IMSLP Forums

This issue came up on another post but I thought it deserved it's own topic just so everyone is aware.

Some WIMA works that users are uploading of their own contain or may contain text from copyright sources and the uploaders may not be aware that they have to get permission to use non-PD texts in their works. Just one example: http://imslp.org/wiki/Apolitical_Intell ... rederic%29.

The poem is by a Guatelmalan revolutionary and while I don't think the estate of a Marxist revolutionary is going to pursue legal action against using his poems (oh the irony if they did), I worry about the composer who writes a piece borrowing text by Jimmy Hendrix and getting IMSLP into hot water.

Basically I don't think we should assume that composers who upload their own works from WIMA have permission to use text unless they explicitly say so on the piece somewhere. Although even still I don't know if IMSLP can say it's absolved of responsibility for publishing copyrighted text if the composer claims they got permission but actually didn't. We don't usually have this problem because all the texts here are PD but adding WIMA is going to complicate that. In any case, I don't think we should assume WIMA did a good enough job policing this on their own.

Thoughts?

I would agree. It is not safe to assume anyone else did the appropriate checking, and I think works like this need to be blocked until the composer/arranger proves he has permission according to IMSLP standards.

[Edit] Just saw this oneL http://imslp.org/wiki/Nothing_Changes_% ... rederic%29

The author of the text died in 1955. Then there's also http://imslp.org/wiki/Pablo_Neruda_in_E ... rederic%29

and Neruda died in 1973.

steltz wrote:I would agree. It is not safe to assume anyone else did the appropriate checking, and I think works like this need to be blocked until the composer/arranger proves he has permission according to IMSLP standards.

Since he is registered with BMI, I still highly doubt that he does not have permission to use the text. However, to be on the safe side, I've blocked the two files you mentioned and will email him asking if he has permission - unless Reccmo can comment on WIMA's process for checking these things?

unless Reccmo can comment on WIMA's process for checking these things?

Well, I just don't think it's enough to take WIMA's word on things. If something is on IMSLP it needs to be properly vetted because if someone sends us papers we can't say "oh but WIMA said it was fine." In the particular case I used the composer may have permission since he is signed with BMI or whatever, but I'm more worried about the scenario in general where we are hosting files "assuming" people have permission for using text. I really think we need a legal opinion as to who is at fault if someone claims copyright on a text on IMSLP. Maybe having "Text used with permission by ..." isn't enough - maybe we need something in writing from the author, I don't have any idea, but these are issues that actual publishing companies have to check out and now that we are "publishing" a large volume of non-PD music I really think this needs to be treated with much more gravity. And vetted more thoroughly.

However, to be on the safe side, I've blocked the two files you mentioned and will email him asking if he has permission

Do you know if that's enough? I don't know if getting the author to say "yeah I have permission" shields us or if there is something specific we need to do. I think every WIMA file with copyright text should be blocked until there is some way to be sure we won't get in hot water about it. That said, someone needs to go back through all the recently uploaded WIMA files and check them to block the potentially problematic ones as the examples provided so far were found at random.

icactus wrote:Well, I just don't think it's enough to take WIMA's word on things. If something is on IMSLP it needs to be properly vetted because if someone sends us papers we can't say "oh but WIMA said it was fine." In the particular case I used the composer may have permission since he is signed with BMI or whatever, but I'm more worried about the scenario in general where we are hosting files "assuming" people have permission for using text. I really think we need a legal opinion as to who is at fault if someone claims copyright on a text on IMSLP. Maybe having "Text used with permission by ..." isn't enough - maybe we need something in writing from the author, I don't have any idea, but these are issues that actual publishing companies have to check out and now that we are "publishing" a large volume of non-PD music I really think this needs to be treated with much more gravity. And vetted more thoroughly.

However, to be on the safe side, I've blocked the two files you mentioned and will email him asking if he has permission

Do you know if that's enough? I don't know if getting the author to say "yeah I have permission" shields us or if there is something specific we need to do. I think every WIMA file with copyright text should be blocked until there is some way to be sure we won't get in hot water about it. That said, someone needs to go back through all the recently uploaded WIMA files and check them to block the potentially problematic ones as the examples provided so far were found at random.

Well, it really isn't any different from the process we already use to confirm permission for items under copyright, including text used by our resident composers. We have a legal disclaimer for this very purpose:

BY SIGNING BELOW, I, THE UPLOADER AND/OR SUBMITTER, ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE PERMISSION FROM THE COPYRIGHT OWNER(S) (WHICH MAY INCLUDE MYSELF) TO LICENSE THE FILE(S) UPLOADED AND/OR SUBMITTED UNDER THE FOLLOWING LICENSE: (click for legal text). FOR VIDEO FILES, I ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE THE PERMISSION OF ALL PERSONS SHOWN IN THE VIDEO FOR NON-EXCLUSIVE DISTRIBUTION OF THE VIDEO AS PERMITTED BY THE LICENSE ABOVE. THESE FILE(S) WILL BE SO LICENSED AFTER I SIGN BELOW. I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS LICENSING IS IRREVOCABLE, AND I INDEMNIFY IMSLP / PETRUCCI MUSIC LIBRARY AND PROJECT PETRUCCI LLC AGAINST ANY AND ALL DAMAGES FROM ANY COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT OR LAWSUITS ARISING FROM MISSING/INCOMPLETE PERMISSIONS DUE TO THE UPLOADED FILE(S).

So, as you see, the uploader has effectively signed an agreement that s/he has permission to post the copyright-protected file to IMSLP (this appears whenever you upload something under a CC license and requires you to enter your name as a signature). Now, this is not always the case, and we usually check for permission when something by a well-known author (like Neruda) is used, as it is much less likely that the composer actually has permission. This is how the copyright reviewers have run the site for years - and think about it, is it really practical to demand paper documentation of every instance of confirmation of permission that we deal with? I mean, we're talking thousands and thousands of files affected here, and if we really want to move in that direction then we had better shut down the site for a few weeks while we sort it out (because that's the kind of operation it would have to be). I'm not trying to come across as over the top here, but really, at this point there is little reason to panic over this. We'll keep a watch out for any composers not signed with performing rights societies who've set copyrighted text, though.

ok - that legal disclaimer makes sense. I upload so many files that I don't even notice it's there any more I wasn't really suggesting paper documenting - just curious how we were covered for works that are not PD and the legal disclaimer makes that pretty clear. I know the recent decision Google v whoever-it-was said it's not the responsibility of the sight to stop every single infringement as long as they take action when informed so that obviously helps us. Thanks for explaining the procedure. Just looking out for the site.

icactus wrote:I upload so many files that I don't even notice it's there any more

Well, it only appears when you choose CC, so I'm not sure it would have even appeared for you anyway? I don't remember if you've uploaded any files like that

Just looking out for the site.

Hey, no problem It's actually good that people second-guess us, because we aren't infallible and might indeed be overlooking something. I daresay this isn't so likely on the legal front, though, bearing in mind our history

The legal disclaimer makes sense, but how does it work where someone from WIMA is uploading works that are not their own. If I remember correctly, Elaine Fine has been uploading Rzewski's works, not Rzewski himself, so in this case, the composer can't verify that he has permission and the uploader might be making assumptions herself.

In the case of Rzewski, who is somewhat of a well-known composer, I would be very surprised if he did not obtain permission to set these texts and publish them - but I've been surprised before by this sort of thing. We do need to find out.

Carolus wrote:In the case of Rzewski, who is somewhat of a well-known composer, I would be very surprised if he did not obtain permission to set these texts and publish them - but I've been surprised before by this sort of thing. We do need to find out.

OK, since we seem to be in agreement that permission should be established I'll drop him an email this morning about it.