Existing upload for Cui's "A Argenteau"

[Lyle Neff]

Today I checked out the edition of
A Argenteau (9 pieces for piano) and noticed that the edition uploaded is very recent (1988) -- it is also a new engraving, compared to the original 19th c. edition. I placed a note on the Talk page for that work to ask for a copyright review of this 1988 edition.

Is this forum the most direct way to ask for a copyright review? If so, it's rather cumbersome. Would someone please consider creating a more direct method that would be available from the main IMSLP page? Thanks. ln

[Yagan Kiely]

Personally, although slightly less direct, this method of requests or suggestions (or anything) is better purely because it means involvement by the IMSLP community and helps strengthen that. It builds the community let's everyone get to know each other better. While not as formal, it is bettering each other and the site.

IMHO...

[Carolus]

Hi, I just looked at this. It appears to be a late Muzika production (1988 seems about right) - probably from a collected volume of Cui's piano works. Mcroskell mistook the 13000 plate number plus the Russian typography for Jurgenson, an easy enough mistake to make since Muzgiz/Muzika, et al literally took over Jurgenson's entire engraving and printing plant in Moscow - down to the engraver's punches.

We've been operating on a two-tier system for Muzika publications as regards copyright status:

1. Works of Soviet era composers who died after 1957 are considered to be under copyright protection. This rule also applies to transcriptions and arrangements of older composers.

2. Editions of older works (like Cui) produced up to the end of the Soviet era are considered fair game, since their copyright status in Russia itself is dubious at best. (A quick perusal of several Russian sites like Tarakanov's will show that thre is apparently little regard for concepts like copyright in Russia.) Under Soviet law they may have been entitled to a 25-year term (like that in Germany), but even that is questionable.

[Peter]

Is this forum the most direct way to ask for a copyright review? If so, it's rather cumbersome. Would someone please consider creating a more direct method that would be available from the main IMSLP page? Thanks. ln

Tagging for copyright review is reserved for administrators. I agree that for example the talk page of the work is indeed the most logical place to discuss the copyright peculiarities. Community discussion on talk pages of rather unremarkable pages has never been a success, since only people with this page on their watchlist will notice your comments. Even frequently visited pages have lost their talk page value to the forum.

[Lyle Neff]

Is this forum the most direct way to ask for a copyright review? If so, it's rather cumbersome. Would someone please consider creating a more direct method that would be available from the main IMSLP page? Thanks. ln

Tagging for copyright review is reserved for administrators. I agree that for example the talk page of the work is indeed the most logical place to discuss the copyright peculiarities. Community discussion on talk pages of rather unremarkable pages has never been a success, since only people with this page on their watchlist will notice your comments. Even frequently visited pages have lost their talk page value to the forum.

Thanks for the responses.

According to my information (from library catalogues, interlibrary loan, etc.), the original edition of "A Argenteau" was not published by Jurgenson (if ever by them), but by W. Bessel, [1888] (49 p., pl.no. 2204-2212). The book that the currently uploaded edition comes from is a collection of piano music by "the Five," entitled "Sochineniia," and constitutes a new engraving, a new edition of the music. All I can say is, I would not have uploaded or approved it.

Perhaps as an adjunct to administrator-only tagging, there should be an ever-present link on work-articles that sends a message to the administrators about a copyright problem. Going through the forum is an extra hurdle to alert the powers-that-be concerning something as important as copyright.

I realize that there are many other Soviet editions on IMSLP. I'm no lawyer, but as for Soviet copyright, if Wikipedia's article is accurate, the legality of uploading the 1988 edition (a "work," IMHO) of "A Argenteau" should be at least in question:

• "In a ruling in 2006, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation confirmed the retroactivity of the 1993 law, explaining that it placed even works under copyright again if their old, Soviet 25-year term had already expired. Under the 1993 copyright law, all Russian or Soviet works from the RSFSR published in 1943 or later, as well as works of authors who died in 1943 or later, became thus copyrighted in Russia in 1993."

The Tarakanov argument is not valid. To treat this kind of matter with a term like "fair game" is troubling as well.

Perhaps a new template needs to be created for IMSLP that explains how EU, Canada, USA, etc. treat current Russian copyright law.

[imslp]

I don't know if you considered the fact that there simply may not be a copyright owner anymore? The original copyright owner would have been USSR, but it no longer exists. It'd be different with composers (as they are not hired by the government), but surely with Muzika things are different, as they *were* a USSR government organization.

Also, regarding the copyright status with composers, we are basically going on the Canadian life+50 law, hence Russian law is irrelevant here.

Regarding alerting admins... just think of the forum link as the "ever-present link" Unless you can imagine a system much easier to use than the forum, which I can't... because basically you'd have to do the same thing (i.e. write about the reason you are doubting the copyright status of a publication).

[Carolus]

The legal doctrines that lie behind the approval of a 1988 Muzika edition are this:

1. Originality. This score is most likely a re-engraving of a work that is unambiguously public domain itself. Cui died in 1918 and the work in question was published well over 50 years ago (in 1888). It is thus quite unlikely that the excerpt in question meets the originality requirement (established in case law and by statute) for a creative contribution on the editor's part to qualify for copyright protection under both Canadian and US copyright laws. Even those few countries which recognize a copyright term for typographic arrangement (Germany and the UK being the most prominent examples) do so for a limited term of 25 years.

2. Government publications. The publisher, Muzika, was a department of the Soviet government. Government publications are not subject to copyright in many countries. Added to this is the fact that Muzika (the department of the USSR agency) ceased to exist after 1991 along with the parent entity the USSR. We have blocked all post 1990 Russian publications, BTW, since Muzika was apparently acquired by a private partnership of some sort.

Moreover, it is entirely possible that any copyright claim for the 1988 work was soley on the basis of an original compilation. Reproducing an excerpt from a compilation of public domain works by public domain composers does not violate the copyright claim on the compilation, though reprinting the volume verbatim and selling it on Amazon may very well do so.

I've tried to strike a balance here in regards to the Soviet publications in making sure that no works of Shostakovich, Kabelevsky and other Soviet era composers under copyright due to restoration under GATT (in the USA) or through other treaties and court decisions (Canada) are posted here on the one hand while being fairly lenient with regard to urtext-type editions issued by the defunct State Publishing House. The Tarakanov site does have some relevance insofar as it is a site hosted in Russia which would theoretically have the authority to prevent him from posting items there that were not PD in Russia itself.

Feldmahler, what's your take on this? Should we impose a 25-year term like we do with German editions of this type? That would limit items to those published before 1982, which would still include the vast majority of Muzika's output. I've set forth my reasoning, and welcome further discussion.

[imslp]

Feldmahler, what's your take on this? Should we impose a 25-year term like we do with German editions of this type? That would limit items to those published before 1982, which would still include the vast majority of Muzika's output. I've set forth my reasoning, and welcome further discussion.

Like Lyle said, the retroactivity of the 1993 law is confirmed in 2006 (if we are to believe Wikipedia). This would essentially mean that all copyrighted (and enforcible) works which originally had pub+25 now automatically have life+70/pub+70. Since we have stated our case for the public domainness of the majority of Muzika publications on the grounds of 1. non-creativity, and 2. non-enforcement, it would be inconsistent of us to turn back and grant a pub+25 term to the publications, which would seem to be an acknowledgment of copyright on our part (and thus in opposition to our conclusion above). Therefore I would propose that all USSR-era Muzika publications be treated as public domain, as long as the composer/arranger died more than 50 years ago.

Hope this explanation is acceptable

[Lyle Neff]

I'm sorry if I didn't make this clear earlier, but here is the reason why I consider bringing up Tarakanov, et al., as irrelevant to the issue: If non-enforcement by Country 1 (or its private agents) of its own copyright law provides a valid reason for Country 2 (or its private agents) not to respect copyright from Country 1, then Country 2 (or its private agents) would have no cause to complain when Country 1 (or its agents) does not respect copyright from Country 2.

I should have asked earlier also where the following rule comes from: "Works of Soviet era composers who died after 1957 are considered to be under copyright protection." Is that part of GATT or other treaties?

Although I have many Soviet scores and books myself (by pre-1957 deceased persons), I won't scan and upload them -- certainly not without a clear IMSLP template regarding treatment of Soviet scores as affected by current Russian law.

[Carolus]

The 1957 rule is due to Canadian copyright law, which has a term of life-plus 50 years for the last surviving author. While Prokofiev (d.1953), is largely (all works first pub. 1923 and later) under copyright in the USA, all works published in his lifetime and before 1957 are public domain in Canada, which is where the main server of IMSLP is located. Works first published after the author's death are protected for 50 years from publication in Canada.

As for the US copyright status of Muzika editions: Dover, Kalmus, and Lucks - the three major reprint houses in the USA - all reprint Muzika editions from the 1960s, 70s and 80s to this day despite the GATT/TRIPs amendments which caused them to stop reprinting works of Prokofiev and Shostakovich. The roster of NIEs (Notices of Intent to Enforce restored copyrights) only includes original works plus a select few transcriptions and arrangements. This is likely due to the fact that such editions were public domain in their country of origin and thus ineligible for restoration under GATT/TRIPs. The Russian law and court ruling cited in Wikipedia may apply to original works only, not to the vast number of Urtext-type editions of older works produced by Muzika. Even if such editions are restored in Russia thanks to the 2003 ruling, they were public domain when the NIE window closed (1998) and not eligible for restoration in the US, which means that any Muzika edition published without a copyright notice or with an improper notice before March 1989 (the vast majority thereof) is public domain in the US. Those published from 1923-1977 would be governed by provisions of the 1909 US law, and those published 1978-1988 would be ruled by the pre-1989 version of the present US law.