IMSLP Forums

(English translation see below)

Sehr geehrte Administratoren,
heute fand ich bei IMSLP meine Fassung des Klavierquartetts von Gustav Mahler, siehe http://www.imslp.org/wiki/Piano_Quartet ... _Gustav%29
Die PDF-Datei trägt meinen Namen als Bearbeiter und die Herkunfts-Bezeichnung www.pian-e-forte.de
Hochgeladen hat diese Datei Eduardo Galiano Knob. Er hat von mir dafür nicht die Erlaubnis, und ich bitte die Datei unverzüglich zu löschen, sie ist nicht Public domain, das Copyright an dieser Fassung liegt allein bei liegt bei mir.
Sollten noch mehr PDF-Dateien von pian-e-forte bei IMSLP zu finden sein, so weise ich darauf hin, daß nur solche Dateien public domain sein können, die ich selbst vielleicht einmal hochladen werde, dann aber unter meinem wirklichen Namen als User-Namen. Da ich das bisher nicht getan habe, gibt es also bisher keine, die legal wären, und ich bitte Sie, alle Dateien umgehend zu löschen, falls sie weitere finden.

Dear adminstrators,
today I found my version of Gustav Mahler's piano quartet at IMSLP, see http://www.imslp.org/wiki/Piano_Quartet ... _Gustav%29
The PDF file shows my name as the editor und originates from www.pian-e-forte.de
The file was uploaded by Eduardo Galiano Knob. He was not allowed to do so, and I ask you to remove this file immediately, it's not public domain, I'm the only owner of the copyrigth of this version.
If there should be more PDF files from pian-e-forte.de, I have to state that only those files can be public domain, which I perhaps will upload in future, and then I will do so with my real name as a user name (Joerg Gedan). As I haven't done so until now, there are no pian-e-forte files at IMSLP that could be legal, and I have to ask you to remove them, if you find some.

Jörg Gedan
http://www.pian-e-forte.de

Hello, Jörg!

I have placed the files under copyright review, and (since your claim seems to be legitimate) they should be removed shortly.

Thanks!

Geoff

I deleted the file, as you say you are the copyright owner of your version. But I have to ask you, did you make considerable modifications to the original publication? If you didn't, I'm not sure that you can claim copyright!

But don't worry, we respect your work, and want to live in peace with all typesetters .

Please accept our apologies for uploading your work. We try to review all submissions, but we cannot control every move of our users!

Thank you Peter for removing the file... I've been meaning to do this but never got around to do a real copyright review on it (rather busy the last few weeks, and will be busy for a few more weeks to come, though hopefully that should end soon).

Also thanks Emeraldimp for notifying everyone of this on the wiki

And Joerg, I apologize for this issue, though as Peter said, we try our best to review the submissions, but sometimes files that shouldn't be on IMSLP slip through the cracks. But in any case I hope everything is fine now

Edit (feldmahler): Oops... I mistakenly clicked "edit" instead of "quote", and so end up erasing your post... Sorry! If you want you can summarize the points you made here in a new post below. Sorry again!

"But in any case I hope everything is fine now"
If you removed the file, everything is fine now. And if you ever find any other files of pian-e-forte.de that weren't uploaded by myself, please remove them as well.

Certainly. If we miss any, just give us a shout and we'll remove it.

Sorry, am I missing something?
In the previous post I find a quotation of something I said and an answer to this of someone else. This is not my post. If there was any reason why you edited it, please let me know. If you wanted to delete my post, please do so, you are not obliged to publish my statements. But editing my post and still calling me the sender is a very strange and unacceptable behaviour.

Joerg Gedan
http://www.pian-e-forte.de

Coincidence. In the moment I posted I saw your explanation. Sorry. This is what I said:

"But I have to ask you, did you make considerable modifications to the original publication?"
Yes. I edited the piano part so that it is readable and playable, which is not the case in the original manuscript, that never was finished by Mahler and never was prepared by him for publication. The only publication I know about is from Sikorski, Germany, and it is as unreadable and unplayable as Mahler's manuscript.

"If you didn't, I'm not sure that you can claim copyright!"
Sorry, this is wrong, it is MY typesetting, and I never allowed anybody to publish my work on his own.

"But in any case I hope everything is fine now"
If you removed the file, everything is fine now. And if you ever find any other files of pian-e-forte.de that weren't uploaded by myself, please remove them as well.

Thanks,
Joerg Gedan
http://www.pian-e-forte.de

I think that Herr Gedan's copyright claim is a perfectly legitimate one. The Piano Quintet, a student work of Mahler's, was not published until many years after his death (in the 1960s or 70s). While the manuscript itself is public domain, the work is in a fairly rough state and absolutely requires serious editing to be performable at all. Basically, any version of it one encounters that is less than 25 years old is protected worldwide. I note that the piece has already been removed. (Thanks, Emeraldimp.)

Our apologies, Herr Gedan. As our administrator mentioned, people sometimes post items like these and we don't discover it for some time, despite our best efforts to keep track of this. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Best of luck with your edition.

Hmm, I was under the impression that it was sufficient to transcribe it to be eligible for copyright, at least in the US, since it involves at least a modicum of creativity in deciding the appropriate layout, if not other things, unlike scanning, where there is no real choice at all.

Hi Emeraldimp! It's sort of complicated because it has to do with case law, and the various decisions over the years pertaining to the standard of "originality" of contributions to a derivative work based upon a public domain original. A mere re-engraving of a PD original would most likely not qualify for copyright protection under US law.

There's a lawyer's website with an online version of the actual regulations used by copyright office examiners to determine whether or not they'll even accept a registration. Simple transposition does not qualify, nor does re-engraving with zero changes. In other words, something original (however minimal) must be added. BTW, I seem to recall that the German law only grants the 25-year term if the edition in question contains new discoveries or incorporates material not found in earlier versions. Dover won a massive German court case in the 1980s over the issue of the status of engravings.

Carolus wrote:Hi Emeraldimp! It's sort of complicated because it has to do with case law, and the various decisions over the years pertaining to the standard of "originality" of contributions to a derivative work based upon a public domain original. A mere re-engraving of a PD original would most likely not qualify for copyright protection under US law.

... wow. I have previously operated under the assumption that mere re-engraving could constitute copyright... guess I'm wrong.

Carolus wrote:Simple transposition does not qualify, nor does re-engraving with zero changes. In other words, something original (however minimal) must be added.

Ok, but what qualifies as 'something original'? Tweaking the layout to allow for better page turns? Adding measure numbers? Creating parts from a score? Translating text? I can re-engrave with zero changes to the musical data, but not to the layout, spacing, etc. And how do you prove that nothing was added without having access to the edition the engraver was using?

Actually, I was thinking about this, and wondered whether you meant Dover-like (i.e. near exact replica) reprinting when you said "reengraving"? Or did you mean any reengraving of the same piece of music with no notes/expressions added/removed?

EmeraldImp writes: Ok, but what qualifies as 'something original'? Tweaking the layout to allow for better page turns? Adding measure numbers? Creating parts from a score? Translating text? I can re-engrave with zero changes to the musical data, but not to the layout, spacing, etc. And how do you prove that nothing was added without having access to the edition the engraver was using?

The only thing in your list would be translating text from one language to another. Other examples would be continuo realizations, adding slurs, dynamics, articulations, fingerings. Also, works are eligible to be copyrighted as an "original compilation" if there is added material like prefaces and footnotes, or if the components are arranged in an original sequence. The originality standard for music is fairly strict in the US. In one of the more notorious court cases, the musical changes in chorus parts required to accomodate a PD English translation of an original PD Russian text were held to be insufficiently original to warrant a copyright claim. Layout, spacing, etc. all fall under the category of "mere typographical variation" and thus not the subject of copyright. Under this doctrine, any improvement that could be made by a reasonably schooled musician that would be substantially the same regardless of which musician did it lacks sufficient originality to warrant a claim of copyright. Other courts have been a bit more generous in the interpretation of "originality." The originality standard hasn't been fully addressed by the Supreme Court, though some decisions have touched upon it. If anything were actually at trial, any source editions would be compared measure for measure and note for note in the discovery process.

When I refer to a re-engraving, I am talking about a complete re-typesetting of the music, with no musical differences whatever between the new score and a PD source score. Kalmus, Luck's and Dover's photographical reduction or enlargements of PD scores are reprints, not re-engravings. Once changes are made, no matter how insignificant (except for mechanical changes like transposition, which can be done correctly only one way), it becomes a new edition, and thus theoretically protectable by copyright. There are actually not very many re-engravings out there, strictly speaking. Almost any new edition is going to be just that - a new edition - to one degree or another, though the current ideal of a critical edition somewhat flies in the face of this concept from a legal point of view. Again, it really hasn't been fought out that extensively in US courts.