DIAMM and IMSLP

[Olivier]

In this specific case, the self-proclaimed "guardians of the musical public domain" are actually preventing people from accessing "the musical public domain". They don't give any access that wasn't granted yet, and they prevent bigger and better access. Not only from DIAMM, which has about 25000 more scans of public domain works they might not publish, but also from others who were almost ready to give that same free access to other thousands of scans, and are now seriously reconsidering it. Not even talking about the part of "the musical public domain" that was freely accessible and which is not anymore thanks to the "guardians of the musical public domain"... luckily this is still pretty limited (about ~500 pages out of ~20000) but re-negociations are taking place so it still may get worst...

Please remember public domain doesn't mean public access. And even if I've been defending the "public domain" status of the pictures of DIAMM, I think there are smarter ways to "guard the musical public domain" than just copying and preventing lot of new old scores less accessible from entering...

[Carolus]

I actually altered our DIAMM template the other day in order to gather information on what we might actually have from there, and here's what pops up. At the very top of the list is a scan of a 1597 printed copy of Thomas Morley's book. This slope looks very slippery indeed.

Also, let's go back to an earlier quote from Andrew about the Eton Choirbook:

As I understand it, the presence of PDFs on IMSLP means that publication-quality images are now distributed outside of DIAMM, and therefore libraries, who have negotiated to maintain their restriction on publication, have no way to centrally manage how and where these images get published. Some of these libraries, especially those that hold popular manuscripts like the Eton Choirbook, depend on this income to support the cost of maintaining the objects in their collections: staff, equipment, etc. Not all of these libraries are state-supported, and even some that are state-supported barely get enough support to keep their doors open. This revenue stream is an important component of just keeping the doors open and the lights on. Absolutely nobody is lining their pockets here. This is a matter of survival. They don't have enough money to pursue legal action for "Ebay scammers", but they certainly do have a means of controlling access to these images before an image is captured.

These scans are really quite huge - almost at our file-limit size. From our point-of-view, it might be a good idea to re-process these into something smaller, like the JPEG 2000s used by archive.org. After all, the latest and greatest hi-speed access is not available worldwide. While I could understand that DIAMM or Eton College might be afraid of someone taking these and producing their own facsimile of the item, that would still be a very daunting task. The color-conversion work alone would be costly to do at a professional level. At 262 pages total, it would be pretty expensive to print at a decent trim-size as well. Besides it's in an odd landscape format (which also makes it more expensive). With all this in mind, I seriously doubt that Dover, Kalmus, etc. are going to bother with it - even with the officially-sanctioned facsimile selling for this price, which is pretty steep - but not altogether insane considering the nature of what is being reproduced.

How is "restriction on publication" different than "copyright"? The short answer is that there is no difference at all. Any library who demands "restriction on publication" of the works of authors dead for hundreds of years is demanding a perpetual copyright control over non-existent intellectual property. As we can see from the top of the list, this would not only cover manuscripts but even printed material. Basically, the demand being made (indirectly) by bureaucrats in Spanish libraries amounts to an abolition of public domain altogether. IMSLP is not the one restricting access to material here. DIAMM appears to be doing so under a contractual obligation, which is most unfortunate.

[Davydov]

I'm not sure the exact nature of the libraries' objections has been explained here. I can understand that they would welcome their valuable and fragile manuscripts being preserved in digital copies, as this protects the originals from being inspected and handled so frequently. They can then reduce the amount spent on facilities for access, security checks, etc., and know that in the unhappy event of a disaster, at least a high quality copy will be preserved.

If they have concerns about the scanned copies being sold by unscrupulous publishers for a profit, then surely the best safeguard against this is to have the scans distributed as widely and freely as possible, so that no-one would want to spend money on what they can readily see for free.

Libraries may have previously charged 'reproduction fees' for providing publication-quality images to potential publishers, but if these images have already been captured by DIAMM then no more copying from the original will be necessary, providing further savings on maintenance of copying facilities. Of they still felt that there was still money to be made from publishing items that were freely already on the website, then maybe DIAMM and the library could always corner the market by offering 'official' digital copies of manuscripts. (Strictly speaking wouldn't it would be DIAMM, as the 'publisher' who would be eligible for any such payments, rather than the library?)

There should be nothing here to prevent DIAMM in securing its noble objective of making previously inaccessible manuscripts accessible to the public at large. I'm led to believe that that the project is supported by grants, so it has the advantage of not being dependent upon subscriptions from users of the site, or on the number of 'hits' they receive.

Taking all this into account, wouldn't the inclusion of DIAMM images on websites such as IMSLP be beneficial all round, and not harmful to the interests of DIAMM or the participating libraries? But if I'm missing something then please set me straight.

[Olivier]

You don't need to convince us there should be completely free access to all public domain work, and libraries wouldn't have anything to loose with that situation. You need to convince the owner of the actual (and often unique) material incarnation of the works. This is exactly what' DIAMM is trying to do, very slowly but still much faster than what's ever been done. They try to do it step by step. You can of course say you don't care about what has been done, and they are too slow and pretend you don't care about what's still in the libraries, I'm not sure it will actually benefit anybody...

And about restricting access, please stop turning it around. We are not discussing about a theoretical situations. We are talking about actual actions and reactions, about actual causes and consequences. There was a situation with a library offering free access to thousands (and growing) of "public domain works" under very lightly limitative conditions. Some people decided this was outrageous and decided to "free" the pictures. The direct consequence of this was the limitation of the already available "public domain works" and the stopping of the growth. You could discuss forever about what's the original cause of the problem, there is still one specific action that resulted in a specific loss. Maybe the loss is insignificant for you compared to the good you think you do, you are still responsible for that (maybe insignificant) loss. And if DIAMM hadn't unfortunately accepted an access restriction, we would unfortunately not been discussing here since these works wouldn't have been made accessible to anybody.

Of course you can prefer no access at all than a (very lightly) limited access, but I'm not sure whether this can be seen as an improvement...

[Melodia]

Melodia: And if you're late paying a bill because a member of your family is sick, why should XYZ Corporation make an exception for you when you call them and plead for a bit more time?

It would be a sad state of affairs for IMSLP to be in the same league as Bell or British Telecom or AT&T, a faceless corporation that applies the rules and damn the actual consequences because of the attitude "why should I care? it's not my problem." Surely you don't actually mean that.

What does any of that have to do with my post?

[Feduol]

I'm happy to see this debate is bringing up important questions. Nobody here minimize the role of DIAMM to modern medieval musicology and its social importance to the public, but when one refers to IMSLP as a machine, it means for example that a 12 years old boy scanning from Beethoven's Pour Elise has the same consideration that DIAMM's files. Who is able to consider what is good reasons to a withdraw requirement? Where is the limit to consider it as good or not? And the uploaders who can't express yourself in a foreign language? How and to who they could make such requirement? To consider the possibility to remove each PD file from IMSLP is impracticable, that is the reason it works like a machine, to be just with everyone.

I've been thinking about this as well, but there are a few terms that we will need for us to consider this further:
1. The files currently available will remain available - IMSLP will not by its actions restrict access to any public domain material currently existing on IMSLP
2. DIAMM will have to proactively submit the files to be held in escrow by IMSLP (i.e. the ones that are not currently on IMSLP)
3. In the event DIAMM disables free access to any of the images at any time, IMSLP will immediately have an irrevocable right to make such images available on IMSLP as public domain material
4. The agreement will terminate and all the files will be fully available and accessible without restriction as public domain material on Jan. 1, 2030

I didn't think about it very well and I'm not totally convinced, but I do understand that the solution showed can be a pacific way with some considerations to both sides. Unfortunately, I don't see that DIAMM coordinators demonstrate some space to talk at this moment and I would be almost sure that they won't agree with the point 2. But it could severs to futures relations of others digital libraries with IMSLP as well. The user, for example, could inform an admin through a link if a score is no longer available.

P. D.: Carolus, the digitalization of Cancionero de Juana I de Castilla doesn't come from DIAMM, but from Royal Library of Belgium.

[Olivier]

Who is able to consider what is good reasons to a withdraw requirement?

The fact that the resource was already available to anybody without IMSLP and would still be, seems to me a very good reason...

Please stop pretending removing the copies from IMSLP would remove the access to the works. It's the exact opposite.

[Feduol]

Davydov wrote:
I'm not sure the exact nature of the libraries' objections has been explained here. I can understand that they would welcome their valuable and fragile manuscripts being preserved in digital copies, as this protects the originals from being inspected and handled so frequently. They can then reduce the amount spent on facilities for access, security checks, etc., and know that in the unhappy event of a disaster, at least a high quality copy will be preserved.

I see that it's the consequence of constant spending cuts by the governments in these universities, museums, orchestras and libraries areas. To keep working at some considerable level, them need to rise up the money by themselves... So the libraries understand that their treasures could be monetarily profitable. I presume that DIAMM can acts like GoogleBooks in terms of showing the images but not allowing them to other utilization without the libraries permission, where fees could be required to them and to DIAMM's images service (which of course helps the project maintains its free services). Andrew show us the link with this information: http://www.diamm.ac.uk/about/copyright.

The libraries don't have the guilt of this situation... They could just willing to survive...

Olivier wrote:
The fact that the resource was already available to anybody without IMSLP and would still be, seems to me a very good reason...

Please stop pretending removing the copies from IMSLP would remove the access to the works. It's the exact opposite.

Olivier, I know that there is a lot of people will hate me for a long time. I couldn't imagine, and I think anyone could, that uploading DIAMM's files here would generate this big problem. I was trying only to help everyone who wished this repertoire more accessible and I thought it will help the more people know the DIAMM project. I'm sorry and I regret all these consequences, but I'll always on the side of IMSLP's mission.

[Olivier]

Oliver wrote:
The fact that the resource was already available to anybody without IMSLP and would still be, seems to me a very good reason...

Please stop pretending removing the copies from IMSLP would remove the access to the works. It's the exact opposite.

Oliver, I know that there is a lot of people will hate me for a long time. I couldn't imagine, and I think anyone could, that uploading DIAMM's files here would generate this big problem. I was trying only to help everyone who wished this repertoire more accessible. I'm sorry and I regret all these consequences, but I'll always on the side of IMSLP mission.

I don't hate anybody, and I've been defending you against the DIAMM people on other forums but I honestly think removing copies of files already available freely elsewhere on the web would not go against IMSLP mission, at least not against my vision of IMSLP mission. Especially since keeping them is indirectly going against its mission. But I'd be interested in knowing about your vision of it and how keeping them will improve IMSLP mission.

[Olivier]

DIAMM will have to proactively submit the files to be held in escrow by IMSLP (i.e. the ones that are not currently on IMSLP)

This just doesn't make sense... Did you really upload to Wikimedia Commons, all the pictures you've ever taken of old buildings, sculptures, landscapes, plants, animals, etc. or are you holding them in escrow?

[kosboot]

If IMSLP removes the DIAMM images, what measures will IMSLP take to insure itself against similar (possibly even worse) bullying tactics in the future?

[Olivier]

Do you really feel bullied here on this forum?

[Olivier]

By the way, even though Dr Julia Craig-McFeely is obviously not well informed about copyright issues, I would hardly consider her message "bullying"... And please remember you can always use your intelligence to take decisions. You don't need to be threatened to do so.

[kosboot]

I personally don't feel bullied at all. I feel the request to remove perfectly legal images -- for whatever non-legal reason -- is bullying.

From my personal point of view looking at the larger trend of things, I think projects organized with the strictures of DIAMM are not going to be able to sustain themselves in the long run due to marginalization. The older generation of scholars will happily give in to most conditions made by such libraries. Today's crop of younger scholars are not like that. They'll use what they can and what they can afford, and will ignore those institutions who place unreasonable strictures. (Example: Being unable to take a digital photo for one's private use is an unreasonable stricture in today's world.) So in the long run, those institutions using unreasonable restrictions are going to be the ones which will suffer in the future. It's the same story with publishers, a group who has already begun to change their ways.

[AndrewHankinson]

I thought I would share a Facebook post from the Musikwissenschaft Universität Mainz regarding this, just so their voice is heard as well.

The original in German is here: https://www.facebook.com/Musikwissensch ... 6492037914

The English translation is as follows:

"Musikwissenschaft Uni Mainz
Our commentary regarding the current disagreement between ‪#‎IMSLP‬ and ‪#‎DIAMM‬

In the last few days it has emerged that a large number of high-quality manuscript images of Medieval music supplied by the Digital Image Archive of Medieval Music (DIAMM; http://www.diamm.ac.uk/) have been uploaded on the Wiki Portal IMSLP, known as the “Petrucci Music Library” (http://imslp.org/wiki/Hauptseite), and have thus become available and downloadable online without restriction (https://www.facebook.com/groups/1084435 ... 4313886055).
This in turn has led to intense and occasionally heated discussion on the IMSLP Forum (viewtopic.php?f=6&t=7436) as well as on several “social media” sites. The standpoints in this discussion are greatly at variance, and can presently be summarized as follows:

The goal of IMSLP, in its own words, is “to gather all public domain music scores, in addition to the music scores of all contemporary composers (or their estates) who wish to release them to the public free of charge.” (http://imslp.org/wiki/IMSLP:Goals) According to IMSLP the manuscripts that have been made available by DIAMM are not subject to “copyright” (irrespective of how it is applied in different countries), and are in any case to be understood as “public domain” since they have been made available by DIAMM.

DIAMM, on the other hand, states expressly that the downloading of manuscripts made available online is not permitted, since “the images are not owned by DIAMM, but are available online through us thanks to rights agreements with the owning institutions, and this rights agreement prohibits the free download of images. DIAMM does not have permission to sell or give away any of these images, since we are not the copyright holder.” (http://www.diamm.ac.uk/about/copyright/) The background to the Conditions of Use stipulated by DIAMM is the fact that all libraries and archives that put manuscripts at the disposal of DIAMM are also, at the same time, owners of these manuscripts and wish to ensure, by means of those conditions, that their property will not circulate on the internet in more or less uncontrolled fashion, and at least of all in uncontrollable fashion. Moreover, in view of the agreements concluded between DIAMM and the libraries that cooperate with it, DIAMM has felt the obligation to immediately remove, from its own portal, those manuscripts that have been uploaded by IMSLP, with the consequence that these have been withdrawn from musicological access.

For all the understanding we have for the concept of “open access,” we cannot approve of the actions of IMSLP, given that they altogether imperil the DIAMM project, which is an indispensable aid to all those who engage as musicologists with the music of the Middle Ages and Renaissance – and without any necessity at that! Access to DIAMM and the (extremely high-quality) source material made available there is completely free for everybody. Therefore we cannot in any way understand why IMSLP is so thoughtlessly putting that free access in jeopardy, not least because “file sharing” of this kind can only threaten the good name of IMSLP as a similarly helpful musicological “open access tool.”"