Anonymous comment from French Wikipedia

[Leonard Vertighel]

Just FYI. Posting this here because it's mostly copyright related. This is a comment left by an anonymous person in the talk page of the French Wikipedia article on IMSLP. I tried to translate it, but I'm not a native speaker neither of French nor of English (and even less of legalese), and the language of the comment being somewhat convoluted didn't help either.

Several claims are downright false (or even libelous, so he'd better be careful - maybe that's why he didn't sign). I don't know if there are any valid points among them, nor am I sure whether it is better to ignore these ramblings or to post a reply.

Notes in square brackets are mine.

This project is very generous but its initiators are execrable falsifiers and I have noticed several infringements of the laws and uses/practices/customs[? - usages]:

1) Misappropriation of digitized files of national and university libraries among which Gallica.

2) Copying and hosting of files available on non-commercial sites like Werner-Icking which deprives the authors of these files of all further corrections. This is not admissible.

3) Illegitimate reproductions and thus falsifications of musical engravings published after 1920 which as such are protected, when the represented work no longer is. Reactions of harmed publishers are to be expected.

3) [sic] Theft of digitized files of works [d'oeuvres et d'ouvrages] which are certainly in the public domain but this does not mean that one is allowed to appropriate the labour of others in order to distribute it for free. If these servile works[? - travaux serviles] are not protected by the intellectual property, they are in France by ordinary property that is article 544 of the Code Civil which comprises as attribute a right on the image of every movable good. Now this right is ABSOLUTE and PERPETUAL (transmissible to the heirs)

Thus in several cases there is misappropriation of digitized files for commercial purposes, erasure[? - décompilations] and suppression of mention of origin (watermark) etc such that this Canadian site risks to be at the origin of dreadful perverse effects. In fact the publishers, [obnhubilés - this word does not exist] by the copyright laws, are not conscious of the possibilities offered by the article 544 (and its equivalents abroad) the application of which risks giving rise to abuses.

As ancient judicial expert and harmed publisher myself I have alerted the judicial service of the BN[?] and the publisher Leduc such that if the need arises pressure be exerted, namely in the diplomatic way so that the site be forced to abide by certain norms.

There is on the other hand a difference between the fact for and individual to obtain in Canada works the publication of which without permission of the rights holders would be liable of prosecution in Europe and the fact for a Canadian organization to use the internet to infringe the frontiers and laws of European countries in which the duration of post-mortem protection is of 85 years with the years of war against 50 years net in Canada by exporting still protected works. Internet will not provide indefinitely total impunity... And it is not because one provides works for free that one can exempt oneself from the applicable rules.

It must be added that the site does not supply much except quantity. It consists in fact of nothing but systematic looting of existing sites of which the major ones are known to the initiate. Ah it would be different if these people made the effort of scanning old printings.

But robbing the others and picking files without any authorization in order to redistribute the product of the robbery is "forced socialism". In short, there would be several things to say about this site...

Up to now, user "Chico" has posted this reply:

If you can provide verifiable proof and sources available for consultation (online or in newspapers) of what you are advancing, a more objective version of your remarks can be integrated into the article.

Anyway, don't let this distract you more than necessary from the absolutely great work you are doing.

[emeraldimp]

I suspect this is "Lalutine" that was blocked on the 22nd. Feldmahler, if you want to prepare a response, I'll help translate it for you.

[imslp]

Hi there Leonard! I am very glad that you noticed this I have been arguing with this person "Lalutine" via e-mail for several rounds (I translated his e-mails using babelfish lol). But in the end he completely lost the argument, and resorted to vandalsing IMSLP, and posting a hugely long blog entry in his blog (wow that must be half a doctorate thesis).

In any case, Emeraldimp, my response would be (and you can say on Wikipedia that this is coming from me):

Code: Select all

I have argued with this person regarding the copyright status of digitization over e-mail for quite a while. Even though he claims that IMSLP has infringed upon his copyright, he is unable to provide what exactly his copyright is when asked. Indeed, this person has failed to answer my last e-mail, in which I have given concrete evidence that digitization (scanning) of public domain works is NOT protected under copyright laws in Canada, and even in the US.

He has the blatant misconception that ANY sort of labour can be copyrighted. This is absolutely false in both the Canada and the US. The purpose of copyright is to give incentive for the advancement of the arts, and not to protect any sort of labour whatsoever. Indeed, as is well known among IP (intellectual property) lawyers, the "sweat of the brow" does NOT constitute copyright. Very specifically, digitization (scanning) of public domain works does NOT constitute copyright in Canada (as I will show with a link to the case precedent below). In order to be eligible for copyright, *creativity* is necessary, and not simply brute force.

In my last e-mail to him, I have given him links to the following sites (and case precedents) which very clearly lay out the stance of the copyright law with regards to manual labour.

Canada: http://www.casselsbrock.com/publicationdetail.asp?aid=557&pid=48

U.S.: http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/499_US_340.htm

I quote from the first URL: "The court reasoned that the 'sweat of the brow' approach resulted in too low a standard.  It shifts the balance of copyright protection too far in favour of the author's right and fails to allow copyright to protect the public's interest in maximizing the production and dissemination of intellectual works."

Similarly, IMSLP also seeks to allow more people to gain access to public domain musical scores, and thus promoting the enjoyment and advancement of the arts.  This is exactly why we have been providing public domain scores absolutely free of charge (we ourselves have to pay the server fees even!). We at the IMSLP will not change this goal just because someone calls us "thieves" or "looters" (and of course I fundamentally disagree with this accusation).

To answer his accusations, I believe I have shown 1 and 4 to be absolutely false. For 3, I welcome him to report this infringement to me, because I do not know of any. Also note that the term in Canadian copyright law is life+50, and NOT life+70 as is in France.

For 2, the WIMA maintainer has already contacted the uploader who submitted the files, and the uploader has since gotten written permission from the WIMA contributor. We apologize profusely for this; it happened because the uploader was not aware of WIMA's policies. However, this has since been corrected. 

I hope it's not too longwinded for you to translate ^^;;

[emeraldimp]

That's quite a bit, but I'll do my best! I'm working on it now, so maybe another hour or so. (I'll post it here first for anyone's review, and when I post it on wikipedia, I'll reference this post so folks can see the original english).

[emeraldimp]

Here it is, for your review:

Code: Select all

Je me suis disputé par email avec cette personne au sujet de la situation de la droit d'auteur de digitalisation pendant quelque temps.  Bien qu'il dit qu'IMSLP n'a pas respecté les droits d'auteur, il ne peut pas me dire ce que c'est, sa droit d'auteur, quand je lui a posé.  En fait, cette personne n'a même pas de repondé á mon dernier email, où je donne la preuve que la digitalisation (de scuter les documents) des ouvres à la domaine publique N'EST PAS protègé par la droit d'auteur en Canada, où même aux Etats-Unis.

Il a l'idée flagrant erronée que n'importe quelle genre de travail peut reçoit la droit d'auteur.  Ceci est absolument faux aux deux, Canada et les Etats-Unis.  Le but de la droit d'auteur est de donner motivation pour l'avancement des arts, et ne pas protèger n'import quelle genre de travail.  En fait, comme c'est bien connu avec des avocats du propriété intellectuelle, la <<sueur de son front>> ne constitue pas la droit d'auteur.  Particulièrement, la digitalisation des travails à la domaine publique ne constitue pas la droit d'auteur en Canada (comme je montrerais avec un lien plus bas).  Pour être éligible à la droit d'auteur, il faut avoir la créativité, pas seulement par la force.

Dans mon email dernier à lui, je lui ai donné ces liens (avec des précédents judiciaire) qui met très clairement la situation de la loi de la droit d'auteur en ce qui concerne la main-d'oeuvre.

Canada: http://www.casselsbrock.com/publicationdetail.asp?aid=557&pid=48

U.S.: http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/499_US_340.htm

Je cite la première: <<La cour a raisonné que la <sueur de son front> mèthode a résulté dans un critère trop bas. Il met la balance de la sauvegarde de la droit d'auteur trop fort pour l'auteur et échoue de permettre la droit d'auteur de protèger l'interêt de la publique en développer au maximum la production et en la dissémination des ouvres intellectuelles.>>

En façon similaire, IMSLP cherche à permettre plus de personnes d'avoir accès aux partitions musicales, et donc promouvoir le plaisir et avancement des arts. Ça, c'est exactement la raison pourquoi nous fournons les partitions de la domaine publique completement gratuit (nous payons les charges du serveur nous-même!).  Nous à l'IMSLP ne changerions pas ce objectif seulement quelqu'un nous appelle les <<voleurs>> où les <<pillards>> (et, bien sûr, je ne suis pas d'accord avec cette accusation).

De repondre à ses accusations, je cois que j'ai preuvé que 1 et 4 sont absolument faux.  En régards de 3, je lui invite de me le signaler, parce-que j'en ne connait pas.  Aussi, notez que, au Canada, la droit d'auteur et la vie + 50 ans, et N'EST PAS la vie + 70 ans, comme dans la France.

Pour 2, la personne qui maintiens le WIMA (Warner-Icking Music Archive) m'a déjà parlé à la personne qui a mit les fichiers au serveur, et cette personne a déjà reçu la autorisation du donateur du WIMA.  Nous nous confondrons pour ça; c'était parce-que le personne que les a mit au serveur ne connait pas des politiques de WIMA.  Mais, dans l'intervalle, nous l'avons corrigé.

EDIT: Nevermind, he was stirring up more trouble, so I posted it.

[imslp]

Thanks Emeraldimp! I really appreciate it. Let us hope this will stop him...

[Leonard Vertighel]

I think there are some mistakes in the French text. I have made some changes of which I'm pretty sure, leaving the rest untouched.

Notes: I don't know the verb "scuter", nor could I find it in any French dictionary - does it exist? The phrase "shifts the balance of copyright protection too far in favour of the author's right" turns out funny, because "copyright" is "author's right" in French anyway. Maybe the word "copyright" should not be translated here.

Je me suis disputé par email avec cette personne au sujet de la situation du droit d'auteur de digitalisation pendant quelque temps. Bien qu'il dise qu'IMSLP n'ait pas respecté les droits d'auteur, il ne peut pas me dire ce que c'est, son droit d'auteur, quand je lui ai demandé. En fait, cette personne n'a même pas répondu à mon dernier email, où je donne la preuve que la digitalisation (de scuter les documents) des œuvres dans le domaine publique N'EST PAS protégée par le droit d'auteur en Canada, ou même aux Etats-Unis.

Il a l'idée manifestement erronée que n'importe quel genre de travail soit soumis au droit d'auteur. Ceci est absolument faux en Canada aussi que dans les Etats-Unis. Le but du droit d'auteur est de donner motivation pour l'avancement des arts, et pas de protèger n'importe quel genre de travail. En fait, comme c'est bien connu par les avocats de la propriété intellectuelle, la «sueur du front» ne constitue pas le droit d'auteur. Particulièrement, la digitalisation des œuvres dans le domaine publique ne constitue pas le droit d'auteur en Canada (comme je montrerais avec un lien plus bas). Pour être éligible au droit d'auteur, il faut de la créativité, pas seulement de la force.

Dans mon dernier email à lui, je lui ai donné ces liens (avec des précédents judiciaires) qui exposent très clairement la situation de la loi du droit d'auteur en ce qui concerne la main-d'oeuvre.

Canada: http://www.casselsbrock.com/publication ... 557&pid=48

U.S.: http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/ca ... US_340.htm

Je cite la première: «La cour a raisonné que l'approche de la <sueur de son front> a résulté dans un critère trop bas. Il déplace la balance de la protection par le droit d'auteur trop au faveur des droits de l'auteur et échoue de permettre au droit d'auteur de protéger l'interêt du publique à maximiser la production et la dissémination des œuvres intellectuelles.»

Pareillement, IMSLP cherche à permettre à plus de personnes d'avoir accès aux partitions musicales, et donc promouvoir le plaisir et avancement des arts. Ça, c'est exactement la raison pourquoi nous fournissons les partitions dans le domaine publique complètement gratis (nous payons les charges du serveur nous-même!). Nous à l'IMSLP ne changerons pas ce objectif seulement parce que quelqu'un nous appelle des «voleurs» où des «pillards» (et, bien sûr, je ne suis pas d'accord avec cette accusation).

Pour répondre à ses accusations, je crois que j'ai prouvé que 1 et 4 sont absolument fausses. En régards de 3, je l'invite de me le signaler, parce-que j'en ne connais pas. Aussi, notez que, au Canada, le droit d'auteur est la vie + 50 ans, et N'EST PAS la vie + 70 ans, comme en France.

Pour 2, la personne qui maintient le WIMA (Warner-Icking Music Archive) a déjà contacté la personne qui a téléchargé les fichiers, et cette personne a déjà reçu l'autorisation du donateur du WIMA. Nous nous excusons pour ça; c'était parce-que la personne qui les a téléchargés ne connaissait pas les politiques de WIMA. Mais, dans l'intervalle, nous l'avons corrigé.

[emeraldimp]

Whoops, "scuter" should be "scruter". I noticed the bit about "author's right", but I decided I should remain consistent throughout the translation. Sorry about all the ou vs où... I always get those two mixed up. It looks like one of the french editors has cleaned it up, though (cripes, I'm making MORE work for MORE people, oy vey).

[imslp]

Hahaha... I think you did a great job I would have had to resort to Babelfish myself lol. As long as it makes sense to the French-speaking people I'd say you did a good enough job

[Carolus]

I'm not terribly surprised by this type of outburst. This is but another example of what I like to refer to as the "gatekeeper" mentality one runs across among some music publishers and librarians. In the orchestra world, there are legendary stories of certain notorious publishers conning a novice orchestra librarian into paying a huge rental fees for public domain works by convincing the newbie that they were somehow copyrighted. That doesn't happen any more in the larger orchestras!

I am not very familiar with the details of French copyright laws apart from the fact that they calculate terms on a basis of life plus 80 years. Perhaps his assertion about engravings being protected for 87 years is true, but that seems a bit unlikely in light of the general harmonization of copyright laws that came about as part of the EU project. Neighboring Germany grants a mere 25 years - and only if the new edition actually represents a discovery of hitherto unknown content. Dover won a huge case in the German supreme court over the protectability of music engravings about 20 years ago. Assuming that this charcter's assertion about engraving protection is true, I wonder who gets paid for the sales of public domain works by Debussy (who is public domain even in France)? Durand? The heirs of the engraver Charles Douin (who engraved many Debussy pieces for Durand)?

IMSLP is fortunate indeed to operate under a copyright law as straightforward and clear as the Canadian statute!

[emeraldimp]

I'm not terribly surprised by this type of outburst. This is but another example of what I like to refer to as the "gatekeeper" mentality one runs across among some music publishers and librarians. In the orchestra world, there are legendary stories of certain notorious publishers conning a novice orchestra librarian into paying a huge rental fees for public domain works by convincing the newbie that they were somehow copyrighted. That doesn't happen any more in the larger orchestras!

Very true! I often wonder why orchestra librarians don't have a better grounding in copyright law, considering how vital it can be to the orchestra. I think part of the problem, though, is that the rental houses tend to have one of a few (if not the only) sets of a public domain edition, from which they make a _new_ edition (eligible for copyright since they re-set it), that they only rent out and with fairly draconian limitations in the rental agreement so that no new editions can be made. D'Oyly Carte, for example. Most of the Gilbert and Sullivan operas should be PD in the US, but can you find an edition, with parts, that's not from D'Oyly? Not often, though fortunately Dover is changing some of that with actual _new_ editions (not PD, but better than nothing!), but they still don't have the parts. Grr. Anyway, sorry about the rant. Moving along...

IMSLP is fortunate indeed to operate under a copyright law as straightforward and clear as the Canadian statute!

Aye! I wish American copyright code were as straightforward, though the "pre-1923" clause is useful as well.

[imslp]

Aye! I wish American copyright code were as straightforward, though the "pre-1923" clause is useful as well.

I was actually asking an American copyright lawyer about some nuances of American copyright law, and was surprised that he didn't even know about what the 1923/1964/1978 dates mean (and had to look it up). I guess that sorta excuses the ignorance of orchestra librarians haha Though to be fair he said that he didn't specialize in that time period, but still...

[Carolus]

I'm not completely surprised that an American copyright lawyer would be unaware of some of the odd twists and turns of our copyright law. It really is amazingly convoluted. The area of 'orphan works' is a particularly complicated one. (Orphan works are works still under copyright where there is no apparent owner. This is partly the result of publisher abuse of the 'work made for hire' clause. If the copyright actually remained the author's it is less likely to happen.)

EmeraldImp, the D'Oyly Carte parts for the G & S works have been reprinted (for the most part) by the grandaddy of all reprint houses - E. F. Kalmus. Here's a listing: Site Link

The new Dover scores for the big three (Mikado, Pinafore, Pirates) are all very nice - newly engraved, too. As I understand it, the parts (also newly engraved) are available from MMB Music on rental, who are more reasonable than a lot of places about it. (They rent by the month, not by number of performances.)

Edit: I've edited the URL so that the entire thing doesn't show up, since it is fairly long and stretches the skin out of shape... --Feldmahler

[emeraldimp]

Hmm... where were you, Carolus, about 2 1/2 years ago when I needed them? Thanks for the pointer, though! The new Dover scores are indeed nice; I've got the Mikado, although there was one song that didn't match the parts we had (but I think they've fixed it in newer versions).

I've put a bug in the ear of the secretary of one of my orchestras about doing a copyright presentation for the orchestra, so maybe it'll happen soon! Assuming we can find someone we like/can afford...