Mapichleko wrote:Again, I never advocated nor even hinted any kind of unlimited copyright. I beg everyone from now on to please stop supposing that.
The problem with this statement is that the consequences of your asking us not to distribute public domain Koechlin pieces does amount to that. Your arguments are very non-specific. You have yet to name a piece, say for how much longer it should be blocked, and why.
Until you do that, you are not limiting what you are asking for, which makes it seem -- unlimited. If you want people to stop supposing that, then please give an example, state how much longer it should be blocked, and back it up.
I see KGill already explained the vandalism issue very nicely above. I only relented due to the fact that there was a possibility that the vandalism was not strictly intentional - namely that Lerique-Koechlin had placed his accusation of IMSLP's supposed "immorality" on the composer's category page instead of on the talk page from ignorance of how things are done.
As to the rest, there is nothing of Koechlin's on the wiki that is not public domain in at least Canada and the other 50 pma countries (which just happens to be most of the world). Reprinting an older score in 2005 does not confer a new copyright in any country, though there might be limitations on reprinting things still in print in some places (like the situation in Germany before the German high court declared such reprint restrictions to be in fundamental conflict with the copyright statute and nullified them accordingly). I find it somewhat odd that Mapichleko states he does not advocate perpetual copyright while he simultaneously advocates restrictions on the public domain in order that the original publisher should have a de-facto monopoly for the act of bringing a work back into print. The net effect of such restrictions on public domain material would be indistinguishable from an unlimited copyright term (without actually calling it "copyright"). This is the very reason the German law was struck down. It's sort of like the magical super-copyright for all music that some libraries believe in. It's not copyright, you see - just restricted to certain approved uses.
I'm curious, Mapichleko. Do think that Masters Music in the USA should enjoy a print monopoly on the public domain Koechlin works they have brought back into print in the last two decades - in several cases when the titles had been unavailable form the original publishers for decades? Or is your advocacy for publishers' print monopolies strictly limited to those that result in royalties for you?
@Mapichleko:
Just a short clarification, because you are worried about hidden IP-numbers: imslp does not restrict access according to IP-number. Instead downloads of works that are free in Canada but still under copyright in the US are blocked completely, to all visitors to the site!
So the Koechlin Septet cannot be accessed via imslp, from anywhere in the world (until Jan. 1, 2021, when it will become available via on imslp-eu).
Copyrights, like other patents, originally existed for the benefits of the inventors and their descendants, again as a limited (though sometimes considerable) protection to foster creativity; or so I gather. Publishers might enter into it but secondarily... (yeah yeah, welcome to bizarroworld- thank you, already have my passport.)
Fascinating reading, this fiery thread. The subject of copyrights on typesetting were touched upon -- something I was unaware of. Would someone please explain what copyrights exist on typesetting in the 3 regimes (terms, conditions, etc.)? Or point me to a link which deals with the topic.
As far as I understand, this has less to do with the term of copyright and more to do with the threshold of originality that exists in each separate country. Copyright on typesets would exist in countries that have a low thresholds of originality, but most probably not in countries with high thresholds of originality.
As such, there will be far more than the 3 major regimes to consider. Case law would enter in here, which makes this a grey area in any country that just hasn't had any cases yet to set the precedent for interpreting their law.
steltz wrote:Copyright on typesets would exist in countries that have a low thresholds of originality, but most probably not in countries with high thresholds of originality.
Which of course is assuming the typeset in question didn't involve any originality on the editor's part - just a straight engraving, potentially with minor new things like a slightly different layout, measure numbers, etc.
For the second time in a week, I am confused by the term "threshold of originality." Who determines where this threshhold begins? -- in the US, for example. On what standards in law is this "threshhold of originality" based, specifically with respect to music? Do these standards appear explicitly stated in US Copyright laws? Who judges originality?
This reminds me of the quote attributed to Willie Nelson: "Par is whatever I say it is."
I would like to open an new thread for this, since we are no longer on uploading, but on typesetting. First, I will answer this and let it stay here for a couple of days so everyone sees that it will move.
Laws outline the basics, but interpretation, which is where "threshold of originality" would be decided, is determined by case law -- the actual court cases and the decisions the judges make.
A judge would have to look at an edition or arrangement and decide how much originality went into it. There are widely varying approaches to this worldwide. Some countries have such a high threshold of originality that a very scholarly urtext edition wouldn't qualify for copyright because the editor put the piece back the way the composer had it in the first place, and that wouldn't be deemed original to the editor -- so he wouldn't qualify for copyright protection.
In some other countries, the opposite is the case -- the court apparently looks at how much time went into the edition, not necessarily how original the effort was. It would be in these countries that pure typesets with no alterations to the composer's original would probably be protected.
Finally, one of the reasons this is such a grey area is that most people won't spend hundreds of thousands testing this stuff in court. It's cheaper just to buy the edition.
Mark, to get down to the specifics you need, perhaps you could say why you are asking? Is it something you want to publish, or is it something you want to post at IMSLP? If the latter, the copyright reviewers can tell you what they will allow, and they will most probably only be interested in the PD status of your source, if you are uploading your new edition/typeset under a CC license. If it's the former, you might only need to look at what country you would be publishing in, and then ask if anyone here can tell you about the threshold of originality for that country.