User talk:Carolus/archive3


Archive pages for this user talk page

Note about the noautotag tag

Hi Carolus! I noticed that you were trying to add the noautotag tag to the page, and so I fixed it, as you can see here. Because <!--autotag--> by itself is a HTML comment (and will not normally show up), I "dressed" it up in the autotagger manual page. I also did that for all code elements just so that it will show clearly what I'm referring to. In no case does text formatting matter in code; formatting is strictly for humans (machines prefer it without) :) --Feldmahler 04:27, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Oh and I noticed that you didn't have formatting in your first change. That change didn't work because you forgot the exclamation mark in <!--. :) --Feldmahler 04:32, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. In light of the fact that IMSLP is now hosting protected works of living composers under CC licenses, I was wondering if we might wish to change the WorkNonPD template by omittiing the language about it being created by autotags and how it will be deleted soon or create another template to occupy that spot once a work is verified. I think it's useful to have the blunt reminder to potential users that Mr. Irgmaier's works, for example, are very much protected by copyright even though they are being freely distributed under the CC license. Carolus 13:21, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

This sounds like a good idea, though some code rewrites are needed. I'll put this on my to-do list. I'd also probably use another template; the current non-PD template looks rather scary (with the red and all), so people will probably not download the file even if we explain it correctly. :) --06:49, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

And here I was thinking we should add a nice skull-and-crossbones, daggers, a gallows (Le Gibet - Ravel's Gaspard de la Huit), perhaps a guillotine. Oh, well.... :) Carolus 02:04, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Publishers' pages plate number additions

Heya there!

I saw that you added a score in the table with the plate numbers of the Hansen publishing house. As you very well did, you linked the work title to the respective work page on IMSLP. I am leaving you this note to kindly ask you to do the same for the composer's name as well (to link to the respective composer's page, that is). I've done the trick for you in the Hansen page for now, but it would be really helpful if you could keep that in mind for your next additions in publishers' pages tables with plate/edition numbers.

Thanks a lot!

~ jujimufu 08:07, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Hi Jujimufu, I often do add the composer category to the plate number table as you describe because it makes it easier for other users to add additional plate numbers to the tables. Plate numbers are a very useful aid in determining the actual first date of publication, which in turn can be very important in determining the copyright status of a work - especially in the USA. As I recall, I was called away from the computer last night after adding the Stenhammar Op.33 to the Hansen plate number table. Thanks for adding the composer link.

Carolus 13:27, 8 July 2007 (EDT)


Hey there Carolus!

I noticed you removed the <!--noautotag--> code from the page Narcosis (Psimicakis-Chalcocondylis, Nicolaos-Laonicos).

Quoting the auto-tag notice, " [if] you have the permission of the copyright owner to submit the work, you may manually override the auto-tagging". Well, the composer of this piece is myself, and not only that, but I have licensed the piece under a Creative Commons license, which gives full rights for distribution (as long as they give credit for the work) to anyone. I therefore don't see the reason why the noautotag code should be removed from the page, since I do have permissions of the copyright owner to submit the work, and I followed the instructions of the template to manually override it.

Also, when replying to notes, make sure you're putting a " : " (without the quotes) before each paragraph, so it is indented and it is thus more easy to read when replying by parts (check what Feldmahler has done in the first topic on this talk page).

Take care! ~ jujimufu 06:47, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Hi Jujimufu, Feldmahler and I have been discussing the issue of the "WorkNonPD" template, and whether it should appear on all new, copyrighted works or not. It will have to be modified if so, because of all the nomenclauture you mention - especially the line about the title ebing removed in a couple of days, etc. The basic point is that there should be a simple notice of some sort there reminding potential users that the work in question, while freely available for download thanks to the courtesy of the composer (as in your case), are still under copyright. Ideally, if the item that appears is a simple notice at the top of the page, there should be no need to employ the NoAutoTag at all. Hopefully, Feldmahler will be able to encode things so that the revised simple notice will appear whenever a new composition is verified. Carolus 02:08, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
What about the notice that I manually wrote right now on the work page? Is this enough, until Feldmahler fixes the templates? ~ jujimufu 08:29, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Feinberg Copyright

Hey Carolus, see my talk page for a question I had about the Friedman page. On another note I had a question about works of Samuel Feinberg. I working on F for the MIT project and their are quite a few of Feinberg's works. He died in 1962 so I didn't think he would be under copyright, except maybe some editions that were pre 1923 and thus allowable in the US. However, all of the scores appear to be Muzgiz/Musika editions which I thought generally were works that weren't copyrighted. Could you possibly go take a look at them and let me know whether they can be posted or not. Thanks.Mcroskell 03:20, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Hi Mcroskell, Unlike all the editions of older works (Glinka, Tchaikovsky, etc.), the Muzika publications of composers like Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Khachaturian, and Feinberg, were all "restored" to copyright status in the USA by virtue of the GATT/TRIPs amendments. Pre-1923 publications would not be affected, but anything later is given an automatic term of 95 years after publication once they filed the NIE (Notice of Intent to Enforce). Schirmer, who had acquired the Muzika catalogue for the contemporary composers, filed NIEs (many hundreds) on all of them - as far as I can tell. No Feinberg unless published before 1923, sorry to say. Carolus 03:27, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
OK, good to know. Is that 95 year term only applicable in the US & EU? Will his works be out of copyright in Canada and like copyright standard countries in 2012?
Jan. 1, 2013 in Canada, Japan, etc. Jan. 1, 2033 for the EU, etc. 95 years after publication for the USA only. Carolus 03:42, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Dvorak Op.72

Hey Carolus, I'm doing K now on the MIT project and have come across Robert Keller's transcriptions of Dvorak's Op.72 Slavonic Dances. I can't find any exact dates on when Keller lived but I know he was a contemporary of Brahms & Dvorak so I think it's pretty safe to assume his work is PD. Anyway, the works are a Breitkopf & Hartel edition that was printed in Leipzig. It looks pretty new so I'm thinking it must be post 1992, judging by the dates that are given in the publisher info section on IMSLP. The plate number & Edition no. would seem to imply that it is old and just a reprint edition but it looks to me like it could be a new engraving/typeset, but I couldn't tell for sure. Could you have a look at it and let me know? Thanks.Mcroskell 22:43, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Hi, If was printed in Leipzig, it might not be so new. The East German government ran a publishing concern in Leipzig under the imprint of Breitkopf & Hartel from 1945-1989. Apart from some contemporary East German composers that may have been restored thanks to GATT, nothing produced by that concern - or any other East German publisher - is eligible for copyright in the USA. I'm under the impression that the Leipzig office, which was taken over once again by the actual company Breitkopf and Hartel after 1989, is a branch office that no longer issues things on its own. That's just my impression, though. At any rate, post one or two of them an let me have a look. You're right about Keller being a contemporary of Brahms and Dvorak. I can't seem to find any info on him, though. Could have been a pseudonym. Carolus 03:47, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
Ok, I went ahead & uploaded them so you can check them out and make the call.Mcroskell 05:11, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

MIT Project

Hey there Carolus!

I read that you are busy right now, concerning the MIT project (and until fall), but I was just wondering if you could post your progress so far (it shouldn't take that long) in the finished composers page of the project.

Thanks a lot!

~ jujimufu 11:53, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Hi, There's nothing to post! All I've had time to do was check on the copyright status of items that others have posted so far. I thought I might have time to get to the G's, but it turns out that I won't until October at the earliest. Thanks, Carolus 17:04, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Ok then :) Don't forget to put the colon ( : ) before each paragraph of your reply so it looks indented and thus more neat :P Take care! ~ jujimufu 20:17, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Durand typeface

Carolus, an off-the-wall question for you. Do you happen to have any idea what typeface Durand used on most of their Ravel/Debussy scores for composer names and tempo/directional indications? Daphnis 14:04, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Hi Daphnis, Funny you should ask. At least two professional music engravers I know have been trying to find this exact face for several years. The best we've so far come up with is that it's a particular extended variation of Baskerville that may have been a proprietary font owned by the engraving firm who produced most of Durand's scores from that era - Charles Douin. Alternately, it may have been a particular face available in France at the time, and I suspect that one might actually locate it precisely if one had access to typographers' sample books from Paris, ca.1910. Douin must have been a fairly significant firm, because they produced score for other Parisian publishers of the era also. While Dover and others have reproduced historic typefaces, they've really only digitized about a tenth of the ones that were actually available. Carolus 23:21, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
Yes, I've also searched for this face for quite some time now to use in my engravings, and what I thought is rather close is one flavor of Adobe's Garamond font, although last time I scanned a sample in at high resolution and used a couple font-matching engines online but turned up nothing much. Oh well, I'll keep searching. If you happen to have any ideas (or the engravers you know) please drop me a hint. Thanks. Daphnis 00:02, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
No problem. I'll drop you a note when it's nailed for sure. It's a most effective typeface for tempi. When used as it is by Durand, there's never any doubt that some issue about tempo or style is being presented. Carolus 00:07, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

Maurice Greene Lesson

Dear Carolus,

I was told by Leonard Vertighel that you were the person that deleted my contribution of a Lesson in F minor by Maurice Greene. I don't get or understand the perspective that you or IMSLP take on such situations. Maurice Greene was dead by 1755. Clearly ANYTHING he wrote is in public domain, especially when I am the person who typeset the music.

I thought what I was doing was offering music I had available as a "donation" to other interested musicians. Why not rather than completely deleting a page just tell the person who did it what changes were needed. Its not like its some big privelege for me to add music, nor is it even more of a privelege that if I now still wish to add this music I now have to start over. At this point why should I bother? If all it took was to change "public domain" to "cc by 3.0" or "cc by-sa 3.0," why couldn't I be asked to just change it? I've got a lot of wonderful and interesting music I was planning to perhaps offer to others but its not worth it if it has to be a pain in the ass to me....

Grant Colburn

Dear Grant,
Since it turns out you were the typesetter, I apologize for deleting the scores. Please feel free to upload again. You are correct that Maurice Greene's work is not the subject of copyright per se, but a new edition or even a new typeset could be under copyright. It was not at all apparent that you were the typesetter since there was no credit for that in the entry. There are lots of uploads were someone posts a new typeset that they have no authorization to with resulting complaints from the original site, so we tend to take the cautious route and delete anything that is not clearly the work of the person posting it. I recommend that you put your name in either the editor or scanner fields when uploading a score that you've typeset. That way, I'll know right away that the you are the typesetter, and your post will be upgraded to "verified" status.

Hi Carolus,

Thanks for the apology, now I just gotta get inspired to redo all of it again. I'm surprised I didn't specify I was the typesetter. I was pretty sure I had. I'll try to get on putting it up again. Also in case you or someone else notices at some point I've added A few things I've written so even if the program shows my music not in public domain, I am giving myself permission to post it :-)


Hi Grant,
When one of us does the checking of new posts we generally look through the file to see if the typesetter or editor is posting his or her own work. So, if you've put your name as typesetter or editor somewhere on the score - even if you forget to list it in the editor field when adding a work, it will (hopefully) get moved to "checked" status fairly soon. If we know for sure you posted it, it will go to "verified" status within a few days. With new typesets, it's always a very good idea to include the your typesetter or editor credit due to the fact that we have to be somewhat careful about these due to complaints from the Icking archive and other places about folks uploading their files to this site. This project has gotten huge, and the number of scores waiting to be checked is over 250 at the moment (only 3 days worth).


You are probably right! It looks like a Henley edition. Sorry about that!! ;( Generoso 17:18, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

Russian Ed.

Hey Carolus, I've responded to your previous inquiry on my talk page. I also had another question for you. Are the Russian editions with plate numbers K ... copyrighted? I thought I remembered posting one of those that was on before and you removing it because it was under copyright but I wasn't sure. Anyway, I ask because I'm doing the B folder for the MIT project and Balakirev has quite a few of those editions.Mcroskell 01:01, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, just let me know anytime there's a piece posted that needs logos removed and I'll take care of it. As far as the Russian editions go, the ones for Balakirev aren't in the C ### K format but K ###. Anyway, I'll post one and you can let me know if they're OK or not.Mcroskell 21:33, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

Hi, I finally figured out wat the K#'s are. They're the Konemann reprints of Muzika issued in the early 1990s. As long as they are straight reprints of Muzika, there should be no problem. The Balakirev scores you posted are fine. Muzgiz/Muzika has a fairly distinct engraving style. The only exception to that general rule are some of the things they farmed out to East Germany to do - some of the deluxe editions like the one they did of Rachmaninov's "Francesca da Rimini" in the 1970s.

Hey Carolus, boy do I feel dumb for not recognizing that those were Konemann editions. I actually have the very Balakirev Konemann edition that I was asking about (albeit I haven't played through it in a while)!! Anyway, I've edited out all the material that violated copyright on the files you put on my talk page. I've reuploaded the Czerny but I had a question about what is the best way to do it (unfortunately, only admins can use the delete functions, etc. so I don't know if the way I did it is the next best way), so if you could, go check out my talk page.Mcroskell 01:04, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

Re: Wieniawski

On both Wieniawski pieces I uploaded, I removed the logo wherever I saw it. On Elibron scores, this generally consists only of removing the first three pages. Elibron claims that the other pages are an "unabridged facsimile" of the previous edition, so I think it should all be fine.

I did have a few questions dealing with uploads from other users, notably the recent ones from ValeriyaSholokhova. If the URL of a website is displayed at the bottom of each page, does this constitute a violation? Also, at least one piece (a Haydn trio) seems to be an arrangement done in 2004. I'm not absolutely sure how to check this, though, so I won't add a "delete" tag just yet.

One more question. If a score has "Copyright Carl Fischer 1990" or similar at the bottom of the page, does this automatically mean that the score shouldn't be up (or at least needs to be changed)? Thanks! -Ras1

Hi Ras1, Thanks for the info on the Wieniwski. You did the correct thing there - Elibron has no claim apart from their trade name. As for ValeriyaSholokhova, she really needs to carefully review the copyright vs. public domain info available at the contributor portal. In short, she's posted numerous items in brazen violation of copyright - works by Benjamin Britten and Luciano Berio to mention merely two. Blatant, unambiguous copyright violations like those have to be deleted immediately. Otherwise, IMSLP will face a massive lawsuit and will be shut down completely. As for new arrangements, unless the poster has permission in writing from the arranger or copyright owner, it's a violation to post at IMSLP - even if it's available at another site. Some items at obviously free sites like Mutopia we'll let stand as long as they include the Creative Commons info - unless the arranger complains to us (which as already happened more than once). A website URL's status as a trademark is something that hasn't really been determined in court cases yet. In general, it's best to get rid of it unless it's an obviously free site like Mutopia or Project Gutenberg.
If you are confronted with a 1990 copyright claim, it's best to take it seriously and not post it. You might wish to mention the particulars over at the forum. That way I can give you a reasonably informaed answer about its actual copyright status. Carolus 18:36, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

Jota Aragonesa

Hey Carolus, I saw you've moved this piece onto Glinka's page. While it is probably right to link it there, I think it should still appear on Balakirev's page as well. As far as my understanding, Jota Aragonesa was an orchestral piece by Glinka. Balakirev then later transcribed it for solo piano & piano 4-hands of which the version in question is the former. I believe the full title of the work is Capriccio brillante on the theme "Jota aragonesa" as you can see on this recording of Balakirev's complete works.Mcroskell 03:37, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

Hi, I was actually planning to include it in Balakirev's category too, after I finished verifying stuff (and deleting any brazen copyright violations - which we've had quite a few of recently). Do you happen to know if this particular item a straight transcription of the orchestral original, or something else - more like a fantasia or arrangement built upon themes from Glinka? Carolus 03:42, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
I'm not sure if it's a straight transcription or not, as I'm not familiar with the original piece. However, judging by the title of "Capriccio Brillante on the theme Jota Aragonesa", I would guess it would be more of an arrangement. By the way, regarding the spate of copyright violations we've gotten the last couple days, I've had a good laugh at some of your pithy comments in the deletion log. I particularly enjoyed the "This ain't Russia, dear. They take you to court for violating copyrights here" line! Keep up the good work.Mcroskell 03:56, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
I've got a score somewhere of the orchestral original. The Russian titling made it appear to be more of a straight transcription. Valeria was getting pretty wild there. Berio and Britten are definitely on the verboten list. Upate: It appears to be a straight transcription. The formal title of Glinka's original is "Capriccio Brillante on the Jota Aragonesa." It's sometimes referred to as the "Sapnish Overture No. 1." This score is Balakirev's first version of the transcription, done in 1862. Glinka's original was composed in 1845. Carolus 04:00, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

Beethoven Editions

Hey Carolus, I see your verifying some of the Beethoven uploads I put up from MIT yesterday. Do you have any idea what edition pieces such as the one on this page come from? It seems like it is some kind of complete works edition with the page numbers going up into the 1000's. I ask because I posted several from it and there are quite a few more. Since you've verified this one I just thought I'd check and see if you had any more details on it that I could put for the publisher line in the future uploads.Mcroskell 04:17, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

I think those page numbers are someone's number stamp that they used number pages when to put together a big volume of copied pages. I've seen some of those editions before in some of the scanned collections offered by various parties on E-bay. Haven't exactly identified them yet, either. Carolus 04:32, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Hook Trio

Hi Carolus,

I have some difficulties to post the right version of the Transcription of the Trio for 2 Oboes and Cor Anglais. The right version is the one a posted 12:22, 26.Aug. In the actuell version (I don´t know why it equals to my first version, perhaps a mistake of me) there are missimg some brackets for repetition. Could you replace it by the above mentioned version? Thanks! Notenschreiber 06:43, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

I'll try and find the right one when I get a chance and change the linking accordingly. Carolus 15:19, 1 September 2007 (EDT)


Hi Carolus, I've seen that some scores published by Könemann Budapest have been uploaded and accepted. Since I have all 5 vol. I scanned and uploaded the missing ones. I was not sure concerning the publisher information and so just copied the existing one from a workpage (with correct plate numbers, of course). I think all the 5 Volumes of Balakirew are PD...the engraving style seems to be the same in all pieces, but please check this and delete the files in case they're not PD. thanks a lot. Hobbypianist 12:53, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the heads up, Hobbypianist. I'm quite certain that the Konemann volumes for both Balakirev and Liadov are mere reprints of the earlier Muzika scores. Still I haven't literally seen every volume so being able to check through some titles will help in this regard. Konemann seems to have changed their direction since they started up in the early 90s. Initially, they were offering very inexpensive reprints of public domain items much in the same way that Dover has been dooing for a long time. About 10 years ago, they seem to be concentrating more on producing new editions in the vein of Baerenreiter, though. That's why it's always important to check them carefully. The new editions I've seen have been obviously engraved using Finale.Carolus 15:18, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

Re: Yuri Shaporin

Hello. I'm sorry, but I could not search the records prior to 1978. In the records since 1978 there is no renewal for Shaporin. Greetings, Peter talk 14:51, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

Empty work page

Hello Carolus, why did you remove the entry from Grand Duo Concertant, Op.21 (Alkan, Charles-Valentin)? Should that page be deleted? Thanks --Leonard Vertighel 15:15, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Same question for Piano Sonata in C minor, Op.10 (Pachulski, Henryk) --Leonard Vertighel 15:46, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
And 12 Songs, Op.27 (Zemlinsky, Alexander von). --Leonard Vertighel 16:11, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Also, I would like to remind you that the two pages Piano Concerto No.2, K.39 (Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus) and Piano Concerto No.16, K.451 (Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus) which you have created, have been empty since May. --Leonard Vertighel 15:37, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Hi Leonard, I just returned from vacation, so I hope my memory hold out here! I recall removing the entries in Alkan and Zemlinsky because they were actually other works instead of the those particular titles. The files are all still there, just now correctly identified. Feel free to delete any empty pages like these if you find they are cluttering things up. Carolus 23:06, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Welcome back!

Hi there Carolus! Very happy to have you back! :)

I also wanted to tell you about the new copyright reviewer recruiting, but judging from your response on the forum I guess the secret's leaked ;) In any case, the project page is here, and its all yours to change :) Tell me if you need anything!

Again, welcome back :) --Feldmahler 23:48, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Breitkopf information for orchetral parts

Thank you very much for the publisher information you provided for the parts of Elgar's serenade for string I uploaded (IMSLP #14707-14711). I was almost sure that this was PD (this was obviously a reprint of an earlier and old BH issue), but given the lack of information on the scores I was not able to provide any relevant information. So, my question is : how did you manage to get the details you added ? The reason of my question is twofold: (i) as a (new) copyright reviewer I would like to be able to deal with such situations, (ii) i have similar other scores (separate parts for orchetra) that I would be happy to share if PD. Last small question: what is the meaning & legal relevance of "Post-1949 printing" (I mean how >1949 is related to "life+50" or "life+70" rules)? Cheers, Matthieu 04:51, 1 October 2007 (EDT)Matthieu

Hi, Matthieu. Glad to have you helping out here! It's a big job, as you can see. I happened to have access to an older set of the Breitkopf parts a while back and noted the publication info in a little notebook I keep for remembering such details. If you have access to OCLC/First Search, that can be a big help in identifying the original publication circumstances as well. The reason I can tell the set you added was printed after 1949 is due to the fact that Breitkopf had no office in Wiesbaden until then. If you go the the Breitkopf & Härtel page, you can see where a number of us have added info about locations of branch offices, addresses, and plate numbers to assist in the dating of Breitkopf scores. Although Breitkopf did not indulge in the practice of issuing phony copyright notices to scare off reprint houses like Kalmus to the extent that Peters did, they still did so on a number of occaisions. We've created such pages for other publishers as well. The fact that Breitkopf reprinted the work after 1949 (they still do to this day, actually) does not change the public domain status of the work in any way. Carolus 18:49, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Copyright status of librettist?

Hi Carolus,

as you've probably guessed I've been admitted to the copyright reviewers group, and have already found a question, re: Les angélus (Debussy, Claude)

The librettist died in 1941, so in the EU the poem would still be entitled to protection by copyright – in general, what is the status of librettists for vocal music? If they have the status of a joint author, then the rule relating to the last-deceased author would alter a few copyrights, and arguably the Debussy piece ought to be {{WorkNonPD-EU}} rather than Public Domain? Philip Legge @ © Φ 05:00, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

HI, Philip. You are quite correct. That work is still protected in the EU, due to the fact that the author of the text (=last surviving author) died in 1941. The public domain tag applies to the work's status in Canada or (in some cases) the USA, where the files are actually resident on a server. I would recommend adding the {{WorkNonPD-EU}} tag to such pages. Glad to have you helping out! Regards, Carolus 18:56, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Reger Mozart-Variations

Hi Carolus, according to this website it was first published 1920 by Simrock and taken 1928 by Peters: obviously c1920, but edition from 1928.(why this confusing gap between 1920 and 1928?). Karl Salomon lived 1897–1974 -> should be moved to US server! Or isn't it PD at all due to the date of appearance in 1928? I think what counts here is c1920, isn't it? Hobbypianist 07:17, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Hi, 1920 is the date that counts. It's PD in the US. I suspect that the original publication was without notice which may have prompted Peters to indulge in an attempt to obtain copyright status via the use of an editor (Reger having died already when Peters took over the work). It's possible that we should move to the US server, just to be safe. Carolus 19:02, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Regarding the US server

Hi there Carolus! As you have noticed I have regretfully been neglecting the US server a bit the past few days; I've just been incredibly busy between fixing the site and my schoolwork. What would be very helpful would be if someone could go through the formal US server submission process for files that haven't gone through it; in particular actually uploading the files onto the US server greatly speeds up my work on the US server, as I can just move files to the respective folders without having to upload them first.

In any case, I will try to update the US server by tomorrow night at the latest :) I've been searching for software that can make a wiki-like environment for managing files on the US server, but to no avail. I will probably do a reordering of the US server (perhaps using custom-written software) by the beginning of next year, partially so that the files entering the Canadian public domain in 2008 would have been moved to the Canadian server, and partially so that this would be after I finish sending out my Masters applications :) --Feldmahler 20:14, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Chinese copyright: Yellow River piano concerto

Hi Carolus. I trust work here and abroad isn't keeping you too far down? I have a question for you regarding Chinese copyright. I noticed someone has recently requested the Yellow River piano concerto written by Cheng-zong Yin ( and I'd like to investigate the legality of such a submission. According to my research, it appears to have been published in at least 1972 by the People's Literary Press, I suppose which is a government organization. How would copyright work in this situation? And do both the U.S. and Canada have the same views on Chinese copyright? Many thanks. Daphnis 20:00, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Hi, Daphnis. This is a terribly busy time of year for me - as it is for music publishers in general. The "Yellow River Concerto" is probably under copyright in the USA due to the GATT treaty and China's signature thereof. Off the top of my head, that would be my guess. Canada would treat it as copyright due to the life-plus-50 rule for the last surviving author, naturally. I'll do a bit more research when I have a few minutes to spare. Carolus 22:47, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
I suppose I should have checked and seen that China signed the GATT. With that piece of info. the situation is rather clear. Thanks for filling me in. Should you find out anything different I'd be most interested to hear it! Daphnis 23:26, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Paul Taffanel: Wind Quintet score copyright

Carolus, I have a clarification question regarding Canadian copyright on re-engravings of works and scores created from such. I have Paul Taffanel's prize-winning Wind Quintet from 1876 published by Leduc. The parts are reprints of the original engraving (or at least bearing the same plate number as those first issued) yet the score, bearing a different and much much later plate number, indicates it was engraved in 1994 (plate A.L. 27,691). My question is if this score is public domain because it is essentially a collation of reprinted parts with no indication of any editing or named intervention on the part of any one person. While this probably wouldn't be considered a re-engraving, how would the law interpret copyright on this score? Obviously the parts would be public domain, so at the very least I'll post them. Many thanks for your input. Daphnis 18:13, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

I seriously doubt that the score would hold up under any challenge. Simply compiling a score from public domain parts with no editorial changes does not qualify for a new copyright anywhere in the world. Some countries might consider the engraving to constitute a limited typographical copyright, but certainly not the USA or Canada. I think you should go ahead and post it. If they squeal there's very little they could do about it. Carolus 00:28, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Edition Schneider, Paris

Are you aware of any publisher who has subsumed the Schneider catalog since the 1920's? They were a fairly small and obscure publisher and I don't know the history or course of their catalog since then. Thanks again. Daphnis 18:19, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Boy, that really is an obscure publisher. Senart was buying up other publishers back in the 1920s, so that's where I'd start. That would mean the titles were inherited by Salabert. Sorry I don't know more. Carolus 00:31, 7 October 2007 (EDT)


Hi Carolus, users have uploaded some files from the Mutopia project. I'm a bit confused about the different licences: #14168 (Präambulum by Scheidemann) was uploaded as Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 whereas on the Mutopia page it is labeled as Public Domain (and also on the score itself). Händel's Julius Cäsar (#14405) is PD on the work page here but on Mutopia it's released under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5, but on each page of the score you can read again Public Domain! What's correct now? I mean, PD is not Creative Commons Attribution, they can't just change the licences as one pleases. Both can probably remain here since the original sources are mentioned (Dover reprint and obviously Bärenreiter from 60s or 70s).
Another thing: I coudn't find closer information on Fred M. Voss, editor of Weber's Invitation to Dance I uploaded. I don't think he died >= 1957 but in this case we should move it to the US server, it's PD there in any case. Regards, Hobbypianist 16:08, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Hi Hobbypianist, I've been a bit inconsistent about Mutopia myself in the past, but my most recent thought is this: Since everything there is a re-engraving - even if it's explicitly a re-engraving of an unambiguously PD source - IMSLP treats them as a new typeset and assigns the lowest level CC license to them. In real life, the vast majority of Mutopia items are really public domain would not stand up to any challenge in either a US court or the court of any country except maybe France, the UK and Germany. When you re-engrave (re-typeset) something, there are usually differences in layout, when clef changes take place, and other minor details. It's more of a matter of being polite to the Lilypond typesetters who took the time and effort than anything else, really. I would certainly not consider there to be any sort of restriction on individual use of such items. The only issue that could arise would be if a company like Dover or Kalmus elected to download something, print it and not credit or compensate the engraver. If something is explicitly public domain, they would be perfectly free to do so. (In reality, they probably are regardless. Also, most of the Mutopia items I've seen don't rise to the professional level of engraving that would be desired by folks at Dover, etc.) I'll mark the Weber to be moved to the US server. Carolus 20:12, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
Thanks a lot for the detailed answer, it's comprehensible now. Well, since the project has been abandoned there are only scattered submissions anyway. Hobbypianist 14:31, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Living composers

Hi again ;-)
I've seen that you verified the compositions by Natanael Mojica. Shouldn't we basically ask all the new composers and demand / wait for a confirmation of the uploader just to be on the safe side that they are the composers (which is hard to prove I admit) or for a permission to distribute the works in case they are not the composers? As Peter said, they should put this on their user pages. What do you think? Regards, Hobbypianist 16:10, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

I think Mojica was the uploader himself - based on the handle he used. In that case, I go ahead and verify. Do you think they were uploaded by someone else? Carolus 20:16, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
No, I suppose he is the uploader. Just thought it would be better to have a kind of confirmation by the author to be sure...but, it's ok. I didn't mean to harm :) Hobbypianist 14:42, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Telemann Barenreiter email

Carolus, a few days ago I sent you an email about Barenreiter Telemann editions. I sent it through the "E-mail this user" function on the wiki. Just want to make sure you got it... Daphnis 15:16, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Hi Daphnis, I don't think that one came through. Many are PD in Canada due to the German Urtext law. What was your question?

Well, it seems I couldn't retrieve the email I sent through the wiki...I wanted to ask for clarification regarding the Urtext exception to Canadian copyright, specifically as it applies to Barenreiter editions with editors. For example, I have two Telemann scores published by Barenreiter that I'd like to upload: Die kleine Kammermusik: sechs Partiten für Violine (Querflöte, Oboe, Blockflöte, Diskantgambe u. ä.) und Basso continuo pub. 1949 (new edition) and ed. Waldemar Woehl (1902-1976). It is/was part of the Hortus Musicus series (plate 47). The second comes from the Musikalische Werke, the Zwölf methodische Sonaten pub. in Vol.1 1965 and ed. Max Seiffert (1868-1948). Are any of these eligible? In general I'm still not clear what represents an Urtext or scholarly edition; anything marked as such? anything published by Barenreiter? anything belonging to a monument series? Thanks very much.

Also, regarding your Albéniz Suite Española No.1, Op.47, the two publication dates I found for it were 1960 and 1996. Daphnis 09:59, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Hi, Daphnis, Both of the Barenreiter scores you mention are definitely urtext, over 25 years old, and thus free in Canada (as they are in Germany). Death dates of editors are irrelevant for urtext editions. Over at the Grand Wiki Cleanup page, we've been having some discussion about what constitutes an urtext edition vs. an interpretative edition. As I see it, only things that are very clearly interpretative editions - with numerous additions and amendments by the editor in the form of slurs, dynamics, articulations, etc. rise to the standard of originality needed to qualify as an interpretative edition, which is protected for the editor's life plus 50 years in Canada. I'm going to raise the issue of the Lothar Lechner Schott edition from 1960 of the Suite Española No.1, Op.47 over there, because it's a good real-life example of the type of dilemma we face as reviewers.

Understandable, and thanks for the reply. I've gone ahead and uploaded the partitas: Regarding the Lechner-Schott edition...what's going to be the status on this one? Not that this is particularly related other than Latin composer connection, but I'm going to be uploaded the (hopefully) complete works of Joaquín Nin (1859 – 1949) sometime soon, starting with the piano works. Daphnis 17:20, 5 November 2007 (EST)

I'm really inclined to treat the Lechner edition as an urtext. I'm going to the local University library to obtain a copy of the Masters reprint edition - which is almost certainly a reprint of UME (which itself is a reprint of the older Dotesio or Romero issues). I'll post what I find on the Grand Wiki Cleanup page.Carolus 19:15, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Publisher Linking

Hi there Carolus! I've actually been thinking for a while of implementing a system specifically for managing links to commercial sites on each work page, which may make adding URLs easier (and easier to manage too) :) I'm not sure when this system will be fully functional (it will certainly be after the new copyright tagger), but it may be a good idea to wait until then to add URLs if possible, just so that we don't have redo it when the system actually goes online. :)

Also, it'd be nice if you could e-mail me when Michael Hart responds, so that I can do traveling preparations. --Feldmahler 01:32, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Hi, I just was doing a little experiment to see if searches could be linked so that one could get a consistent result (as much as possible) with the different sites. I wasn't planning on adding any more. Would there be a way that the basic composer and title could be automatically extracted from a given IMSLP page and then plugged into seach links such as the ones I did on the Debussy Petite Suite page? The syntax on those search links looks fairly straightforward which made me wonder about the possibility. I'll of course let you know whenever I get any response from Michael Hart. Carolus 12:26, 11 November 2007 (EST)
Definitely :) This would actually be much much easier than what I had originally planned. My original intention was to keep a database of links to external sites, and have publishers manually add them (or even IMSLP contributors, though I prefer publishers themselves for a variety of reasons; don't know if they'd be willing though). But if it is possible to automate the process using the search function of various sites, it'd be completely painless on IMSLP's side. --Feldmahler 12:37, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Okay Okay take it easy

Hello Mister -A- : I'm not Andreas Daams... and I don't have his permission but all of those music that I upploaded are free sale and you can download it from so many websites... if it won't bother you u can check websites out or search in Google only for the name... then u see... by the way all of those music are required to publish and free donation...

-B-: I didn't know how can I reply your message... am I wrong in commenting here?

-C-: Regards

Retrieved from ""