I searched the forum and the wiki and was unable to come up with an answer to this.
The Belgian composer Steven Verhelst is allowing us to mirror his "A Song for Japan" as public domain. It's a wonderful piece and there are multiple arrangements available. I want to upload these in such a way that the copyright reviewers won't immediately take them back down, but as the scores are released public domain rather than some variant of CC, how do I go about noting that we have explicit permission to do this and it's not just me trying to be a petty thief?
Most countries nowadays observe copyright as innate to a creative work, so even if the composer does not put a notice of copyright on his works, it is there inherently anyway, and he also has moral rights as well. Some countries allow a creator to waive his or her rights, but this is the exception rather than the rule. As such, then, we can’t really accept these as “public domain” since the composer could turn around tomorrow and change his mind on their status: which would be well within his rights to do so.
That said, of the CC licences allowed on IMSLP, the CC-by or CC-by-sa licences are fairly close to public domain. Both insist the composer be attributed for his work; the latter type adds that derivative reworkings should be shared under the same licence type (“share alike”).
Neither of these licences prevent commercial exploitation of the work, however. But maybe the composer is happy to allow that.
If you’re interested in IMSLP hosting the piece, why not drop him a line (a) asking permission (b) exploring whether the “public domain”-like CC licences would be suitable, as surrendering his work to the PD is a legal fiction.
The closest to public domain licencing under the CC system is the CC-0 licence, which doesn’t even have attribution as a condition of use. We’re not hugely keen on that one as an outright gift to serial plagiarists.
So, even if it's not specifically what the composer asked, is it then acceptable to upload the piece with a CC license? I'm fine with that. I just want to make sure we're doing the right thing both legally and by respecting the composer's wishes.
Here is a direct quote:
"A Song For Japan" is indeed public domain. That's the whole idea.
Everybody can access it through http://www.trombones.jp
So feel free to mirror the PDFs to Petrucci Library, no problem.
Maybe you can add a link to http://www.trombones.jp as well.
That said, I'm not going to upload any of the scores regardless until I get word back from him on which version he considers to be the original score so that I can classify the original as such and the arrangements in their proper places.
I see he’s explicitly answered my question (a), but is woefully uninformed on (b).
If we supported CC-0 I’d suggest using that. Otherwise CC-by is closest to his intentions as far as they can be ascertained.
Also, composer’s own versions can be “special” in that the composer may view the conception of the work (the idea) as the original work, and any versions fixed in certain instrumentations are just competing alternatives of the one underlying piece (unlike the case of of say, Beethoven’s 2nd in the Piano Trio arrangement he made himself; there we can be sure that the composer’s intended medium was the full orchestra).
So if I were you I’d upload any/all versions and the let the chips fall as they may.
The project's website essentially says, "Here is the printed music. Perform it, record a video for YouTube, whatever, but we'd like a link back to us, and we'd like to know about the performance or recording just because. Also, here are files for Sibelius and Finale in case you want to alter the music however you see fit for your group to play it as well, or just because you feel like it."
That does sound like a CC-by to me, although Mr. Verhelst doesn't seem to realize it. I'll upload the work under that license and simply inform him that's what I've done. That way we can get it out there and if he or one of the other arrangers who have donated their work chooses to restrict things further (most likely by NC if I had to guess), then I don't see why they couldn't.
The creative work automatically belongs to the author. The only reason for copyrighting the material is to prove that prima facie exists, which makes it easier to prove the original creator in court.
