Magic Flute German/English Kalmus

Specific copyright information. If you're not sure if you can upload your score, ask it here first

Moderators: kcleung, Copyright Reviewers

Post Reply
fbusoni
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 2:00 am
notabot: 42
notabot2: Human

Magic Flute German/English Kalmus

Post by fbusoni »

I uploaded a German/English scan of Die Zauberflote recently. In the notes, someone put that Kalmus added the English translation to the score.

My question is, how do we know that this combining of two public domain works (vocal score + English translation) is not sufficient grounds for a copyright claim? If, for example, I sold a copy of this score, it would seem morally questionable to profit from the tedious work Kalmus invested. (At least, if we imagine for a moment that Kalmus is a person.) Is there a legal precedent for this kind of situation? I have a number of other scores that I think are probably like this, judging by the fact that the fonts of the two languages are different, and I would like to make sure it is worth scanning them.

And another question--in what form did the English translation originally appear? Was there an English-only vocal score?

Thanks,
fbusoni
pml
Copyright Reviewer
Posts: 1219
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 3:42 am
notabot: 42
notabot2: Human
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Magic Flute German/English Kalmus

Post by pml »

It doesn’t sound like a new copyright should exist out of the merger of two public domain works if no originality has been employed in effecting it.

Basically, you can’t copyright “the sweat of your brow”, to employ a juicy turn of phrase.

Of course, that may not stop such a copyright actually being lawful somewhere – I’m not au fait with all 200 different international interpretations of copyright law around the planet. Some countries allow for a “typographical” copyright (i.e. inherent in the form in which a work exists) so additions to an existing typeset might qualify as a new copyright of that kind, for example.

As to the secondary question – it was usual practice before sometime last century to perform operas and oratorios in the language native to where it was being performed (except for clearly “imported products” like the Italian opera company in Handelian London). So it’s reasonable to expect Kalmus went digging through old vocal scores or librettos from English performances of Zauberflöte sometime in the 18th century in search of an exploitable English text.

Cheers, PML (obligatory disclaimer: not a lawyer)
--
PML (talk)
fbusoni
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 2:00 am
notabot: 42
notabot2: Human

Re: Magic Flute German/English Kalmus

Post by fbusoni »

Thank you, that makes sense. I was wondering about the female translator being credited so prominently, it didn't seem to fit with the times.

The title page originally had "REVISED" stamped under the translation credit; I took it out when I took Kalmus's logos out, thinking it was just a scare attempt. But seeing as they put in the words themselves, it is reasonable to suspect that they may have updated some of the wording (though I am not sure how, since all the thee's and thou's remain intact). Might this be an issue? Perhaps I can find a copy of the translation and compare it.

Is it generally true that when there is an obvious difference in the font used for each language, Kalmus (or whoever) added in the words themselves? I have a Gianni Schicchi reprinted by Belwin that seems to have originally been a special Ricordi edition for the United States, and in that one the fonts match.

Do we have any lawyers on this board?
pml
Copyright Reviewer
Posts: 1219
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 3:42 am
notabot: 42
notabot2: Human
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Magic Flute German/English Kalmus

Post by pml »

The marking of REVISED means some more recent work may have been done – but the question of originality still needs to be answered: is the modification extensive enough to warrant a separate copyright (in many domains, original artistic work has to have been added). One of the other copyright reviewers here would probably have a better idea if this is the sort of thing Kalmus would be fussed about.

A notable difference in fonts may indeed sometimes be a sign of this sort of addition to a score. I will raise one caveat: since languages don’t share the exact same alphabet, this can lead some publishers to use slightly different fonts: for example, Belaieff’s Cyrillic font obviously looks different to the font they use for French. Or, in a bilingual score, one language will always be typeset in the roman font and the other in the italic variation of the same font family. (Yes I know I am muddling typographical terms there, but hopefully the intended meaning is clear.)

Lawyers around here? Dunno. Probably some hiding away in the woodwork somewhere, but most of us are musos of various flavours. I wasn’t aware of a nexus between music and lawyers until I heard of the RIAA.

As for Gianni Schichi, it’s a bit of a special case. The librettist, Giovacchino Forzano, died as recently as 1970; thus the only country in the world where that opera is PD, is the United States.

Cheers PML
--
PML (talk)
Carolus
Site Admin
Posts: 2249
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 11:18 pm
notabot: 42
notabot2: Human
Contact:

Re: Magic Flute German/English Kalmus

Post by Carolus »

Unless Kalmus (a US publisher) actually printed a copyright claim on the vocal score with revisions to Macfarren's public domain English translation, it's public domain. Omitting a copyright notice is a generally a fatal error for any US publisher in a work printed before 1989. As I understand it, Kalmus issued a number of these reprint vocal scores during the 1960s and early 1970s which included a public domain English translation inserted beneath the original. They also did this with a fair number of Bach cantata vocal scores, which even resulted in expanded pagination over those from original Breitkopf German-only series issued from 1890-94 (which makes identification of the reprints - scanned by CDSM, etc. - a real challenge).
fbusoni
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 2:00 am
notabot: 42
notabot2: Human

Re: Magic Flute German/English Kalmus

Post by fbusoni »

Thanks Carolus and PML. Kalmus did not claim any copyright to the revision or credit anyone for it, so I guess that means it's totally public domain. As for the general question of whether combining public domain works results in something that is still public domain, it seems that it does in the United States, according to United States Code: Titles 17, Chapter 1, § 103:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/103.html wrote:(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.
I think that states it explicitly. Additionally, there was a US Supreme Court case about the "sweat of the brow" matter PML mentioned.
Post Reply