Major items dropped from PD-US server, I see

[Eric]

I notice Havergal Brian's Symphony no.1 and opera The Tigers are no longer on the PD-US server (or anywhere else, of course, since he's not PD-CA for 20 years or so.) Were these works discovered to have been c-renewed? (I know UMP offers reprint editions of many of these works, and retypesets of quite a lot of his, but wasn't aware that those counted as re-copyright reprints any more than Kalmus did; it's good to know. Of course, the Sorabji Archive does the same for -his-, so maybe those may not be up for much longer either in that case...)

[Eric]

(On a related point, I am aware that our attempts to restrict access to the pd-us-only pages are -not aided- when people create universally-viewable score videos from them, and since we have people sign a form when they download a public-domain-in-the-us file, we can hardly object if youtube harshly sanctions people for violating the conditions under which they downloaded the score. Especially since I notice that some of the items I mentioned are now back on the server.)

[DBMiller]

As I've mentioned elsewhere, the relevant Havergal Brian works were not PD-renewed in the US. They were URAA restorations.

The existence of reprints/reissues (for Brian or Sorabji) doesn't affect the copyright status of the original/underlying pieces.

For all those Havergal Brian pieces restored to copyright by the URAA, the US copyright will expire 95 years after publication. So, for example, The Tigers will be PD-US in 1928.

As for "conditions under which [users] download the score," we do not (and legally cannot) impose such conditions on users. There is a disclaimer which warns users that a file on the PML-US server is only checked for US public domain status, and may not be in the public domain elsewhere. (While the Sorabji files, for instance, are not in the public domain in any European countries, some PML-US files are PD in many European countries due to the application of the rule of the shorter term to those works, so we say only that the server follows US copyright law and we make no guarantee that the files on it are PD elsewhere, rather than saying that they are categorically non-PD outside the US — since some of them are.)

Users don't sign a form to accept any terms and conditions (and we couldn't make them, since the item is in the public domain. The host of a public domain file can't restrict the user's use of the file (so long as it's public domain). Of course, where the content is copyrighted, it's subject to restrictions set by the copyright law of the various relevant countries, and the restrictions set/permissions granted by the copyright holder(s). But we cannot claim to set any conditions ourselves.

As for score videos, people have the right to make and distribute these, and other derivative works, in any country where the underlying work used is in the public domain (so long as they have the rights to use the recording as well — always a separate layer from the underlying work). So, for a work that is PD in the US, anyone can make a score video, or recording, or whatever else. And materials from IMSLP/PML-US can be used for that purpose. They can publish that on their US-based website.

YouTube is based in the US (though they have a regional blocking system for videos, as I understand). A user who contests a takedown notice for a PD-US work by counting that the work is PD-US is entirely correct to do so. (We at IMSLP have to right to object on someone else's behalf, in any circumstance, or generally act as anyone's agent, though.) YouTube, unlike PML-US, does use servers located in various countries across the world (I believe), and certainly YouTube doesn't have the right to distribute the video through those servers. YouTube, on the other hand, can definitely stream a PD-US score video to US viewers without infringing anyone's copyright. YouTube is by no means obliged to allow all legally allowed content — they can, more or less, choose to remove content from their site for pretty much any reason they want, whether or not they're legally required to do so. (I have no role in running YouTube, of course, so whatever they decide to do voluntarily is their business, not mine.)

So, to be clear, IMSLP/PML-US doesn't (and can't) attach its own conditions to any of the files hosted on PML-US. The disclaimers aren't us attaching strings; they're us reminding the user that the copyright law of various non-US countries may restrict the use of the file.

[ahinton]

All of Sorabji's scores are under copyright and will remain so in most territories until 1 January 2069, with the exception of a small number of early works in US only because they happen to have been published between 1921 and 1931. Those publications all contain errors - some of them many errors - and a few have already been reissued in new correted edition format as we hope that the remainder will be eventually; as soon as a new edition of one of those old publications is issued, the demand for the original publications understandably declines pretty much to zero.

[Darsh]

I notice Havergal Brian's Symphony no.1 and opera The Tigers are no longer on the PD-US server (or anywhere else, of course, since he's not PD-CA for 20 years or so.) Were these works discovered to have been c-renewed? (I know UMP offers reprint editions of many of these works, and retypesets of quite a lot of his, but wasn't aware that those counted as re-copyright reprints any more than Kalmus did; it's good to know. Of course, the Sorabji Archive does the same for -his-, so maybe those may not be up for much longer either in that case...)

Expressing concern over the absence of Havergal Brian's Symphony No.1 and opera "The Tigers" from the PD-US server and questioning if these works have been discovered to be re-copyrighted. Reflecting on the impact of reprint editions on copyright status and highlighting potential implications for other composers like Sorabji.

[Eric]

Your phrasing is somewhat ambiguous. Are you yourself doing this, or are you describing the behaviour of others, for some reason still to be revealed in a later episode of the season? ;^)

[ScoreUpdater]

Your phrasing is somewhat ambiguous. Are you yourself doing this, or are you describing the behaviour of others, for some reason still to be revealed in a later episode of the season? ;^)

Which/whose reply are you referring to?

[Eric]

Darsh's of 21 November, 5:27 at emma.