I. Stravinsky, Suite No. 1 for Small Orchestra (1925)

[pseudoboarder]

I. Stravinsky, Suite No. 1 for Small Orchestra (1925)

It was alluded by daphnis this Suite was to be included in the Stravinsky Project.
It seems to have been missing from his/her upload - is this (still) copyright protected work?

I was tantalised by the prospect of parts for this rare miniature!

[daphnis]

Actually, these parts *were* included in the Orchestral Musicians CD-ROM set, however we found that they most likely included them in error in that they are probably still under copyright. We made an internal decision not to include those here at IMSLP based on our findings. And it's also worth noting that this first suite is not currently available from any major reprint house, which all but clinches it. Had it, in fact, been public domain, it would have almost certainly been made available from at least one company. It's fairly safe to say that it is currently protected in the United States because of this fact and by virtue of it having been published post-1923.

[m.kowalski49]

So what about those, who before, hav downloaded these from when you guys had these on the previous server on mediafire.com were those included then, and then removed based on your findings in order to host them on the US server?

Mk.49

[steltz]

Unfortunately, the fact that people were allowed access to the work because it was on the Orchestral Musicians CD-Rom Set doesn't make it legal for them to use it. If it is under copyright, then the use of it is illegal, whether they now have copies of it or not.

[Carolus]

This is one of several cases where the folks responsible for the "Orchestra Musician's CD-ROM Library" have a different interpretation of a work's USA copyright status than we do here. All cases like this are works whose first publication fell in the early to middle 1920s. Subito appears to be using a 'performance = publication' argument here (since most if not all of the works in question were either composed or performed before 1923 but not actually offered for sale until 1923 or later. The standard legal definition of "publication" in US case law does not equal performance, which is why you do not see the works reprinted by Dover or Kalmus. It is interesting that Boosey & Hawkes, the main publisher whose works fall in this category, have not taken any action I am aware of to stop the sale of these items. One case I can think of where something would be legally published in 1921 even if no score or parts were actually printed and made available until 1924 would be where the work in question was listed a) in a publisher's catalogue as being available (with a price, for example); or b) on listed as being available on the back panel of a copy of score that one could prove was actually printed in 1921 (as opposed it being on a 1924 printing of a score bearing a first-publication date of 1921). The act of offering a work for sale or rental is considered to be "publication", even if the actual availability or first sale did not take place until later.