IMSLP Forums

Sorabji's Opus clavicembalisticum is in the public domain in the United States.

This work, completed in 1930, was first published in "very late in" 1931 by J. Curwen and Sons, London (Roberge, Opus Sorabjianum, p. 202). By "very late in" 1931, we understand the publication to have taken place at earliest some time in December. The first edition of the work was issued in two batches. The first batch was a limited edition (23 copies), printed on special handmade Whatman paper, and with each copy signed by the composer, priced at 5 guineas; this batch was the one published in 1931. The second batch, perhaps not released until early 1932, but in any case after the first, was on standard paper and priced at 2 guineas (ibid.).

In 1931, the United States required compliance with certain formalities in order to gain a federal copyright. The publication of Opus clavicembalisticum was made with this notice on the first page of music:

Copyright for all Countries and in the U.S.A. by the Composer MCMXXXI
All rights including that of performance reserved by the Composer

This is a valid notice according to the then-current requirements in the United States. The work was not registered with the US Copyright Office, but this was not required for copyright protection; notice made in the proper form on the first publication was sufficient to secure a copyright. Accordingly, Sorabji's work was protected by US copyright law immediately from its first publication.

At the time this work was published, copyright protection in the United States lasted for a period of 28 years from publication, subject to potential renewal in the 27th or 28th year of protection. If Sorabji had filed a renewal notice, the work would definitely be protected by copyright in the United States today due to later extensions; a work published in 1931 may be protected in the US until 2027. However, a thorough search of the US Copyright Office's Catalog of Copyright Entries shows that Sorabji did not file to renew his US copyright on Opus clavicembalisticum. Accordingly, the work's US copyright expired in 1960.

Under the terms of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) of 1994, the United States granted (or "restored") copyright protection in various foreign works which had lost their US copyright due to publication without a valid notice, failure to renew copyright and various other reasons. This grant of copyright was held to be valid in Golan v. Holder (2012). Works by Sorabji may be eligible for copyright under the URAA, as long as they are not US works, to which the URAA does not apply. If copyright were restored for Opus clavicembalisticum, it would be protected in the US through December 31, 2026.

However, Opus clavicembalisticum was not eligible for copyright restoration, because it is a US work. Works first published in a foreign country are considered US works and ineligible for URAA restoration if they were published in the United States within thirty days of the initial publication in a foreign country. Of the initial limited edition of 23 inscribed copies, a number were sent initially by Sorabji to various friends and musicians; these were the first copies of the work to be offered to any members of the public. Among those to whom one of these first copies was sent was Carl Engel. Born in France, Engel had immigrated to the United States, where he became the president of G. Schirmer, a writer for the Musical Quarterly and chief of the Music Division of the Library of Congress. Sorabji inscribed the eleventh copy: "For Mr. Carl Engel with friendly regards and remembrances." Engel sent a letter to Sorabji dated January 30, 1932, to acknowledge his receipt of the gift.

According to the US Copyright Office, for works published before 1978, publication consists of "making one or more copies of a work available to the general public, usually by the sale, placing on sale, or public distribution of one or more copies or sound recordings without express or implied restrictions as to future use." The distribution or offering of a copy of a work, even a single copy (the Congressional Record explicitly notes that "copies" is intended to encompass the singular as well as the plural), ordinarily constitutes publication in the United States, whether done commercially or as a gift, if the distribution is not a "limited publication." In order to qualify as a "limited publication" under US law, a distribution must be limited both in the number of people to whom it was offered and without the right of diffusion, reproduction, distribution or sale. For example, sending a copy of a manuscript to a prospective publisher is limited publication. However, sending a gift to a friend is not considered limited publication, because the recipient owns the copy. In fact, Engel's copy would later be sold.

Since Sorabji offered and sent one of the first copies to Engel as part of the initial distribution of the signed copies of the first limited-edition batch, Opus clavicembalisticum is considered according to US law to have been published simultaneously in the UK and US. The offer of distribution to a US recipient was not only authorized the copyright holder (Sorabji); he actually inscribed and sent it personally. Accordingly, the composition is a US work, and remains subject to the same notice and renewal requirements as any other US work (even after the URAA). The notice requirement was met, but the copyright expired after 28 years due to Sorabji's failure to renew it.

Because the work was simultaneously published in the UK and US, it was ineligible for a restored copyright under the URAA. The US copyright on Opus clavicembalisticum expired in 1960 and the piece remains in the public domain in the United States.

Note that the copyright status of this work does not indicate anything about the copyright status in the United States of any of Sorabji's other works. All works published anywhere before 1978 have their US copyright term determined independently of one another; all works of individuals published from 1978 onwards have their term in the US determined by the date of death of the author (except for most works published without a notice between 1978 and February 28, 1989).

Victory? Hardly! I was not aware that there was a war on over this matter in any case.

Be the veracity of all of the assertions various as they may - and the issue as to whether or not Sorabji's copyright on his early publications was renewed is one into which I will look in due course - the fact remains that, of Sorabji's c.105 extant works, many of which are vastly larger in scale than most of those early published ones and thus constitute almost his entire output - only 14 were published between 1921 and 1931, one was published in the early 1970s and all the rest not published until The Sorabji Archive began to do this from the 1980s. Moreover, although US copyright law happens to differ from that of most other countries and all of Sorabji's music remains in copyright in most of them until the end of 2058, we continue to receive and honour requests for copies of his scores, including those early publications, in both paper and .pdf format, from many countries including USA irrespective of its laws relating to those early publications.

All that said, the only Sorabji scores in PD in USA are those of the 1921-1931 publications and all of these contain no shortage of errors. New typeset corrected editions are gradually being prepared and, as soon as each of these becomes available, interest in the old publications themselves not unnaturally drops to almost zero. These new typeset editions are, of course, in copyright everywhere as their publication dates are all within the past few years. So far, of those early published scores, new typeset editions of Two Piano Pieces, Piano Sonata No. 2, Piano Sonata No. 3, Le Jardin Parfumé and Organ Symphony No. 1 have been available for some time and further ones of Fantaisie Espagnole, Trois Poèmes (for soprano and piano), Piano Sonata No. 1, Piano Quintet No. 1 and Opus Clavicembalisticum are currently in preparation; this leaves only Prelude Interlude and Fugue and Valse-Fantaisie for piano, Trois Fêtes Galantes (for soprano and piano) and Piano Concerto No. 5 not yet commenced. One problem with the editing project for these works is that the autograph mss. of Two Piano Pieces, Prelude Interlude and Fugue, Trois Poèmes, Trois Fêtes Galantes, Piano Quintet No. 1 and Piano Concerto No. 5 are no longer known to exist; what became of them following their publication is unknown.

As an administrator and copyright reviewer, I am happy to provide some information that might be helpful when looking to the US copyright status of Sorabji's works (or any works in general).

ahinton wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 1:43 pm Be the veracity of all of the assertions various as they may - and the issue as to whether or not Sorabji's copyright on his early publications was renewed is one into which I will look in due course -

This is not so complicated to check, but there is a caveat. US copyright law at the time granted an initial term for 28 years, which was valid so long as all published copies had a copyright notice that complied with the requirements. The Sorabji scores I have seen do have such notices. In order to keep a US copyright past the 28th year, it was necessary to file a renewal notice with the US Copyright Office. These notices of renewal were publicly recorded in the Catalog of Copyright Entries. The CCE is available online. A work published in 1931, and thus having a 28-year term, would have its copyright expire at the end of 1959/beginning of 1960. According to the copyright rules in place at the time, a renewal could only be filed during the last two years of a copyright term. So, for a work that is copyright 1931, you can check the CCE renewal records for musical compositions for 1958 and 1959. I checked, and did not find any notice of renewal for this work. I also checked the 1960 records, in case the notice was only published late, and there was no record of a notice of renewal then either. So the copyright on Opus clavicembalisticum definitely was not renewed before its initial 28-year term expired.

The caveat, which is very important here, is that US law actually treats foreign works more advantageously than US works. A foreign work that was not published with a proper notice, or which did not have its copyright renewed, had its US copyright "restored" (even if it never existed in the first place), so long as the work was not in the public domain in its home country on the URAA restoration date. For the UK and most other countries, the restoration date is January 1, 1996. Of course, Sorabji's works were not in the public domain in the UK in 1996 — just as they are not in the public domain in the UK now. So any work of Sorabji's that was not a US work would have its copyright, if not renewed or validly created to begin with, restored in the US. However, any work that was first published in the US, or simultaneously published in the US and some other country, is considered a US work, and the authorized distribution of the work constitutes publication.

In the case of Opus clavicembalisticum, the authorized sending of a copy to Engel meant that the piece was published simultaneously in the UK and US according to US law, and so was ineligible for automatic restoration — and so, because it was not renewed, it remains in the US public domain, just like the many works first published in 1931 in the US which did not have their copyrights renewed (that's most of them, by the way). This case (of one copy of a small first run being documentedly sent to the US) is a bit unusual; the much more common way this rule applies is when the work is simultaneously made available for widespread sale in the US at the same time it is made available in another country. But the limited publication exception in US law is for distributions made for a specifically limited purpose, with no respect to limited number of copies, so once there was proof of one authorized copy being sent to the US, the simultaneous publication was established.

So, in short, you can follow the following rules to determine the status of one of Sorabji's works in the US. Depending on the circumstances, you will need to know the date of first publication, whether or not the publications all included a valid copyright notice and whether or not copies were offered to anyone in the United States.

* According to US law, a valid copyright notice must include:

• The symbol "©", the word "Copyright" and/or the abbreviation "Copr."
• The year of first publication of the work, though, in case of a derivative work only, if only the year of the derivative work is included, this is acceptable.
• The name of the copyright holder, a recognizable abbreviation for that name or a designation that clearly refers to the copyright holder (e.g., "the composer" on a score that identifies the composer as Sorabji elsewhere on the page).

• First published (as of 2023) in 1927 or earlier, anywhere in the world — always public domain in the US
• First published 1928–63 with a valid copyright notice, and renewal notice filed (would be listed in CCE) — copyrighted in the US until its 95-year term has expired
• First published 1928–63 with a valid copyright notice, but no renewal notice filed (would not be listed in CCE)...
  • If first published or simultaneously published in the US (i.e., if copies were offered with authorization to anyone in the US within 30 days of the beginning of publication anywhere else) — public domain in the US
  • If first published abroad, and NOT offered to anyone in the US for over 30 days from first publication — copyrighted in the US until its 95-year term has expired
• First published between January 1, 1928 and February 28, 1989, without a valid copyright notice...
  • If first published or simultaneously published in the US (i.e., if copies were offered with authorization to anyone in the US within 30 days of the beginning of publication anywhere else) — public domain in the US
  • If first published abroad, and NOT offered to anyone in the US for over 30 days from first publication...
    • First published 1928–77 — copyrighted in the US until its 95-year term has expired
    • First published 1978 or later — copyrighted in the US until 2058
• First published 1964–77 with a valid copyright notice — copyrighted in the US until its 95-year term has expired
• First published between January 1, 1978 and February 28, 1989 with a valid copyright notice — copyrighted in the US until 2058
• First published on March 1, 1989 or later — copyrighted in the US until 2058

the fact remains that, of Sorabji's c.105 extant works, many of which are vastly larger in scale than most of those early published ones and thus constitute almost his entire output - only 14 were published between 1921 and 1931, one was published in the early 1970s and all the rest not published until The Sorabji Archive began to do this from the 1980s. Moreover, although US copyright law happens to differ from that of most other countries and all of Sorabji's music remains in copyright in most of them until the end of 2058, we continue to receive and honour requests for copies of his scores, including those early publications, in both paper and .pdf format, from many countries including USA irrespective of its laws relating to those early publications.

It's true that a great deal of Sorabji's work remains copyrighted in the US. And so those works will not be allowed on IMSLP-US, except if permission is granted by the copyright holder, until whenever they do enter the public domain in the US.

All that said, the only Sorabji scores in PD in USA are those of the 1921-1931 publications and all of these contain no shortage of errors.

This is mostly right, but not precisely true. Copyright in the US, as in most countries (though the UK is a partial exception, which I'll get to a bit further down), applies to original creative works, not to publications per se. So, for instance, the autograph manuscripts of the Sorabji works which are in the public domain are not copyrighted in the US either, because they are copies of the same works of creative authorship.

New typeset corrected editions are gradually being prepared and, as soon as each of these becomes available, interest in the old publications themselves not unnaturally drops to almost zero. These new typeset editions are, of course, in copyright everywhere as their publication dates are all within the past few years. So far, of those early published scores, new typeset editions of Two Piano Pieces, Piano Sonata No. 2, Piano Sonata No. 3, Le Jardin Parfumé and Organ Symphony No. 1 have been available for some time and further ones of Fantaisie Espagnole, Trois Poèmes (for soprano and piano), Piano Sonata No. 1, Piano Quintet No. 1 and Opus Clavicembalisticum are currently in preparation; this leaves only Prelude Interlude and Fugue and Valse-Fantaisie for piano, Trois Fêtes Galantes (for soprano and piano) and Piano Concerto No. 5 not yet commenced.

Well, it certainly seems to me that (in general) there remains interest in examining historical publications of musical works, even after new critical editions are published. It is worth mentioning, however, that, since some of Sorabji's works are in the public domain in the United States, someone could prepare and publish competing editions without the need for authorization, so long as they are only published in the US. Moreover, the pieces which are in the public domain in the US can be performed or recorded without authorization if the performances and/or publications of recordings occur in the US, even if the performances were made using the new editions.

Also, because of the notice requirements, any work first published in the 1970s up through February 28, 1989 could be in the public domain in the US — but only if the initial publication occurred without a valid copyright notice (see above) and it was initially or simultaneously put on offer in the United States. So, a work that was published by the Sorabji Archive in the 1980s, for example, could have lost its US copyright if there was no notice (including on a manuscript reproduction), or if the notice included was made in an improper format (e.g., by omitting the date), and the score was made available for offer in the US at that time. (Certain omissions between 1978 and 1989 could be corrected within a time-limited window, but this is no longer possible, so any defective copyright notices made during that period which remained uncorrected during that window result in the work remaining in the public domain today, so long as the URAA did not apply.) I'm not saying that this was in fact the case for any of the works offered by the Sorabji Archive, but it bears mentioning, because this is a relevant factor for US copyright law, despite the relative recency of these publications.

For most works created and published since 1978 (the exception being mainly "works for hire," according to the US copyright jargon meaning of that phrase), the publication date is not relevant for US copyright law. However, the date of death of the contributors is relevant, and for works created and published since 1978, US copyrights generally naturally last for 70 years after the author's death. The question, then, is who actually would be an author according to US copyright law. Sorabji himself certainly would be the author of all of his own works; his 70-year term expires in 2058, as we all know. Whether or not editors of editions qualify as having made an authorial contribution to that publication, and the extent to which that authorship could be redacted as to make the engraving PD-US, is not entirely simple.

Almost all new editions are published with copyright claims. However, US copyright law restricts the copyright in a derivative work (as distinct from the copyright in any underlying work) to the significantly original new creative content originating in the new work. For example, a preface to a new edition has a new copyright which lasts for 70 years after the death of its author.

US copyright also does not extend to the underlying public domain work present in a new edition, even if the new edition has original creative content. So any performance made from a new edition, being a performance of the same underlying work of creative authorship, is not subject to any additional copyright restriction, whereas the same is not true of a performance made of a substantially original arrangement or adaptation. The US Copyright Office specifies that copyright in derivative works (including new editions with new content) applies only with respect to the new content. For musical editions in particular, the US Copyright Office says that editorial authorship may exist in certain additions made to a score: "Musical editing generally consists of adding markings for the performance of a musical composition, such as additional or altered fingering, accents, dynamics, and the like. Editing also may consist of textual notes on performance practice or historical background for a musical composition." However, note that the US Copyright Office explicitly says that corrections of printing errors from earlier editions cannot be considered a work of original authorship (in line with US case law).

Despite the fact that many editions probably would not have their copyrights held up as valid in court, the US Copyright Office does not generally judge the validity of registrations, and so they can be presumed valid unless shown otherwise. Even creative additions have been held in certain cases to not rise to the level of copyrightablity; the US has a higher threshold of originality than some other countries, especially (historically) the UK (— though the British threshold of originality may have raised over the years for unrelated reasons.) Many registrations are made with the explicit limitation that they only apply to new prefaces, new editorial additions, and so on. Removing these elements from a retypeset of a work that is in the public domain in the US would result in a document which, most likely, has no eligibility for copyright in the US, though I'm not a judge, and so I of course have no control over the validity of claimed copyrights — I am merely talking about what I've seen in US court decisions that I've read. (Notwithstanding the fact that some of these scores may be public domain in the US, IMSLP-US does not necessarily accept new editions which were not submitted by or with permission of the editor, but that is a question of site policy.)

I should note that with respect to the threshold of originality (as opposed to copyright terms), the United States is not unusual internationally, though all countries of course have different nuances to their laws. In the United States, new typesettings of creative works are not eligible for new copyright; this is very well-established. This is the case in most countries of the world. One of the very few countries where new typesettings are eligible for copyright protection as typesettings is the United Kingdom, where they are protected for a 25-year term. Even in the UK, however, it should be noted that performing from a new engraving is not considered distinct from performing from an old uncorrected one; the relevant detail there is that all of Sorabji's work is still protected by British copyright law in any case.

Of course, it is undisputed that many of Sorabji's works are definitely protected by US copyright law, and, in all those cases, even if new engravings with errors corrected would not have any new original content, the original copyrights still remain valid according to the usual rules.

One problem with the editing project for these works is that the autograph mss. of Two Piano Pieces, Prelude Interlude and Fugue, Trois Poèmes, Trois Fêtes Galantes, Piano Quintet No. 1 and Piano Concerto No. 5 are no longer known to exist; what became of them following their publication is unknown.

That much I'm afraid I cannot really say much about, though I will comment that, as someone who regularly goes through the work of many different composers (given my job), the Sorabji Archive is one of the better-organized resources on a single composer out there, and so I must say that the care taken by you and your colleagues to keep these things organized definitely shows.

One other wrinkle of US copyright law, as you may have been able to tell, is that it actually cuts both ways. While the early published works of Sorabji and works that failed to meet US copyright requirements (such as Opus clavicembalisticum) are in the public domain in the US, despite the fact that he died not yet 35 years ago — and the same goes for the early works of many other composers, such as Dmitry Shostakovich — some the later works by Sorabji may be protected in the United States long after their copyright has expired in the UK and most other countries. A work published in 1977 would not have its US copyright expire until 2073, for example, and one of the known Sorabji works (the Pastiche on the "Minute Waltz" by Chopin), apparently first published in 1969, will not enter the public domain in the United States until a few years after it enters the public domain in the UK along with all of Sorabji's other compositions and writings.

As you can tell, the copyright rules can be pretty complicated, especially for the US. If you have any questions, let me know here or at dbmiller@imslp.org and I can try to provide answers.

***

As for Sorabji's works: the works currently listed on his IMSLP page are confirmed to be in the public domain in the US. Opus clavicembalisticum is PD-US for the reasons mentioned above. The other works were all published before 1928 and so any US copyrights on them have expired. According to the Sorabji Resource Site's list of publications, those would be all of Sorabji's works that were formally published before his father stopped funding the endeavor — so, all of those are now PD-US.

Based on the information presented on the aforementioned page, including the reproduction of copyright notices (very useful!), the Pastiche on the "Minute Waltz" by Chopin, published 1969, should be PD-US in 2065. The Fantasiettina sul nome illustre dell'egregio poeta Christopher Grieve ossia Hugh M'Diarmid should be PD-US in 2058.

As for items published by the Sorabji Archive... the Archive was founded in 1988. Assuming that it was offering scores to US-based recipients at the time of its founding, then any work that was first published by the Archive before February 28, 1989 — that is, works published within the first year of the Archive's existence — would be required to have followed all the rules then in place for valid copyright notices in the US. If it were demonstrated that the Archive offered scores to US-based recipients then, and that a work was made available without all the elements of a proper notice during that period, then I would approve that work to be listed as PD-US. But I would need to see evidence of that.

Assuming that a notice error in 1988–89 did not happen, in all likelihood, the list of Sorabji works that IMSLP-US has will be it for quite some time. When it comes to the works that are confirmed as PD-US, though, IMSLP-US will continue to accept new editions or recordings that are prepared by anyone, normally only so long as the editor/recording rights owner has given permission (in line with the general rules for the site). All submissions of works that are not PD-US will be rejected unless permission is granted from the copyright holder.

Although we have been in correspondence these past few days I have only just seen your helpful and detailed posts above. US copyright law differs from that of most countries in a number of particulars and are considerably more complex than those in many other territotires, so you thorough explanations are all the more welcome!

Apart from thanking you for taking the trouble to provide such extensive information, there are just a few small questions and comments that seem appropriate at this point, as follows.

I am surprised that merely gifting a copy of a manuscript or publication to someone in US might be considered to constitute publication if the gift was intended for the recipient's private use only and not for sale or prospective publication; it is in the former circumstances that Sorabji gifted six of his manuscript scores to Engel in 1928 and a copy publication of Opus Clavicembalisticum in 1932 and none of these was ever sold or republished in US other than the auction of the OC publication which was presumably also not intended for publication.

I should confirm for the avoidance of any possible doubt that, of the small handful of Sorabji scores of which we supplied copies before 1989, none was ever sent to US; in any case, those aside, we began issuing copies of his scores in earnest only once we had master-copied them all and, as might be imagined, this process, which included sourcing some of them, took a lot of time to complete.

From all of this it is clear that all of Sorabji's scores are under US copyright and will remain so for the foreseeable future other than those 14 published in UK between 1921 and 1931; these constitute but a tiny fraction of his copious output, not least because most of his longest works postdate the final publication that was issued during his lifetime, For the record and for the avoidance of doubt, all of his scores including those publications remain in copyright almost everywhere else.

There are no restrictions on the public performance of Sorabji's works anywhere. There are only restrictions on audio / video uploads of his works (on YouTube and such like facilities) in whole or in part, especially score videos, without the express prior consent of all interested parties (performers, broadcasters, record companies, publishers et al as well as ourselves).

For the record, we continue to supply every known Sorabji score in paper or .pdf format upon demand to all countries in the world including US and have done so for the past 30+ years during which new typeset editions of many of them have been made (with more in progress).

As it happens, it seems that not all US licencees even appear to have appreciated the US PD status of those early UK publications, as royalties continue from time to time to be remitted on these!

Thank you for your kind words about us and our activities; we have striven from the outset to make Sorabji's works available internationally, having in the composer's last years become most concerned as to what would otherwise be the fate of his vast artistic legacy and decided that steps must be taken to address this as soon as possible.

ahinton wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2023 7:19 pm I am surprised that merely gifting a copy of a manuscript or publication to someone in US might be considered to constitute publication if the gift was intended for the recipient's private use only and not for sale or prospective publication; it is in the former circumstances that Sorabji gifted six of his manuscript scores to Engel in 1928 and a copy publication of Opus Clavicembalisticum in 1932 and none of these was ever sold or republished in US other than the auction of the OC publication which was presumably also not intended for publication.

Interestingly, the rules are somewhat backwards from what you might expect!

Basically, US federal copyright requirements kicked in at general publication. But if a distribution was only a limited publication, it would not be considered published. However, these terms can be misleading, because despite the plain meaning of the terms "general" and "limited," the legal doctrine has nothing to do with number of copies, but only with whether or not there were certain strings attached to a distribution. Even one copy being transferred with no strings attached constituted general publication.

There was no difference between acquiring something as a gift or via purchase; either way, there was a transfer of ownership of the copy. Of course, most works were made available for purchase.

Sorabji probably wouldn't reasonably expect Engel to sell the gifted copy. But by simply gifting to Engel (rather than lending it to him under a restrictive contract), Engel did acquire the right to sell or dispose of the copy however he wished (as the owner of the copy). Engel owned his copy just as anyone who might buy a copy would.

On the other hand, if Sorabji had instead sent Engel the copy only for consideration for US publication, that actually wouldn't count as a general publication, since Engel would (as was standard) be bound by the restriction that the copy was only to be used for consideration (and in most cases had to be returned to the sender).

Since the type of transfer Sorabji made to Engel was a general transfer of ownership of the copy (rather than subject to contractual limitations), it was a general publication of one copy.

There are no restrictions on the public performance of Sorabji's works anywhere. There are only restrictions on audio / video uploads of his works (on YouTube and such like facilities) in whole or in part, especially score videos, without the express prior consent of all interested parties (performers, broadcasters, record companies, publishers et al as well as ourselves).

For the record, the right of public performance is reserved by default, and so legally speaking nobody has any right to perform Sorabji's works except your permission; the restriction exists by default, even if not enforced, unless you grant a general public license to perform the works publicly.

Thanks for this!

For the record, we have never imposed any restrictions on the live public performance of Sorabji's music (as distinct from the uploading of it to online facilities); very occasionally, we have been asked for official permission for such live performances and, when confirming it, have always stated that there are no such restrictions.

I thought we counted date of first performance as date of first publication (if earlier - in this case, 1930) or is that only for as-yet-unpublished works?

The piece is only PD-USA, so first publication is only allowed in the USA (or in this case due to a lack of renewal and simultaneously published within 30 days for a foreign work), not first performance, that only applies to Canada Copyright.