant to its copyright status. As long as you are not producing a Finale file of a work first published after 1957, there should be no problem with posting at IMSLP as long as the work is an original piece by Ysaÿe and not an arrangement or transcription by someone else.

horndude77 · Post by **horndude77** » Sun Sep 28, 2008 5:50 am

Thanks for your answer, but in Photoshop, there is no place I know to compress CITT 4 ... when you have a tiff file, you can compress it jpeg or zip, and that's all... I'll continue to investigate anyway.

CCITT compression requires a b&w image. Perhaps that could be the problem.

and, for the B&W or gray scale, I'm sorry, but really grey scale is better, since B&W doesn't produce the proper round curves (notes are only curves!!) but stairs like curves...

There are competing factors: image quality and filesize. Agreed, grayscale in general is better quality than b&w. For monochrome documents both can be used to approximate curves and lines. The advantage of grayscale that you're describing is anti-aliasing. Anti-aliasing is useful when you can't sample at high enough frequency (dpi in this case). B&w at 600dpi is roughly equivalent to 300 dpi with 5 gray levels. The advantage of the b&w is the much higher compression and more accurately described edges. The 256 levels of gray that are normally used for grayscale don't buy us much in monochrome documents.

Post by **Peter** » Sun Sep 28, 2008 8:16 am

The grayscale will look nicer on a computer screen due to relative low resolution of a screen , but printed in won't make a difference. Try it, print a 300 dpi grayscale and a 600dpi monochrome and probably the monochrome will look even sharper.

I can't compress either CCITT 4 in Photoshop, I don't think it's supported. Tere is LZW compression available as an option, but it's not as powerful as CCITT. Most PDF compilers however recompress to CITT upon creation.

dsoslglece · Post by **dsoslglece** » Sun Sep 28, 2008 8:26 am

Thanks both for those replies.
First, Carolus, Sure this work was produced before 57 (1924), and sure too, it has not been arranged (dis-ranged!) by anyone.

Anyway, if I can then upload the published parts, there will be no need for me to use Finale (much longer!) for the solo parts.

Horndude, I'll experiment with this data, and see what looks best, but I probably will at the end agree with it... since it makes a sense.

dsoslglece · Post by **dsoslglece** » Sun Sep 28, 2008 9:09 am

Thanks Peter... didn't get your message wih the others, dunno why...
true, I forgot about the resolution of the screen... and when printed, there is in fact not that much difference between png grey(8) and bitmap (even 300dpi).
grey is slightly better thouh, but mostly since bitmap, on the borders and edges from the page, is sometime a bit noisy... but using a bit of the rubber removes it... I must just now compare the size of both when compacted