Copyright injury, Gustav Mahler

General copyright-related issues and discussions

Moderator: Copyright Reviewers

Joerg Gedan
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 2:01 pm

Post by Joerg Gedan »

"any version of it one encounters that is less than 25 years old is protected worldwide"
This is true, but not very precise: Any edition of it that is the first one ever published and is less than 25 years old ist protected worldwide. The difference is: If an editor publishes a work that was never published before, he owns the copyright not only of this edition or engraving but the copyright of the music itself for 25 years, nobody else is allowed to publish the music in which version ever, even if the composer is dead since 70, 700, 7000 years.

"I seem to recall that the German law only grants the 25-year term if the edition in question contains new discoveries or incorporates material not found in earlier versions."
This is called a "scientific edition" in German law and not the same as a "first edition" ("Erstausgabe" in German -- I don't know the correct English term).

My edition isn't a first edition, so the music is not protected at all. If my version would be a special arrangement (Mahler's piano quartet in a version for harpsichord and 25 tin whistles), it would not be protected for 25 years but for 70 years. Sikorski's edition was published 1973, it's more than 25 years old. So it's no longer protected as a first edition. But although the music is no longer protected, this special edition is, because nobody is allowed to scan Sikorski's edition and upload it at ISMLP. Feel free to scan Sikorski's edition and upload it here -- I'm afraid you will get some trouble. If someone wants to publish Mahler's quartet he can do so, but he is not allowed to use the engraving of someone else except it's no longer available. He should do his own engraving (and thus learn how much work this is).

In my opinion this is not only a question of copyright but of fairness. I did the work, I re-arranged the piano part so that it is playable, I did the layout in a way that the piano player can play instead of turning pages, and I did the whole engraving, so I am the only one to decide how this work may be used. If someone wants to publish something, he should do the work himself, if he is able to.

(I hope my poor English is understandable.)
Carolus
Site Admin
Posts: 2249
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 11:18 pm
notabot: 42
notabot2: Human
Contact:

Post by Carolus »

Herr Gedan is talking about a concept called editio princeps, a rubric under which a work that was never previously published is entitled to a term of protection for the work itself, over and above the edition. In Germany's case, that term is 25 years. Until 2003, there was a related concept in force under US copyright law. The general idea was apparently to encourage the publication of heretofore unpublished works. As of January 1, 2003, all unpublihed works of identified authors who had died more than 70 years previous passed into the public domain.

In the case of the Mahler work, the US copyright on the work itself would be in force until 31 December 2047 if the work had first been published between 1978 and 2002. Since it was first published before 1978, it comes under the provisions of the 1909 law and is entitled to a term of 95 years after publication. It is therefore probable that Herr Gedan's edition is illegal in the USA due to the Mahler's first being published by Sikorski in 1973 (which means the work itself is protected in the USA until 1/1/2069). Moreover, since Herr Gedan informs us that he "re-arranged the piano part to make it more playable", his arrangement would be protected for at least 70 years after his departure in Canada and other countries where Mahler's original is public domain.
Last edited by Carolus on Fri Apr 20, 2007 7:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
imslp
Site Admin
Posts: 1642
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Post by imslp »

Hi Carolus! Now that the bubble about re-engraving has burst, I have a few questions about copyright of editions... do you know of any case precident about the length of copyright for scientific editions in the US? For example, I'm currently researching about Eulenburg's edition of Bizet's Symphony published in 1973. In the editorial comment they say that
This edition of Bizet's Symphony in C was compiled from two printed scores, the Choudens (Paris) and the Universal Edition (Vienna). Discrepancies in these editions were compared with the autograph scorer in the library of the Conservatorie National de Musique de Paris, whose kind assistance is gratefully acknowledged. Thus when there is doubt, the present edition follows the autograph.
The question is, this would make it a very scientific edition... and would that be enough creativity to be copyrightable in the US? Or is this area of law ambigious like you said before? What is more interesting in this case is that the edition specifically says "Foreword and Editorial comment (c) 1973 Ernest Eulenburg Ltd., London"... if they owned the copyright to the score itself surely they won't have specified the foreword and editorial comment?

P.S. Sorry about having so many questions :oops:
Carolus
Site Admin
Posts: 2249
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 11:18 pm
notabot: 42
notabot2: Human
Contact:

Post by Carolus »

Hi Feldmahler! I would consider the 1973 Eulenburg score to be potentially copyrighted in the USA - though the claim on preface and editorial notes is certainly insteresting and raises lots of questions. I was under the impression Choudens and UE scores were actually the same engraving since they have identical page counts. Without actually examining a copy of each it's impossible to know that for sure, though. It could be that the editor's contribution in this case is so little that Eulenburg considers the music itself to be PD.

The duration of the Eulenburg copyright is 95 years from date of publication in the USA - though 12/31/2068 - unless one can prove otherwise. In other words, one would have prove to a court's satisfaction that there was insufficient originality on the editor's part to qualify for copyright protection, or that Eulenburg had injected the edition of the music into the public domain through its own actions (see below). The US law has no provision for scientific editions, nor does it follow the "rule of the shorter term" as Canada's law does. However, if Eulenburg issued copies - even only a few - of that score without a notice, or with an improper notice, which were then legally sold in the USA between 1973 and 1977, the work was injected in the public domain immediately. If the copyright had expired in the country of origin by 1996 (effective date of GATT), they did not qualify to file an NIE and that edition would remain PD in the USA. So, the notes and preface claim might be a vitual admission that they issued it without a proper notice back in 1973.
emeraldimp
active poster
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:18 pm
notabot: YES
notabot2: Bot
Contact:

Post by emeraldimp »

Joerg Gedan wrote:He should do his own engraving (and thus learn how much work this is).

In my opinion this is not only a question of copyright but of fairness. I did the work, I re-arranged the piano part so that it is playable, I did the layout in a way that the piano player can play instead of turning pages, and I did the whole engraving, so I am the only one to decide how this work may be used. If someone wants to publish something, he should do the work himself, if he is able to.
Does every discussion have to include "you should do your own engraving so you know what it's like?" I do, and I'm not the only one (well... okay, I don't actually carve the metal, I use a computer, but still).

On an entirely different note, let's move this discussion about copyright to a new thread, since I find it very interesting and informative but it's not directly relevant to this one.
Starrmark
active poster
Posts: 180
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 6:40 pm
notabot: 42
notabot2: Human
Location: Los Altos, CA
Contact:

Re: Copyright injury, Gustav Mahler

Post by Starrmark »

Does anyone know where the manuscript for Mahler's Piano Quartet Movements is located today? I would like to examine both the first movement and the unfinished sketch for the scherzo. I see that IMSLP now has many musical manuscripts on the site. Might there be any chance of posting the manuscripts for these two movements on IMSLP, especially since the reduction by Gedan has been withdrawn. As Gedan noted, the Sikorski edition is no longer protected in the EU (it is older than 25 years); but is the Sikorski Edition still protected in the US? Evidently (from Gedan description,) the Sikorski edition closely follows the manuscript and shows little (if any) original editing. If it is not substantially edited, then would not the Sikorski Edition be PD in the US also? I am assuming that Mahler's manuscripts (and his music) are now in the public domain.


MS
kalliwoda
active poster
Posts: 504
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 8:36 pm
notabot: YES
notabot2: Bot
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: Copyright injury, Gustav Mahler

Post by kalliwoda »

I am fairly sure that copyright protection of a new edition in Germany for 25 years does not include the music itself - there are just too many new editions out there published by different competing publishers.

It also would be blatantly unfair, if I purchase manuscript sources as microfilmed copies from a library, prepare my own performance material from them (even it is not for sale) and then cannot use it for 25 years once someone else offers a much inferior version for sale...

update: Actually, editio princeps rights to the music itself are already denied (Vivaldi Montezuma, OLG Düsseldorf), if the music was distributed as manuscripts by copyists shops. This would for example apply to a lot of chamber music around 1800 that could be obtained from e.g. Traeg's music copying business in Vienna. Enough must be known about the circumstances of a particular work to exclude distribution in manuscript copies to justify protection by editio princeps, like for the Berlioz Messe solenelle or the Ignaz Lachner oboe concerto.
Carolus
Site Admin
Posts: 2249
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 11:18 pm
notabot: 42
notabot2: Human
Contact:

Re: Copyright injury, Gustav Mahler

Post by Carolus »

Canada's version of editio princeps (50 years from first publication for posthumous works) is even stricter - it applies only to works that have never been performed or recorded. The Mahler would be free in Canada. The USA law, sad to say, is the most unreasonable one here. Since first publication took place before 1978, it's 95 years from publication.
Odin
active poster
Posts: 144
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 10:00 am
notabot: YES
notabot2: Bot
Location: Sweden

Re: Copyright injury, Gustav Mahler

Post by Odin »

Hello

The whole discussion shows once again how sick and mad the
Copyright laws of to-day really are. Try to imagine that similar
laws would apply in the field of patent legislation (inventions).
Then we would still discuss if James Watt´s type of steam
engine still might be under protection somewhere on our
globe.

Sincerely

Odin
Odin
Post Reply