IMSLP Forums

This thread is inspired by the following question by the anonymous donor (who is planning to do another scan of Haydn 104):

The score is published by Kalmus under the Kalmus classic edition series. I'm sure it is a reprint of the Boosey and Hawkes score because of the engraving and layout (cf. Haydn symphonies published by Boosey in Variations Project). Since Kalmus reprinted it, I assume it is PD. Furthermore, at the bottom of the first page, the name "Belwin Mills" is printed.

However, I have a few concerns. The fact that Kalmus reprinted it makes the score PD in the US. But what about Canada? If rules pertaining to time of composer's death, then it is PD in Canada. But what about the editor? I'm sure an edition by Boosey has to be edited by someone, and I think the original Boosey edition is published in the 40s or 50s. Since it does not say in the edition, we have no idea who the editor is and when is their time of death. If they died less than 50 years ago, will this affect the PDness of the score in Canada? I somehow feel despite being reprinted by Kalmus, we should thread carefully less the editor comes out of the blue and challenge IMSLP. I really do not want that to happen.

In addition to his question, I would like to ask some more general questions regarding copyright editors and publishers.

1. Do publishers have copyright *at all* by themselves? Or is it copyrighted purely through the editor/composer's copyright?
2. Is a significant editor (as in, significant enough to warrant copyright protection) usually (as in, near 100%) identified on the score? Are most scores without identified editors that way because the editing is too insignificant, or do some publishers just like to hide editor names?
3. Is there a precedent (in any country) for the claiming of public domainness on a publication without identified editor, but with significant editing, on the grounds that the editor is unidentified (not publicly known)? I ask this because I'm not sure what constitutes "public knowledge", though I know there is such a clause in Canadian copyright law, which grants only a publication+50 copyright to unidentified authors.

First of all, the Boosey score itself is most likely a reprint of Eulenburg, as a significant number of the "Hawkes Pocket Scores" series issued by them is, especially when it's a composer like Haydn, Beethoven, Brahms, etc. Chances are that Kalmus/Belwin and Boosey reprinted the same Eulenburg score.

Boosey may have first reprinted this score in the 1940s, but the chances are that Eulenburg actually issued it first in the 1920s. About 2/3 of the Eulenburg catalog was already in print by the time they moved to London in 1938. Up to that point, they were in Leipzig, and all the work issued there fell under the 25-year urtext rule, with the exception of a few original works and some licensed reprints from other publishers.

Britain (Eulenburg's HQ from 1938 on) has its own version of the 25-year rule, referred to as a "typographical copyrght." I gather that this basically means the same thing as that for an urtext edition under the German statute. In other words, unless the editor in question has contributed something original apart from the preface, it's 25 years since it's little more than a re-engraving, correction of mistakes, eliminating older editorial accretions, etc.

Other questions:

1. Do publishers have copyright *at all* by themselves? Or is it copyrighted purely through the editor/composer's copyright?

No, unless it's a case of an editor who worked anonymously as an employee of the publisher. A publisher cannot validly claim a copyright just because they reprint some score and put their imprint upon it, add their own plate number, etc. Another exception to this rule would appear to be France, where publishers have some sort of claim to their printing over and above the composer or editor's copyright claim. One never sees French publishers reprinting PD works of other publishers unless the older publisher is long defunct.

2. Is a significant editor (as in, significant enough to warrant copyright protection) usually (as in, near 100%) identified on the score? Are most scores without identified editors that way because the editing is too insignificant, or do some publishers just like to hide editor names?

Not always. One thing that causes a great deal of confusion are the reprint houses - Kalmus, Belwin, etc. - who strip off editor's names and any other identifying things when they reprint a score. This is made easier, of course, when the original publisher confined the editor's credit to the title page, the preface, etc. instead of including it on the first page of music - which forces the reprinter to check the copyright status more carefully. Kalmus, et al usually will not bother to remove an editor's name that appears on the music itself - though it has taken place on occaision. This is one of the reasons that pagination and plate numbers are so important. It's often possible to indentify a Kalmus reprint if they were sloppy (often the case in the pre-1972 era) and a) used the original page numbers and page layout; b) inadvertently left a plate number or two somewhere in the score.

3. Is there a precedent (in any country) for the claiming of public domainness on a publication without identified editor, but with significant editing, on the grounds that the editor is unidentified (not publicly known)? I ask this because I'm not sure what constitutes "public knowledge", though I know there is such a clause in Canadian copyright law, which grants only a publication+50 copyright to unidentified authors.

I don't really know, to tell you the truth. The biggest potential pitfall in taking such a stand would be if one ran into a case where there was indeed an editor involved - but he worked anonymously as an employee of the publisher, who claimed the copyright on his editorial work. The publisher could then point to their claim as a new edition that was prepared for them as a "work made for hire." At that ppoint, you start comparing the edition note for note against a source you know is public domain.

Thanks for the info!