User talk:Carolus/archive1


Thanks for your interest in the sorting of the BGA. However, you will have to split the file you uploaded (BWV131-140.pdf) into the 10 seperate cantatas, instead of a single file for the entire book. You will also need to follow the cantata submission style (and filename format) that is used in the previous cantata submissions (i.e. make it look like previous submissions). Don't forget to not submit the introduction/preface, since all of those will be put on a seperate page later.

--Feldmahler 23:33, 8 August 2006 (CDT)

I'll split them up and re-submit later on - sorry!


BWV Numbers

It's probably a good idea to add BWV numbers to the title of every Bach page, following the current style. Don't worry about pages that you already created though, they'll get fixed when we do the second pass checking of the BGA project. :) (Edit: Actually I just fixed it) --Feldmahler 22:54, 31 August 2006 (EDT)

BWV Numbers

Thanks, Feldmahler. I realized that I'd forgotten to include the BWV number in the basic listing right after I submitted it. I saw no way to correct my omission, so I'm glad you'll take care of it.

There should be a "move" link on top of the page... and you can change the title using that :) Also, don't worry about the redirect page that's created by the move, it's not harmful in any way anyway (haha). --Feldmahler 05:03, 1 September 2006 (EDT)

Moving stuff

I moved the one concerto to a new sub-category for both of the three-piano concerti (which seemed a bit more logical), but it would not allow me to move the second one there. Any ideas? Thanks.

The problem is that you can't move two pages into one page... so you'll have to either manually move the file entry to the new page, or use the "add a file to this work page" link again (it now supports resubmission; the IMSLP number will be the same as the original one). After you're finished you can just blank the old page (erase everything from it), and leave a note for me to completely delete the page. Btw, I already did this for you with BWV1063, so you don't need to worry about that one. :) --Feldmahler 20:55, 2 September 2006 (EDT)

Adding Mutopia files

Hello, I see you are adding some mutopia files. Please note that the field "Editor" is meant for the editor of the edition on which the mutopia file is based. An editor is someone who makes decisions about the music typesetting based on manuscripts, first editions, etc. The typesetters of Mutopia try to make a copy that looks as identical as possible to the edition they are using, so they can't be called editors. Same is for publisher, Mutopia is no publisher. The information of the original publisher can be found on the file listing pages of mutopia or under the link "More information". It is wise to add this publisher info to IMSLP, as this is a prove for their legal status and valuable information for musicologists or musicians.

Thanks, Peter 03:23, 4 September 2006 (EDT)

Mutopia Files

You make some good points here, Peter. The problem with the two Beethoven titles I added is that Mutopia itself does not mention who the original editor and publisher are. My guess is that both were taken from the Beethoven 'Gesammtausgabe' that was issued by Breitkopf and Härtel in the mid-to-late 19th century. If I trolled around OCLC for a while, I might even be able to find out the actual editor for the Coriolanus and Fidelio overtures was. While the Lilypond engravers may have attempted to reproduce the Breitkopf scores, even a cursory comparison of the two reveals significant differences in layout for both score and parts. In the set of parts for the Fidelio Overture, for example, whoever extracted them in Lilypond evidently had no familiarity with the concept of using multimeasure rests, which severely limits their usefulness from a practical standpoint.

So, even though the content of the Mutopia files are strictly public domain - they certainly would not hold up in a US court - they are not strictly identical to the Breitkopf originals due to the extremely limited and somewhat inflexible natue of Lilypond as an angraving platform (which might well explain why Lilypond is not used by any major music publisher for producing new publications). Thus we find ourselves in this curious nether-world when it comes to Mutopia scores. They are not reprints or facsimiles, even if they reproduce the content exactly. In light of Lilypond's limitation, I suspect it might not be possible to reproduce a fair number of scores exactly in terms of content as well. I would therefore consider any claims of 100 percent faithfulness to the public domain sources as somewhat questionable as well.

I just wanted to make sure that all file information pages present the information consistently. But you have a very good point that the fact that a score is coming from Mutopia does not designate that the score is 100% identical. Hence it is wise to mention on IMSLP, besides the original publisher info, that the piece has been retypeset. The quality of the retypesetted scores is on one hand depending on the qualities of the typesetters, and on the other hand on the possibilities of Lilypond. The Beethoven overtures for example are not the best typesets I've seen on Mutopia: old lilypond version and negligent editing.
Indeed, Lilypond is extremely hard to use, but when mastered it delivers the finest scores possible with opensource or low budget software (visit their website. I think, with recent versions of lilypond, and an extremely great deal of spare time, it is possible to create sheet music with even better print quality than the original convincing example. Sadly enough, this idea has some utopian dimensions :) --Peter 07:48, 4 September 2006 (EDT)
As a contributor to Mutopia, I thought I'd chime in. When I'm working on a piece for Mutopia, I certainly attempt to retain all pertinent information in the score: notes, dynamics, articulations, etc. However, while I attempt to use good pratice when it comes to formatting (multi-measure rests, etc), though I'm certainly no master engraver, I don't try to preserve the original layout of the score (and I rarely have scores of parts to work from, so I have no guide there). That's not what my goal is; if I wanted to reproduce the score exactly, I'd photocopy it or scan it, and put it here. And I don't think it's the Mutopia project's goal, either, though I can't speak for them. Therefore, IMO, you should never regard Mutopia scores as definitive, and, while they can be useful, and I encourage everyone to use them, it would be better to find replacements -- actual scans -- whenever possible for IMSLP. This not only ensures that you have the actual copy of the edition, but also that the edition is, in fact, out of copyright. --Emeraldimp 15:10, 4 September 2006 (EDT)

Thanks, Peter and Emeraldimp, for your insights into the workings of both Mutopia and Lilypond. The most important thing you must remember to do when it comes to parts is to allow for page turns. In other words, a right-hand page should end on a rest of sufficient length to turn the page - or the subsequent left hand page should begin with such a rest. This is not always possible with string parts, who frequently play continually or nearly so. It is best in such cases to arrange the layout so that the turn occurs during an accompaniment pattern, where half the violin players (for example) dropping out for a couple of beats wouldn't destroy the musical effect.

Other Complete Works

Hi there Carolus! I'm thinking about starting another project alongside the BGA... do you know of any other public domain publication of the complete works (or even a significant collection) of some composer (Mozart, Beethoven, etc.)? I would like to get my hands on it (preferably already scanned, else that'd take a LONG time to get started with the project). --Feldmahler 11:11, 7 September 2006 (EDT)

Hi, There were several "gesammtausgaben" issued in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Handel (over 50 volumes - edited almost entirely by Friedrich Chrysander, who sold homegrown vegetables to pay for the engraving), Mozart (various editors), Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Schumann (Clara Schumann and Brahms were involved in editing many volumes), Schubert, Berlioz, and Brahms. There were also a number of similar series issued by Durand and other French publishers working with the Schola Cantorum.

I'll be checking around to see if anyone has scanned these series. There are a number of people who are basically doing their own versions of "CD Sheet Music" and selling them on E-Bay. I do know of an outfit, University Music Editions, who has a number of these series on microfiche, which could conceivably allow for a certain amount of automation of the process with the proper hardware.


Can you point me to some of those things on eBay? I checked around ebay but for some reason didn't find anything... I'm thinking that it might bring more participation if we have several (3-4) projects on different composers going on at the same time. I hope that it will not make them stall though. --Feldmahler 18:04, 7 September 2006 (EDT)

I found a few. Here's a list and here's an example. Another thing to look at is the orchestral musician's library. everynote also has inexpensive music pdf's. I know this has been discussed before, but can we just take these and add them here? I guess my question is how do we evaluate each of these to decide if it can be added? Horndude77 20:00, 7 September 2006 (EDT)
Well... as long as we know the edition we should be able to find info about it online (maybe through Amazon?). My problem with "CD sheet music" clones is that many have a very shady license, which lays claim to rights on the scans as part of a "computer software"; I'm not sure it is enforcable, but it can be messy since you seem to be forced to agree to the license before you use the files. On the other hand, if you can avoid agreeing to the license, you should be able to use it as a public domain scan, since the standard copyright law does NOT grant any copyright protection to mere scans (you *can* not agree to licenses sometimes, for example, the GPL [though not agreeing to the GPL would mean you would have no rights, since copyright law DOES protect the software]). I might very well be off, so someone correct me if they have something else.
Anyway, back to the scans. If we can find some scanned complete collection of some composer's works that is genuinely free (i.e. don't force you to agree to a license), it would be a godsend for IMSLP. It'd be a good idea for everyone to keep an eye out for such scans. --Feldmahler 22:10, 7 September 2006 (EDT)

The Levite "Custom Scores" are evidently ones that he has trascribed into Sibelius in order to facilitate instant transposition, etc. Levite is one of the biggest sellers of this type of thing on Ebay. Here is listing from another seller, who evidently works out of Vancouver, BC. ( ). I am sometimes amazed at the sheer cluelessness of music publishers. Ravel's "Bolero" was used in a movie ("Ten") back in the 1980s (It was under copyright then, as it is now in the USA) Theodore Presser, Durand's US agent at the time, didn't find out about the unauthorized synchronization of the work until a couple of years after the fact, when someone pointed it out to them!

At any rate, those are the big three on Ebay. There are some re-sellers of "CD Sheet Music" also. Ditto for the Hal Leonard collections of orchestra parts for various instruments. There's also the Elibron site, which has a fair number of obscure Russian works. Their PDFs are locked down pretty tightly, and not easily hacked. The scans don't appear to be that great, though.

I found it funny one time that I was using a Java program for splitting PDF files, and it just hosed the PDF file locks too, which made me believe that the PDF file locks aren't actually encryption or anything, but simply a flag (my friend and I had a good laugh over this). Anyway, I think the main problem with those collections (besides the fact that they are sometimes so very not in the PD), is that they are rather a loose collection; it's not like a scan of a complete work set published by some single publisher (like the BGA). I'd think that there would be no real reason to buy those since people can just collect the scores that make up the collection from around the internet. But anyway, it'd be nice if someone can come up with some new project... maybe I should create a project discussion page. --Feldmahler 09:52, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Non-PD in US tags

I see that you're marking a bunch of pieces as non-pd in the US and EU which I think is great. I'm no media-wiki master, but I think this may be done better as a template to eliminate the redundancy. I'll see if I can get a template working and report back here. Horndude77 01:15, 24 September 2006 (EDT)

Ok, I modified Sonata for Two Pianos and Percussion Sz.110 (Bartók, Béla). Let me know if this seems right to you. Should these also be added to a category also. Might that be a better way to mark them? In any case I'll change the others that I find. Thanks for doing this! Horndude77 01:23, 24 September 2006 (EDT)

Hi, I think that for certain composers like Bartok, it really needs to be done on a work by work basis. Only the Bartok works published prior to 1923 are public domain in the USA, (a substantial number when the Roszavolgyi issues are included) while his entire output is aparently free in Canada due to his death in 1945. It is my understanding that the Canadian term is going to change thanks to the FTAA (Free Trade Agreement of the Americas) agreement, which will a life-plus-70 term as a minimum. That would not be retroactive, though, unless certain lobbyists influence Canada's legislature to make it so. (Mexico's term, BTW, is the longest in the world - life plus 100.) Our intrepid moderator, Feldmahler, has already set up a template for those composers (like Barber and Shostakovich) whose output is almost entirely under copyight worldwide. We're just dealing with the mixed cases like Bartok, Holst, and Ravel now.

All I am attempting to do here is to make IMSLP immune from any potential lawsuits or serious threats thereof. I've been working professionally in te classical music publishing field for some 25 years now, so I am aware of some of he more obvious pitfalls and misconceptions circulating about copyright. If you can create a template that can be used whenever someone submits a work which incorporates the basic guidlines below, that would indeed be a great help.

The general rules are this: Publication in 1923 or later is the line of demarcation for US copyright law (unless you are really an expert who can prove your case), while the 70 years "post mortem actoris" (after the death of the last surviving author) rule applies to the EU and most of the world in general. Canada is a bit unusual insofar that it retains the older 'life-plus-50' standard.

Thus, anything published before 1923 whose composer died more than 50 years ago is public domain in almost the entire world (like the entire Bach Gesellschaft Ausgabe). If the last surviving author (either composer, librettist, arranger or editor) died less than 70 years ago and the work in question was published after 1923, it should not be uploaded to IMSLP absent serious proof of its copyright status. If the work in question was published after 1923 and the last surviving author died more than 50 years ago, a disclaimer of some sort should be included with the submission for those accessing the site from the USA, the EU, Mexico, etc. The disclaimer you added for the Sonata for Two Pianos and Percussion looks fine to me.

I thank you two for the thought that you've put into this :) I think this is indeed a very good idea. About the FTAA, we'll just have to cross our fingers and hope for the best. --Feldmahler 08:06, 25 September 2006 (EDT)

Schubert: Octet

Hi Peter,

This Octet is not the same one as that which you posted from the Variations project. The D. 72 and 72a are fragments of an early attempt (1813). The famous Octet is D. 803 - composed 11 years later.

I'm terribly sorry - I should have seen that. I assumed there was only "the" octet by Schubert... I have corrected the changes.--Peter 12:42, 15 December 2006 (EST)

Wellesley College

Hi! Hi see you uploaded scores scanned by Wellesley College. Are they available online? --Peter 11:31, 25 December 2006 (EST)

Hi Peter. Yes, they are. Piano works only, but they appear to be very nice scans that often include the cover designs. If you go to the bottom of MacDowell's Wikipedia page, you'll find a link to the Wellesley site.


Hi, I read your message to feldmahler about the copyright issues. I set up these tables, so maybe we could discuss it further on the talk page of Public Domain as this discussion concerns everyone who follows these issues. I replied there. By the way, feel free to change these tables to a less confusing version!
Cheers, --Peter 17:55, 28 December 2006 (EST)

Thanks, Peter. I just went in and made a couple of slight modifications in the tables, along with one for the non-PD US and EU template. I've been adding the US expiration dates for Ravel works still protected also. I hope makes things a bit clearer, since the method of determining copyright term was so profoundly different in the US for all pre-1978 works.
Best Wishes, --Carolus, 28 December 2006 (EST)

The copyright warnings you are adding right now, these are to be removed in three days, correct? Then these works are in universal copyright? This is so confusing... --Peter 18:40, 28 December 2006 (EST)

No, the Ravel works I'm giving the warnings for are protected in the USA for a full 95 years after the year of first publication. Bolero, for example, was first published in 1929. It will be under copyright in the USA until a full 95-year term has passed, not entering the public domain until Jan. 1, 2025. The source of all this confusion lies with the method used in determining copyright term, Until 1978, the date of publication was used as the basis for starting the term. The life-plus-70 provisions apply only to works created or published after Jan. 1, 1978. All pre-1978 works are governed under terms based upon the 1909 law (as modified).
--Carolus, 28 December 2006 (EST)

You seem to know a lot of the copyright law. Could you give your opinion on what I replied on Talk:Public domain? I thought there was a difference between works published inside and outside the U.S., and I have the impression that you consider everything as published inside the U.S.? Best Wishes --Peter 05:14, 30 December 2006 (EST)


Wow, you're quick. That was added to mutopia just today. I recently upgraded to a new version of lilypond so there are some new collisions in it. If you find any mistakes or have any improvements let me know. Horndude77 19:30, 1 January 2007 (EST)

Hehe, I felt (a little) guilty when I saw you hadn't uploaded it yet! Looks like a fine job - congratulations! -- Carolus, 1 January 2007.

Quote bug

Hi! Just wanted to say that there apparently was a bug with having quotes in the work page title which was why you couldn't submit the Satie piece, but that bug is fixed now, and I've also submitted the file for you :) --Feldmahler 00:36, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Thanks for fixing that! It was frustrating to not be able to properly list the file after I took all the time to upload the monster. --Carolus 3 January 2007 (EST)

beethoven sonata

Hi Carolus, I saw you identified the publications of many files, like of the first file of Beethoven's Sonata No. 16. May I ask you how you do that? The file provided no info to my knowledge. Can we learn this skill? --Peter 11:52, 10 January 2007 (EST)

Hi Peter, I suppose it's a skill acquired over a long time of dealing with lots of printed music. Different publishers use different engraving styles, typefaces, etc. I recognized the older file of Sonata 16 immediately as being the product of Universal Editon, then remembered that they'd published all 32 sonatas as edited by Schenker (who is better known in the field of theory and harmonic analysis) which Dover reprinted fairly early on in their extensive series of music score reprints. Having access to First Search/OCLC helps, because I can easily look up all the library holdings listed there. I can very often tell approximately where and when a given piece of music was engraved by looking at it. My big complaint with much of the scanned music we run across is that the scanners often eliminate all references to the original publisher, including the plate numbers, page numbers, composer credits, titles, etc.
While this might appear to be arcane nitpicking on my part to some observers, it can present us with potential copyright problems if someone uploads a scan of a Peters score where the editor died only recently - in the 1950s-70s, for example - even though it was first published in 1922. It might be public domain in the US, but it would still be protected in Canada and the EU. I'm beginning to wonder if there should be some process of file review before things are actually posted. It could be a lot of work to review all the potential submissions, though, and I know how busy life can get. --Carolus, 10 January 2007 (EST)

Manuscript Category

Hi Carolus! I noticed that you were tagging work pages with manuscripts with the Manuscript category; so I modified the File template, and now the work page will automatically be under the Manuscript category if it has a manuscript score on it, and so you no longer need to manually tag the work pages :)

This will not come into effect for all work pages at once due to caching; however, it should be correct once the caches of the pages are purged (i.e. the pages are reparsed, usually once in a few days). --Feldmahler 17:05, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Dvorak Symphony No.8

I saw the file submission errors in the error log, so I submitted the file for you :) You can edit the file fields etc. Apparently the problem is because of a difference in encoding; I'll write a workaround (by internalizing the work page name itself) soon. --Feldmahler 22:02, 3 February 2007 (EST)

Thanks, it definitely has something to do with the "r" character with the marking over it in Dvorak's name. Mac OS 9, does not include that particular character, while it includes others that are not in the standard set. OS X, which I'll be moving to soon, is unicode compliant.

Gutenberg Schubert Scores

Hi Carolus! Thanks for the tip on the Schubert scores, they look great and they'll definitely save me a lot of time. I just wish I'd read your comment first today... I just scanned a quartet! No worries, though, I'll get started processing with the Gutenberg stuff once it's downloaded. --Emeraldimp 14:27, 11 February 2007 (EST)

Your scan certainly looks nice. Glad the Gutenberg site will save you some time. I know that Peter's been putting together PDFs from their files of Chabrier, Bizet and Alkan. IMSLP's almost a year old and we're already nearing 2000 titles. That's pretty impressive!

Thanks! And it's amazing... I'm quite glad IMSLP has done so well. --Emeraldimp 00:15, 12 February 2007 (EST)

beethoven sonatas

Nice idea for putting a navigation pane for the Beethoven sonatas! I will upload the second volume of the Kiev reprint in the next week, but the downloads are terribly slow (<1 kbps). One day, IMSLP will be proud of having all 133+ editions of the sonatas... :) Peter 17:17, 18 February 2007 (EST)

I hope it will make things easier for folks who want to add new editions. I know what you mean about the slowness of downloading from that Russian site! I gave up in frustration myself. Tarakanov's site is much better in that regard. There is some file duplication among the Russian sites, but not a great deal. On one of the others, there's a complete Peters Leipzig (East German) edition of the complete sonatas. I haven't found out who the editors are yet, but I'll start posting them after I do. BTW, I think that Ditson actually re-engraved the Cotta edition instead of simply reprinting them. I notice what appears to be an engraver's initials on the lower right corner of the first music page. I agree that having muliple editions is a big plus for IMSLP.

File Template

Unfortunately, I'll have to change the file template back to fixed pixel widths... but since I know that it was too large for you, I can make it smaller, and you can tell me whether it fits in your window or not :) The template used to be percentage fixed too, but had to change it to pixel fixed because people with widescreen (or just plain large) monitors complained that it was way too long... :/ --Feldmahler 11:51, 20 February 2007 (EST)

Oh, well, and here I thought I was so clever in using percentages! It's not a big deal, really - leave the pixel widths as you have them. Besides, it offers yet more inspiration to upgrade my ancient system here. I have another reason to justify spending money!! I have to so I can continue to have fun at IMSLP :).

Ausgabe des J.S.Bach-Magnificat

Zunächst meine Hochachtung für die wertvolle Arbeit die Sie hier leisten. Nun aber einen kleinen Fehler, den ich gefunden habe: In der Ausgabe des Magnificats von J.S.Bach wurde offensichtlich die Seite 31 der Partitur gegen eine Seite 31 einer anderen Partitur vertauscht. Evtl. ist es möglich, das bei Gelegenheit noch zu korrigieren? Herzlichen Gruß C. Hofius --Hofius 11:30, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

O, sorry. I will repeat my request, because I am not sure if you understand german: In the PDF-score of the J.S. Bach Magnificat (BWV 243) you gave into this collection I found a small mistake: Page 31 of the Magnificat was changed with the page 31 of another work. Maybe you are able to correct this sometimes. Thanks. C. Hofius --Hofius 11:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for pointing this out, Hofius. I'll post a corrected score when I get a chance.

Copyright review/category usage

Hi Carolus, thanks for reviewing the copyright status of the files that I have tagged. Just a minor suggestion: maybe it would be better to actually add the files to e.g. Category:IMSLP:Articles for Deletion (i.e. not to use the leading colon in the wikilink), so that they can be found simply by looking at the category page. However, don't bother about the present ones, I'll find them via the backlinks. Thanks again --Leonard Vertighel 04:27, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, I wondered what I was doing wrong and was mystified that the deleted items failed to appear in that category!

Two questions about copyright

Hi Carolus! Peter and Funper are having a rather lively discussion about the copyright status of the Neue Liszt Ausgabe on Peter's talk page... and I was wondering if you could provide information on this (has anyone reprinted them)? The pieces in question can be found in the copyright review category. :)

Also, an anonymous donor has asked whether he could scan an old Dover edition of Beethoven's 8th and 9th Symphonies. Considering the importance of those works, I think the current offering completely fails to do justice; plus the scan of the 9th has missing pages and so cannot be considered complete. I'll quote from his e-mail:

I would like to ask if I can scan a copy that was once published by Dover but now discontinued, which is Symphonies no. 8 and 9 in full orchestral score (1978), a republication of an Eulenburg edition edited by Max Unger (I think around the 1920s). I can't quite get the ISBN for the score, but I found a close one in this: [1]

Thanks! :) --Feldmahler 11:20, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Hi Feldmahler,

The Neue Liszt Ausgabe has not been reprinted by either Masters, Kalmus or Kalmus-Alfred. It's evidently protected in the US also. As I recall, EMB didn't start issuing those volumes until after 1963, so there can't be a claim of PD status based upon lack of renewal. As to the earlier editions of the Dover Beethoven Symphonies, I think Dover withdrew the Eulenburg reprints and replaced them with Litolff due to an inability to sell them in the UK (Eulenburg moved its main office to London before WWII). They are almost certainly free in the USA, and I think that Kalmus-Alfred still reprints them. A good section of the Eulenburg catalog was simply taken over from the London firms Payne and Donajowski after Eulenburg acquired them in the 1890s. Eulenburg has been known for affixing scarecrow copyright notices, and this may have included the Beethoven symphonies. They've issued plenty of new engravings and editions over the years also, so it would take some digging to find out the exact date of the Unger editions. -- Carolus 9 April 2007

Thanks for the information Carolus! :) It seems like this edition will only be PD in the USA... since Max Unger died in 1959. --Feldmahler 03:45, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Another little question about copyright...

Actually, I was thinking about it, and it seemed to me that the fact the publication was first done in Germany (Leipzig) would be the reason for the pd-ness of the publication in the US (due to the scholarly edition law). So I was wondering, does the Berne rule of the shorter term go on the citizenship of the copyright owner at the time of filing the suit, or at the time of first publication. I'm inclined towards first publication (or else the works would be falling into and out of the public domain randomly), but I'd like confirmation. If it is the citizenship at the time of first publication, the Eulenburg edition would be pd in Canada also... I'm assuming the UK has some weird law about this (and I'm not surprised considering the size of their copyright law).

And I also got my hands on a very old publication from the 1930s of the Eulenburg edition of the 6th symphony... if that is any help. It does say clearly that it was published in Leipzig in any case :) --Feldmahler 14:46, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

The citizenship (or more accurately, primary residence of business) of the publisher at the time of publication would appear to be the determining factor for "country of origin". Eulenburg had an office in London starting in the 1890s after their purchase of Payne and Donajowski. Even so, the main office and headquarters was in Leipzig up until the late 1930s. The Unger editions most likely date from the 1920s or early to mid 1930s, which means the country of origin is Germany, not the UK. The reasons they are PD in the USA are: 1) They were published without a copyright notice, which injected them into the public domain upon publication or distribution in the USA; 2) Their PD status in Germany - due to the German law's limited term for editions - rendered them ineligible for restoration under the GATT/TRIPs provisions. Since Unger's edition many be protected in the UK and alsewhere in the EU, Dover didn't want to bother with it and reprinted the less ambiguous Litolff scores instead. --Carolus

Ahh... thanks a lot :) That is all I needed to know. --Feldmahler 18:40, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Introduction and a question

Hi Carolus. I don't think that we have been introduced to eachother :) In either way, admin here since some 10 months now, and I have heard that you are an expert on editions and copyright questions. I wanted to aks you if you are acquainted with these new Beethoven Sonata editions on IMSLP? These are from, more details in the composers category-talk. Nice to have you here by the way :) --Funper 16:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Hi Funper, I noticed the addition of the Beethoven eds. from SMA. I don't recognize them on first glance, but I expect they were engraved in Germany sometime between ca.1900-1940, from the overall appearance of the type and music symbols employed. That general description could fit some 150 different publishers, so it will take a while to find out exactly who SMA scanned here. Some are a lot easier to spot upon first sight than others. I was already familiar with the Schenker edition of the Beethoven sonatas, so that was an easy one to track down the date on. Thanks for putting the new eds. up. Having multiple editions is a great asset. It's one of the things that makes IMSLP such a fantastic site. --Carolus 29 April 2007
Alright. Hey I tried to search E-bay for Liszt editions (forum) but apperently they are a little short on that. I tried to track down Neue Liszt-Ausgabe, I really want to buy that but I strangely can't find a retailer. Editio Musica Budapest have no information on how to attain it, apperently they aren't to keen on letting people buy it.--Funper 16:49, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
Hi, Try this list: Also. I think that the agency for these editions in the USA is a place called Educational Music Service in Chester, NY. They were the agents about 10 years ago for sure. Such agencies shift frequently, so it might be worth a call. Hope this helps! --Carolus 29 April 2007
Thanks for your help. --Funper 17:10, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Welcome to Admin-dom

Welcome to admin-dom! Policy outlines can be found here :) If you need to remove a page along with all the images on it you can use the page delete special page. If there are US server files on the page (i.e. {{File1923 template), you can just delete the page itself and all should be fine on the wiki. However, if you need a file(s) removed from the US server (after deleting the wiki page), just post on the copyright section on the forums... I suspect this would be rather infrequent so I haven't set up anything specific for it :) --Feldmahler 23:24, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Regarding Deletions

Hi there Carolus! :) Just a note regarding page deletions... it may be a good idea to remove whatever was in the "reason for deletion" box, and type the real deletion reason instead; it makes deletions much easier to track :) I know that the default behavior of the wiki is to fill the "reason for deletion" box with alot of rather unnecessary stuff, if there is only one contributor to the page... I'm not really sure why that is the default action, but apparently it is :) --Feldmahler 22:20, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

OK, I'll try and remember to do that! I think I just missed the box by not scrolling down on the page enough. I really don't like to go around deleting pages and try to limit it to fairly obvious things like copyright violations. I thought that the duplicate pages for Six Epigraphs Antiques and the Vivaldi Four Seasons were potentially confusing. Carolus 22:29, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Ah... the deletions themselves are perfectly fine :) --Feldmahler 22:33, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Jurgenson Catalogue

Dear Carolus,

Could be possible to access the file "Jurgenson-TchaikovskyThematicCat.pdf‎"?

It is of great interest. Thanks for your answer. --Ppalma00 15:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)