Re: [Finale] US copyright question - now editions
On 10:57 Uhr dc wrote: I've never heard of anything like a "typographical copyright" in France, but I'm no expert on these questions. By the way, I'm very intrigued by Swiss law on copyright, after reading in a _facsimile_ of a public domain work (Rousseau's Dictionnaire de musique): WARNING This publication is protected by Swiss law on copyright. Any reproduction or transcription [!] - even partial - by any means would constitute a counterfeiting punished by articles 42 ff of said law. PHOTOCOPY PROHIBITED. So here's a publishers who reproduces an 18th-century edition and prohibits anyone from even transcribing part of it. Obviously any publisher can write anything into their edition, right or wrong. However, although I am convinced that there is no way this can be fought through in court, from a restricted legal point of view they may indeed be correct, and the same will apply in Germany, too. The reprint itself of that admittedly public domain work may well be copyrightable. I wouldn't be surprised if even the cleaning of spots and ink marks may qualify this for copyright, indeed even bringing it out as a bound book may constitute reason for copyright, any kind of work that has gone into the new publication might be enough to make this a copyrightable publication. Of course this wouldn't stop anyone from getting a copy of the original book elsewhere (including a public library) and make a photocopy. German (photo-)copying laws for music and books are extremely rigid. Again, I am not really competent enough in copyright laws to make any claims to being right with any of this. If anyone knows otherwise please let me know. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question - now editions
On 2:44 Uhr Noel Stoutenburg wrote: I think it was supposed to, but has not completely succeeded. For example, while Germany, and I presume, France, appears (based upon Johannes statements) to treat typographical copyrights the same as the copyright to the composition Don't base it on my statements, it is quite possible that it only lasts 25 years in Germany, too. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question - now editions
David W. Fenton wrote: I don't quite understand the inclusion of Dover in that list. They are a very different operation. They sometimes reprint editions that are under copyright outside the US, and when they do so, they do it with permission (I assume that means they've made a financial arrangement of some sort). The printed Dover catalogs (I have one from several years ago here someplace) are interesting, in that in the vicinity of the masthead, or price information is a key to alphabetic abbreviations for applied to each edition, detailing where the editions bearing that key are available. An item with an "A" suffixed to the price may be available only in the U.S.; "B", only in the U.S. and Canada; "C", in the U.S. and British Commonwealth; "D" in the U.S. and British commonwealth except the UK, &c. ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question - now editions
John Howell wrote: I am curious whether the E.U. has regularized differences in copyright law among its various countries, or whether that was already accomplished through Berne, etc. I think it was supposed to, but has not completely succeeded. For example, while Germany, and I presume, France, appears (based upon Johannes statements) to treat typographical copyrights the same as the copyright to the composition, the UK at present does not; a typographical copyright in the UK is twenty five years, instead of the duration of seventy years after the death of the composer. Thus, all of C. V. Stanford's work is in the public domain, but OUP, which produced a volume of a collection of choral works a couple of years ago, entitled "Weddings for Choirs" or some such, which contained a re-engraving of Stanford's Op. 38 #3, "Beati quorum via", claims copyright on the typography of that work in that volume, based upon the re-engraving. One may re-engrave the work oneself, even using the OUP edition as a basis, one may not, however (at least in the EU, where the copyright has meaning), simply photocopy the edition. ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question - now editions
On 04.09.2005 23:56 Uhr David W. Fenton wrote: Well, I know for a fact that Dover reprints certain European editions with permission of the European copyright holders (some of the Mozart operas are in this class). I have got the Dover Score of the Marriage of Figaro here. Taken from a Peters edition of 1941. It says: For legal reasons this title cannot be offered or sold in the Federal Republic of Germany or West Berlin. (Not disagreeing with you, just adding information) -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question - now editions
On 4 Sep 2005 at 17:18, dhbailey wrote: > David W. Fenton wrote: > > > On 4 Sep 2005 at 9:31, dhbailey wrote: > > > >>For instance, Hal Leonard has brought out a couple of fake books of > >>obviously public domain material, either material old enough to be > >>public domain but with known composers, or folk songs with no known > >>composer and also old enough to be public domain, and on each song > >>in each book they have a copyright claim such as "copyright © 2000 > >>by Hal Leonard Corporation" -- I realize there could be a valid > >>copyright claim on the entire collection of songs within that book, > >>such that nobody could simply photocopy the entire book and sell it > >>as their own, but there is no valid copyright claim in any of the > > > > > > If there are chords in there, it constitutes an arrangement, as > > every melody can be harmonized in more than one way. > > > > So, I see no problem with their copyright claim at all. > > Chord progressions, according to all I've read and heard, can't be > copyrighted. Who would "own" the blues? Neither can titles. But it's not a chord progression that's being copyrighted, but a melody harmonized with a particular succession of chords. That's an arrangement, to me, and seems fully worthy of the same copyright protection as any arrangement would have. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question - now editions
On 4 Sep 2005 at 16:35, John Howell wrote: > At 2:37 PM -0400 9/4/05, David W. Fenton wrote: > > > >I don't see the other reprint houses as being at all on the same > >level -- they add nothing, and reprint without permission, as long as > >it's not copyrighted in the US. > > You may be quite right about Dover. I included them because they are, > in fact, a reprint house, and not all their publications claim new > copyrights. But I don't quite understand your last comment. Anything > not covered by copyright in the U.S. is, by definition, in the public > domain IN THE U.S. No permission is required and no financial > arrangements are required to reprint it IN THE U.S. It cannot be sold > in countries in which it is still under copyright, of course, but > publishers do that all the time. Well, I know for a fact that Dover reprints certain European editions with permission of the European copyright holders (some of the Mozart operas are in this class). And I also know that Dover has withdrawn certain editions after changes in copyright law. I don't know the exact timeframe, nor can I recall the exact repertory involved, but I distinctly remember finding that Dover had once published an edition of Mendelssohn's complete piano chamber music, but that the edition was withdrawn. I was told it was because of copyright changes, which would suggest that the original Dover reprint predated 1978. I don't have any facts on that one, just vague memories and suppositions. But I definitely know that some of Dover's reprints are with permission of copyright holders (I believe the Dpver Debussy reprints are, too, but I don't own any of those, because I have the original Durands). -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question - now editions
John Howell wrote: At 11:29 AM +0200 9/4/05, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Furthermore I'd like to add: there are special copyrights in Europe for publishing previously unpublished music. Even if a piece was composed 500 years ago a publisher can claim the "publication rights" which will, as far as I understand, give him the sole right for publication, and indeed performance (this is usually regulated through a special agency, where standard rates apply for performance). There is something similar under U.S. law, although I've never read a clear explanation of it. There is also the matter of private ownership of unique objects, which normally applies to works of graphic or plastic art but may also apply to musical unica. This has nothing to do with copyright per se, but strictly involves the right of the owner to grant or forbid access to the objects. In the case of music, then, while the music on the page may properly be in the public domain, the page itself is privately owned. My understanding is that this is the case with some (much?) of the music of Fanny Mendelssohn Henzle, which is owned and therefore controlled by a single individual in unique copies which he will not make available to scholars, let alone publishers. Under the special provisions Johannes cites above, if he were to publish them he would presumably control their copyrights for ... hmm, how long, I wonder? John What I understand of the US law is that it is very much like what Johannes describes -- a person owning a manuscript which has never before been published, even though the author may be long dead and way past any copyright which may have existed in such a work, has the right to full copyright of that work, as if it were a work copyrighted by a company. In other words, a single 90 year term, rather than life-plus-70, since the author is already dead. But the work must never before have been published, which may well be difficult to prove. How can one prove a negative? I guess the only way a person could prove that it HAD been previously published would be to produce a copy of the previous publication, or at the very least a catalog listing it for sale, or an old library catalog showing that the work had been in its inventory at some point. And the ownership of the original of the work being published would have to be clearly established, just as in the case Johannes pointed to where two different singakademies were arguing that each owned the original. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question - now editions
David W. Fenton wrote: On 4 Sep 2005 at 9:31, dhbailey wrote: For instance, Hal Leonard has brought out a couple of fake books of obviously public domain material, either material old enough to be public domain but with known composers, or folk songs with no known composer and also old enough to be public domain, and on each song in each book they have a copyright claim such as "copyright © 2000 by Hal Leonard Corporation" -- I realize there could be a valid copyright claim on the entire collection of songs within that book, such that nobody could simply photocopy the entire book and sell it as their own, but there is no valid copyright claim in any of the individual songs. If there are chords in there, it constitutes an arrangement, as every melody can be harmonized in more than one way. So, I see no problem with their copyright claim at all. Chord progressions, according to all I've read and heard, can't be copyrighted. Who would "own" the blues? Neither can titles. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question - now editions
At 2:37 PM -0400 9/4/05, David W. Fenton wrote: I don't see the other reprint houses as being at all on the same level -- they add nothing, and reprint without permission, as long as it's not copyrighted in the US. You may be quite right about Dover. I included them because they are, in fact, a reprint house, and not all their publications claim new copyrights. But I don't quite understand your last comment. Anything not covered by copyright in the U.S. is, by definition, in the public domain IN THE U.S. No permission is required and no financial arrangements are required to reprint it IN THE U.S. It cannot be sold in countries in which it is still under copyright, of course, but publishers do that all the time. John -- John & Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] US copyright question - now editions
Johannes Gebauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In Europe there is also a copyright of the engraving itself, which I > understand is not possible in the US. In Europe it is simply illegal > to reprint an engraved page as long as it is in copyright (75 years?). > It makes no difference whether it contains any editorial additions at > all. Unless it's changed recently when I wasn't paying attention, it's 25 years in the UK. -- Ken Moore Musician and engineer ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question - now editions
On 4 Sep 2005 at 10:17, John Howell wrote: > This graphic copyright has never existed in U.S. > law, which may explain why the reprint houses like Kalmus, Dover, and > Luck's are all located in the U.S. One can trademark a graphic such > as a recognizable logo, but not copyright it. I don't quite understand the inclusion of Dover in that list. They are a very different operation. They sometimes reprint editions that are under copyright outside the US, and when they do so, they do it with permission (I assume that means they've made a financial arrangement of some sort). Anyone, even in European countries, can reprint the old Britkopf & Härtel complete editions done in the 19th century, and a lot of Dover's offerings come from those public domain sources. But Dover then adds enough new material to qualify their edition for independent copyright. I don't see the other reprint houses as being at all on the same level -- they add nothing, and reprint without permission, as long as it's not copyrighted in the US. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question - now editions
On 4 Sep 2005 at 9:31, dhbailey wrote: > For instance, Hal Leonard has brought out a couple of fake books of > obviously public domain material, either material old enough to be > public domain but with known composers, or folk songs with no known > composer and also old enough to be public domain, and on each song in > each book they have a copyright claim such as "copyright © 2000 by Hal > Leonard Corporation" -- I realize there could be a valid copyright > claim on the entire collection of songs within that book, such that > nobody could simply photocopy the entire book and sell it as their > own, but there is no valid copyright claim in any of the individual > songs. If there are chords in there, it constitutes an arrangement, as every melody can be harmonized in more than one way. So, I see no problem with their copyright claim at all. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question - now editions
Ray Horton wrote: The only parts they dislike more are the old french parts with the backward quarter rests for eighth rests and other difficulties. John Howell wrote: Actually it's backward eight rests for quarter rests. We ran into that with the Saint-Saëns A Minor Cello Concerto last spring. Ray: You are correct, of course! My mistake. We mainly read them by the spacing. If the spacing is off, we put tails on them. And in point of fact, the French rests are more true to the original Franconian rests from the 13th century (which is still no excuse!!). Very interesting, and no excuse whatsoever! RBH ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question - now editions
At 11:29 AM +0200 9/4/05, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Furthermore I'd like to add: there are special copyrights in Europe for publishing previously unpublished music. Even if a piece was composed 500 years ago a publisher can claim the "publication rights" which will, as far as I understand, give him the sole right for publication, and indeed performance (this is usually regulated through a special agency, where standard rates apply for performance). There is something similar under U.S. law, although I've never read a clear explanation of it. There is also the matter of private ownership of unique objects, which normally applies to works of graphic or plastic art but may also apply to musical unica. This has nothing to do with copyright per se, but strictly involves the right of the owner to grant or forbid access to the objects. In the case of music, then, while the music on the page may properly be in the public domain, the page itself is privately owned. My understanding is that this is the case with some (much?) of the music of Fanny Mendelssohn Henzle, which is owned and therefore controlled by a single individual in unique copies which he will not make available to scholars, let alone publishers. Under the special provisions Johannes cites above, if he were to publish them he would presumably control their copyrights for ... hmm, how long, I wonder? John -- John & Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question - now editions
At 9:50 AM +0200 9/4/05, Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 5:34 Uhr John Howell wrote: That is actually not surprising at all. Because U.S. copyright law was based on date of first publication, and most European law was based on the lifetime of the composer, a great many works were in copyright in Europe but in the public domain in the U.S. Not a grey area at all, just a matter of geography. In Europe there is also a copyright of the engraving itself, which I understand is not possible in the US. In Europe it is simply illegal to reprint an engraved page as long as it is in copyright (75 years?). It makes no difference whether it contains any editorial additions at all. That is correct. This graphic copyright has never existed in U.S. law, which may explain why the reprint houses like Kalmus, Dover, and Luck's are all located in the U.S. One can trademark a graphic such as a recognizable logo, but not copyright it. I am curious whether the E.U. has regularized differences in copyright law among its various countries, or whether that was already accomplished through Berne, etc. John -- John & Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question - now editions
Johannes Gebauer wrote: [snip] I realize that, the way you explained things you couldn't make a photocopy even if the original music is out of copyright. Absolutely. Are you sure this would be different in the US? If you brought out a new edition of a work by Bach, could anyone photocopy your edition and sell that? Thanks for the quick response -- that was what I had imagined things to be. As for this final question, in the U.S., page appearance isn't covered by copyright law, so if I bring out a new printing of a public domain work and have added no editorial content (added my own phrasing, altered some chords, corrected some misprints) I can't make a valid claim for copyright simply because my new edition is more legible or laid out with better page turns. Anybody could photocopy that and I would be unable to stop them. However, if I had made editorial changes (simply adding my name as Edited By: would not qualify, as far as I have been able to ascertain) I would have a valid copyright claim and could initiate a lawsuit for damages. But the simple appearance on the page would not qualify in the U.S. as copyrightable. However, as is usually the case, it is often the party with the deepest pockets which wins such copyright cases, not necessarily the person with the valid claim. For instance, Hal Leonard has brought out a couple of fake books of obviously public domain material, either material old enough to be public domain but with known composers, or folk songs with no known composer and also old enough to be public domain, and on each song in each book they have a copyright claim such as "copyright © 2000 by Hal Leonard Corporation" -- I realize there could be a valid copyright claim on the entire collection of songs within that book, such that nobody could simply photocopy the entire book and sell it as their own, but there is no valid copyright claim in any of the individual songs. But should they bring a lawsuit against someone such as me, they would win simply because I couldn't afford to pay a lawyer to defend me through all the hearings and delays and filings and appeals. The old age-of-chivalry concept that might makes right. I would have hoped we had grown beyond that, but it still rears its ugly head in most aspects of modern life, and the intellectual property area is no different. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question - now editions
On 13:54 Uhr dhbailey wrote: But if a person has one of those engraved/copyrighted editions where no significant editorial additions were made to a public domain work (e.g. a Bach organ prelude), is a person in Europe legally able to make their own version using that copyrighted-for-engraving edition? That is the question, isn't it? To be honest, I am not even sure whether there is one answer to that. The answer, as so often the case, is it depends. Problem is, it might be enough to just make a decision on the reading of a manuscript. However, I don't think in reality there would be much of a case if someone did indeed use an existing edition, unless the publisher of that existing edition can make a clear case that his edition either included editorial decisions or qualifies as a critical edition. Using Finale or Sibelius or whatever, is it legal for you to make your own engraving using someone else's engraving as the original, as long as your page design is different from the original? I don't think the page design has much to do with it. It probably really depends on the nature of the original edition, and whether any decisions were made that qualify as an editorial effort. I realize that, the way you explained things you couldn't make a photocopy even if the original music is out of copyright. Absolutely. Are you sure this would be different in the US? If you brought out a new edition of a work by Bach, could anyone photocopy your edition and sell that? (I hope I asked this question clearly enough.) Sure, it's just a question of whether there are clear answers... Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question - now editions
Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 5:34 Uhr John Howell wrote: That is actually not surprising at all. Because U.S. copyright law was based on date of first publication, and most European law was based on the lifetime of the composer, a great many works were in copyright in Europe but in the public domain in the U.S. Not a grey area at all, just a matter of geography. In Europe there is also a copyright of the engraving itself, which I understand is not possible in the US. In Europe it is simply illegal to reprint an engraved page as long as it is in copyright (75 years?). It makes no difference whether it contains any editorial additions at all. Johannes But if a person has one of those engraved/copyrighted editions where no significant editorial additions were made to a public domain work (e.g. a Bach organ prelude), is a person in Europe legally able to make their own version using that copyrighted-for-engraving edition? Using Finale or Sibelius or whatever, is it legal for you to make your own engraving using someone else's engraving as the original, as long as your page design is different from the original? I realize that, the way you explained things you couldn't make a photocopy even if the original music is out of copyright. (I hope I asked this question clearly enough.) -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question - now editions
On 9:50 Uhr Johannes Gebauer wrote: In Europe there is also a copyright of the engraving itself, which I understand is not possible in the US. In Europe it is simply illegal to reprint an engraved page as long as it is in copyright (75 years?). It makes no difference whether it contains any editorial additions at all. Furthermore I'd like to add: there are special copyrights in Europe for publishing previously unpublished music. Even if a piece was composed 500 years ago a publisher can claim the "publication rights" which will, as far as I understand, give him the sole right for publication, and indeed performance (this is usually regulated through a special agency, where standard rates apply for performance). Similar regulations apply to critical editions, though obviously it is more complicated to extend this to performance (but it has been done). These regulations led to a court case over the rights of Offenbach's "Hoffmann's tales", where some extra autograph material was found a few years ago and the German publisher Schott and a French publisher fought about the rights, not just the publication rights, but also the performance rights (which means substancial income for the publisher over the next 25 years). These publication and performance rights are also the main reason we are still seeing so little of the Kiev CPE Bach Nachlass being published and performed, since two organizations fight over who actually owns it (there are two Singakademien today, a former East and a former West Berlin). The most recent case where these regulations played a role is the very recent discovery of a JS Bach aria (I believe in Leipzig) which had never been published. These kind of things can provide major income to publishers. I am not criticising these regulations, on the contrary, they are largely responsible for a lot of editorial activity in Europe for publishing previously unpublished material or making critical editions. The "previously not published" regulation was recently (a few weeks ago) tried in court. I think the outcome was that it really only applies to works which were not circulated to a wider audience at the time. In the particular case tried the court decided that because the music was widely circulated in manuscript there was no case to claim publication rights on it, and anyone can publish it. It is worth noting that _any_ previous edition will make it impossible to claim publication rights. Even if back in the 18th century someone engraved a piece of music and made three prints of it which are lost today, there is no way to claim publication rights (other than with a critical edition, but that is a slightly different story). Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question - now editions
On 5:34 Uhr John Howell wrote: That is actually not surprising at all. Because U.S. copyright law was based on date of first publication, and most European law was based on the lifetime of the composer, a great many works were in copyright in Europe but in the public domain in the U.S. Not a grey area at all, just a matter of geography. In Europe there is also a copyright of the engraving itself, which I understand is not possible in the US. In Europe it is simply illegal to reprint an engraved page as long as it is in copyright (75 years?). It makes no difference whether it contains any editorial additions at all. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question - now editions
On 3 Sep 2005 at 23:34, John Howell wrote: > At 10:57 PM -0400 9/3/05, Raymond Horton wrote: > >David W. Fenton wrote: > > > >>The quality of some Kalmus editions is quite > >>high, because until the last decade or so, they > >>were all reprints of someone else's edition, > >>most public domain, but sometimes including > >>foreign editions that are arguably still > >>copyrighted. ... > > That is actually not surprising at all. Because > U.S. copyright law was based on date of first > publication, and most European law was based on > the lifetime of the composer, a great many works > were in copyright in Europe but in the public > domain in the U.S. Not a grey area at all, just > a matter of geography. When the US joined the Berne convention, several Dover editions had to be discontinued. > And their new series of piano-vocal scores of > Bach Cantatas is superbly done, beautiful > illustration of good modern engraving, with > updated and very fine English translations. > Don't know whether they offer newly engraved > orchestral parts, though. The friend of mine was engraving piano music for them, so I don't know about orchestral music. [] > >> My guess it that Kalmus probably reprinted a > >>Soviet edition, because for years Soviet > >>copyrights were not respected in the West... > > ... which, as I understand it, was because the > Soviet Union did not recognize or respect the > copyright protection of other countries. > Actually I don't think there were such things as > Soviet copyrights, since nothing belonged to > individuals but to "the people" (but were, of > course, administered by party members > representing "the people"!). But I seem to remember that this changed in the early 70s or 80s, did it not? Because a lot of stuff that had previously been available suddenly became unavailable. Hmm, that time frame would suggest a connection to the US joining of the Berne Convention, which was 1978. I just know that there were things that had been available in inexpensive American editions that ended up being withdrawn and went out of print. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] US copyright question - now editions
At 10:57 PM -0400 9/3/05, Raymond Horton wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: The quality of some Kalmus editions is quite high, because until the last decade or so, they were all reprints of someone else's edition, most public domain, but sometimes including foreign editions that are arguably still copyrighted. ... That is actually not surprising at all. Because U.S. copyright law was based on date of first publication, and most European law was based on the lifetime of the composer, a great many works were in copyright in Europe but in the public domain in the U.S. Not a grey area at all, just a matter of geography. And their new series of piano-vocal scores of Bach Cantatas is superbly done, beautiful illustration of good modern engraving, with updated and very fine English translations. Don't know whether they offer newly engraved orchestral parts, though. The old, traditional Kalmus editions are looked on as one of those problems that orchestral players have to deal with. The only parts they dislike more are the old french parts with the backward quarter rests for eighth rests and other difficulties. Actually it's backward eight rests for quarter rests. We ran into that with the Saint-Saëns A Minor Cello Concerto last spring. And in point of fact, the French rests are more true to the original Franconian rests from the 13th century (which is still no excuse!!). My guess it that Kalmus probably reprinted a Soviet edition, because for years Soviet copyrights were not respected in the West... ... which, as I understand it, was because the Soviet Union did not recognize or respect the copyright protection of other countries. Actually I don't think there were such things as Soviet copyrights, since nothing belonged to individuals but to "the people" (but were, of course, administered by party members representing "the people"!). John -- John & Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
