IMSLP talk:Site development/New copyright tags

Just wondering about the exact definitions here. I assume that:

  • VerifiedEU = PD in Canada and EU
  • VerifiedUS = PD in Canada and US
  • VerifiedUSandEU = PD in Canada, US and EU (This is what the older, plain-vanilla "Verified" tag means, no?)

BTW, following our commentary on the project page here, I propose we add an "Editorial Review" tag. This way items can be marked for a more careful review to determine exactly what editorial work has been done to a given title. Daphnis, for example, just uploaded a splendid example of Copyfraud in action Satie's Socrate. Eschig simply reprinted the 1919 score and stuck a 1973 copyright notice on it. I'm sure most folks around the world think it's still under copyright, and BMG gladly collects performance rights on a public domain work to this day. (After all, it was only published in 1973, right?) Carolus 03:01, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

Ouch, I have registered a few of those tags, thinking that they were analogue to the Templates: e.g. VerifiedEU = {{FileNonPD-EU}}.
Feld, are they meant to replace the existing templates? Then I have one more suggestion (yes, add this to the very long list of ideas - why aren't we using IMSLP:Site development anymore?): add the possibility of the year in which the file will become p.d. The composers and works change copyright status automatically, but the files don't. In 10 years, there would be a nice collection of scores tagged as protected but being actually in public domain. This idea could also be extended to fully copyrighted files, so that they would be hidden until they enter p.d., instead of removing and reuploading them.
Hmm, I have the idea I'm making things more complex than they should be...
Carolus, if I understand correctly the only difference of the Editorial Review tag with the CR tag would be the warning message, isn't it? In the case of an Editorial Review tag, in which cases would the CR tag actually still be used? --Peter talk 05:15, 3 November 2007 (EDT)
Now that is a very good idea (file public domain year entrance marking). My concern is that it may be a bit of work for the US (though maybe I'm overthinking this). The reason I have not used the new copyright review tags for templates is because the copyright review system does not have a history function yet (unlike the wiki), and I'm hesitant to assign as much weight when there may be mistakes made, and we can't even trace the source of the mistakes, or how they came to be. Also, most of the files are tagged "Verified", currently meaning they are only verified to be public domain in Canada, so there won't be many tags anyway. Down the road, when I implement a history function in the copyright review (a pain though, but possible), I believe the use of copyright review status for template selection would be fine :)
Carolus, the reason I considered the "Verified" tag to be only PD in Canada is because it is used in situations where this is actually the case (ex. Bartok). I've introduced the other Verified tags mainly because of mirroring reasons actually, though I do intend to replace the templates in a few years.
The biggest problem now is the backlog of work that needs to be done on already reviewed files with the implementation of any new feature in the copyright review system. I believe it is time right now for us to stop and do a complete redesign of the copyright review system, and include all features that we need (especially the ones that will require re-reviewing), before this issue becomes even worse.
I will be pushing for the hiring of additional copyright reviewers, who can help in this issue when IMSLP comes back up. I might even open a very limited portion of the copyright review process to normal people (perhaps the switching between various verified tags?), but that will depend on circumstance. I do prefer people actually go through the copyright review test though, as I believe it forces people to learn the nuances of the copyright laws.
And so I want to ask here whether you guys think this splitting of the Verified tag in 4 is a good idea? I originally thought it might come in handy later on, but I would like your ideas on this issue now, especially when they haven't yet been used much. Perhaps we should start a page listing all the additional features that the copyright tagger should have, and have a discussion on each feature for clarification.
Regarding the "Editorial Review" tag, it may be possible, though we will have to define more clearly its difference with the CR tag :) --Feldmahler 11:47, 3 November 2007 (EDT)
P.S. Actually, putting the discussion on the site development page is probably a fine idea :) --Feldmahler 11:48, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

I actually think the new series of tags is a good idea. My only suggestion - just as an aid to help reviewers in remembering what the different tags mean - would be to introduce "VerifiedCA" for those composers like Bartok and Prokofiev, whose later works are PD in Canada and the 50pma countries. The plain "Verified" could gradually be deprecated as all 15000 files were reviewed. USA copyrights are really complicated unless you're going to implement a hard rule about all post-1922 publications. The fact is, there are quite a few post-1922 items - especially Muzgiz issues - that are public domain and reprinted in the US to this day. For example, selected volumes of the NMA and the NBA were not renewed by Baerenreiter, but others were. I am also curious as to whether Canada's section 9 (the RoST) applies to works of US origin where the copyright was not renewed. Percy Grainger, as I've mentioned before, became a US citizen in 1918. He was notoriously sloppy about renewal, as was his widow Ella. Nearly everything after 1918 was first published in the US as well. Are these PD works also free in Canada due to RoST?

I suppose that the Copyright Review tag could be used for those editions where there was a question. Carolus 14:13, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

OK, I moved this conversation to the appropriate page. On the main page of this talk page, we can start naming our wishlist.
I totally agree with a temporary verification stop until we have an update for the tagging system. If we are really going for a run through all 15,000 files, let it be only once :-s Identification of publications can of course proceed, as this will ease later verification.
This brings us to the once discussed publication template. If it will be implemented, it can only happen at this time. But that's stuff for another discussion.
How about this: instead of having tags, we just have selections for each of the three jurisdictions. The selections are: "PD", field with year entering PD, "Not PD", and "Unknown". The first and last two are static (they are 0, 9999 and 9998 respectively), and the middle one is dynamic. That way we 1. don't have to have every combination of jurisdictions, and 2. don't have to manually update the tag, as long as the year is entered (instead of selecting one of the static ones). --Feldmahler 14:35, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Status of works with CC licences

Hi Feldmahler,

the new copyright tagging system looks great. I'm hoping December will be slightly less nuts than the last month has been for me, and can get into the clean-up at greater length. I presume the task of going through 15,000 files is less urgent compared to going through anything by composers in the Category:ComposerNonPD-USandEU?

Well, that category is a good start that's for sure :)

Question: should creative commons copyrighted works - e.g. composers who've submitted their own pieces, or editors who've submitted their own editions, be classified as "verified"? The tagging system assumes "verified" always equals public domain, when in fact these works have a copyright status, and will (eventually) become public domain. My edition of the Faur√© is not PD; and I'm intending to upload a short fanfare I wrote a few weekends ago. As I'm not planning on dying anytime soon, the copyright term under most jurisdictions is for the time being, open-ended. :) Philip Legge @ ¬© Φ 21:14, 25 November 2007 (EST)

Very good point... I haven't actually thought about that. It may be a good idea to leave them alone for the time being, until I've decided to either start a new category in the copyright tagger, or expand "Verified" to mean either PD or permission to post on IMSLP. --Feldmahler 08:12, 26 November 2007 (EST)
Personally, I've always thought of the term "verified" as meaning: 'This item is verifiably permissible to be posted at IMSLP.' I always applied the "verified" tag to cases like Philip's, where I knew it was a composer-arranger-editor postin his own work. That said, I would like to see a tag appear to remind users that the particular work or file is not public domain, but posted under one of the CC or similar license. I think Jujimufu actually designed such a boxed statement for his own works. Carolus 14:46, 26 November 2007 (EST)
Carolus, I agree totally with what it means, though that's not what the documentation says! ;-) Anyway, having "CC" as a licence option in the copyright tagger would be nice, but not essential - I will put the status to "Verified" for the time being. Regards - PML