Berwald bassoon concertpiece parts

[Eric]

Fairly sure works whose first edition is still non-PD-US should not be uploaded in a typeset and given (visible-everywhere) Creative Commons , see e.g. Berwald Konzertstück score and parts which should have been blocked unless the editor of the parts was or had permission from the score editors or (maybe) was working from the manuscript parts- and should have been _asked_ which, and to provide evidence, neither of which seems to have occurred. Instead, we have a score which can only be accessed in the EU and another score which is a CC retypeset which can be seen anywhere given that CC lacks area restrictions. Both his retypesets should have been blocked, most likely, lacking good reasons why not?. This is not the only such thing we have (consider the universally-visible retypeset of Myaskovsky symphony no.11 on _that_ page, for yet another example.)

[coulonnus]

You are raising the problem of retypesets based on Urtext editions. I had the plan to retypeset of few ones myself.

Does the Non-PD-US-ness of these Urtexts come from the fact that they are the first ones based on a particular manuscript or from the fact that any typesetting job is copyrighted in the US?

[coulonnus]

I don't find any retypeset on https://imslp.org/wiki/Symphony_No.11%2 ... C_Nikolay)

[Eric]

hrm. Used to be one there (@ Myaskovsky symphony 11). I should double-check these things.

Any typesetting job is CC (decidedly not under copyright) and viewable/downloadable in the US, and elsewhere, whatever the copyright status of its source material, for at least almost all (I think all) the CC licenses. (As far as I know.)

As to the Non-PD-US status of the urtexts, I would guess that urtext law is only a CA/EU thing, or else the copyright admins would have opened up these files to US access as well.

[Carolus]

It's a complicated issue (as usual) with the USA. The whole question of what constitutes "first publication" only adds to the mess. Publication as defined in the statute itself and in case law does not equal engraving and printing. It has more to do with the distribution of a work and (crucially) the "offer to further distribute" a work in addition to whether copies where produced under the authority of the copyright owner (almost always the composer or the heirs of the composer). A signed contract with a publisher to "further distribute" a work might well constitute publication, and a listing in a publisher's catalogue or in an advertisement likely does constitute publication.

To a certain extent, the same rubric applies as in the EU with respect to something's publication status - whether it's even eligible for the EU's 25-year editio princeps or not. Even if a Telemann work existed only in manuscript form until 1979, it would be unlikely to have been "unpublished" in the legal definition if there were multiple sets of manuscript parts around in various libraries. Assuming they legally acquired the composer's holograph, libraries and archives themselves may have published a work by providing manuscript transcripts (later microfilm and photocopies) to other libraries, orchestras and the like. The Motezuma decision in the EU was a good one in that it actually somewhat codifed this notion of there being publication even if the copying was all done by hand.

By the book, if something was first published between 1924 and 1977 and duly renewed, it is officially under copyright for 95 years in the USA (If the notice or renewal was messed up, no restoration is possible under GATT/TRIPs for items first published in the EU unless such publication took place after 1972 because of the 25 year term of editio princeps. If something was first published between 1978 and 2002 the term is until 2048 (from 1978 to 1988 the basic notice requirement is still in force; between 1989 and 2002 notice is no longer required). Starting in 2003, all unpublished works of authors dead over 70 years entered the public domain in the USA, with more added every year thereafter.