IMSLP talk:Copyright Reviewers


Removal of composers' pages (non-PD in Canada, pre-1923 in US)

Could I request that we do not delete the composer category pages that are already there? To take a very specific example, there is one composer whom I'm "involved with" in a major way, namely Havergal Brian, the prolific British composer of 32 symphonies (including the largest symphonic work of all time, the "Gothic" Symphony). I've made a suggestion to negotiate progressive release of a subset of his works into the public domain, by asking for waiver of such rights from the Havergal Brian estate, and the rights holder for most of his works, United Music Publishers.

Even if the request is refused, the page as it is could stand, with a legend bearing the copyright information as is current, and links to the various sites (UMP Ltd, the Havergal Brian Society on behalf of the Brian estate). The page also links to a complete works list under construction by yours truly.

In short, I see no reason why IMSLP can't host non-PD works if and only if they have been cleared for release by the rights holders. If the work aren't cleared for release, it is still a service to frequenters of the website to point out that composer's major works (or a complete worklist), and links to various publishers of their music. Best regards, Philip Legge @ © Φ 20:05, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Oh, this cleanup is in no way intended to remove works which the composer has released onto IMSLP in an acceptable license; it is only for the removal of works which are on IMSLP based on public domain status in the US (as opposed to composer consent). Works which the composer has released under an acceptable license will continue to be on IMSLP, and the submission of such encouraged (after IMSLP comes back on) :) --Feldmahler 20:53, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
My point here is: say there is interest in composer X, who is non-PD in Canada. The category page should still be there, with a huge legend to say as much:
  • This composer is not in the public domain.
This can then be supplemented by information regarding the composer which IS public domain – unless I'm totally wrong, you can't copyright FACTS. Examples:
Worklist, or even a thematic catalogue: usually a link to a separate page in this category.
List of publishers: e.g. if you want to LEGALLY obtain one of the works, contact these publishers/rights holders (with external links as appropriate)
Composer's picture, if in the public domain.
If it sounds as if I'm annoyed - I am somewhat, as Leonard went and deleted the composer and work page before I'd had an opportunity to copy the wiki markup. I appear not the have the specific beauracrat or other rights to undelete the page to get at the prior content, so if someone here could recover it for me I'd appreciate it. Philip Legge @ © Φ 01:38, 3 November 2007 (EDT)
Here is the text of the original page:
|Born Year=1876|Born Month=01|Born Day=29
|Died Year=1972|Died Month=11|Died Day=28
|Time Period=Modern
|Biography Link=[ Wikipedia article]
|List Pages=*[[List of compositions by Havergal Brian, by catalog number]]
Also, please don't get mad at Leonard for deleting the pages... ;) I was the one who told him to do it. However, what you say is quite valid. Since the deletion has already been done, maybe we can here concentrate on some sort of guideline as to what composer categories should remain up despite being empty. My concern (and the reason why I have encouraged the deletion of all empty categories) is that people will think IMSLP has scores of a certain composer when it actually does not (similar issues with the work pages). But I am sure something can be worked out (maybe empty composer categories are placed in another separate category from normal composers?). --Feldmahler 01:51, 3 November 2007 (EDT)
I missed your mention of Brian's Illuminations in my above comment, but I will undelete the page now. --Feldmahler 02:16, 3 November 2007 (EDT)
This is really just a question of site structure. Nobody wants to delete valid information from the site, in fact the List of compositions by Havergal Brian, by catalog number is still there, already cleaned up from the broken links and neatly categorized (see bottom of the page).
Personally, I do not believe that it would be a great idea, on a site promising free PD scores on its main page, to mix in pages that just link to commercially available copyrighted scores. We might eventually have to change the main page to "Welcome to the IMSLP, the music score site that tells you where to buy them, and if you're lucky you might even accidentally stumble upon some PD scores for actual download." Obviously I'm exaggerating, but I think you get the idea.
Maybe we should reconsider my earlier proposal to create one or more additional namespaces for the supplementary informations available on the IMSLP site. (If I remember well, Feldmahler was actually favourable to this.) All of the non-PD composers could then get a page in this new namespace. Those pages could be collected in a separate category, which could be linked from the top of the main composer category.
We could also create additional pages for PD composers in the new namespace, when there is so much information that the main category page gets too crowded. --Leonard Vertighel 05:41, 3 November 2007 (EDT)
Feldmahler - thankyou very much, I've obtained the wiki markup code and am therefore happy for the Three Illuminations work page to be deleted again. If I am able to obtain permission from the rights holders as I suggested before, it will very probably be the first page to be (re-)created.
Although the use of bold and capital letters strongly suggested my annoyance, in no way whatsover was it directly personally against Leonard, as I'm perfectly aware any of the editors might have done exactly the same thing, for the reason you gave above! (i.e. I had read the Cleanup page thoroughly.)
Leonard - I hope you understand the appearance of annoyance was wrong on my part, and please accept this apology.
To this discussion: the only problem I have with the discussion of site structure here is that currently, the removal of the composer's "Category" page effectively orphans any other pages that might have a legitimate place in the Wiki which would have been linked to it. I would strongly support Feldmahler's idea: (maybe empty composer categories are placed in another separate category from normal composers?)
With regard to the idea that IMSLP should have not links to commercial sites; here I will posit my reasons for the contrary view, that in fact this is most desirable:
It shows that IMSLP respects the rights of copyright holders to commercially exploit their work. I would have thought this didn't need to be stressed any more than it already has been by Carolus and Feldmahler over on the forums, so let me be precise: by putting this sort of information on the website, IMSLP explicitly acknowledges that the composer's works are not in the public domain in Canada, and unless you are in a jurisdiction where the works have entered the public domain, in order to legally purchase and perform the music you should consult the publisher(s)/rights holder(s).
Why should we link to music publishers? If in Canada you won't be able to freely get e.g. a Brian score until 2023 at the earliest, a Britten score until 2027, or a Ligeti score until 2057, then I think it is perfectly legitimate of IMSLP to suggest where/from whom you can. Resources like Grove Music most certainly list a composer's principal publishers in worklists as a useful fact for researchers in trying to obtain publication information, and as I said before, facts are in the public domain.
Lastly, composers often have publicity photos that are frequently easy to obtain the rights of reproduction from the photograph's rights holder - why? Because they're publicity photos when credited to the photographer. Is that a problem? Maybe a problem to some people here - but I for one would vote to have an "unhosted" composer page for someone like Ligeti, with a picture of his crazy hair going in all directions. Philip Legge @ © Φ 09:38, 3 November 2007 (EDT)
currently, the removal of the composer's "Category" page effectively orphans any other pages that might have a legitimate place in the Wiki which would have been linked to it - that is true, and that is why I'm advocating (see my previous post) a namespace to collect those pages, categories to collect those pages, and a link from Category:Composers.
IMSLP should have not links to commercial sites - probably I was not clear here: what I was trying to say is that the two things should not be indistinguishably mixed. In my opinion, composer categories should contain downloadable scores, or otherwise they should not exist. Links to publishers and similar information should be in a different place. This place should obviously be easy to find. But we simply should not be saying "Here, we have free scores of all those composers! Oops, just kidding, we only have a link to the publisher!" --Leonard Vertighel 10:01, 3 November 2007 (EDT)
PS: To avoid further misunderstandings: "a different place" obviously means still in the wiki, just not in directly in the Category:Composers itself. This is actually not so different from what Feldmahler was saying. --Leonard Vertighel 10:08, 3 November 2007 (EDT)
This is getting rather deeply nested :)
a legitimate place in the Wiki : As there is a category, Category:ComposerNonPD-USandEU, for composers who are in the Canadian public domain but whose works are copyrighted elsewhere, I propose a similar category for composers not in the Canadian public domain, e.g. Category:ComposerNonPD.
the two things should not be indistinguishably mixed : However, there will be a number of notable composers, where owing to long-delayed posthumous publication of works or other circumstances, fall into the grey region between having all of their works in the public domain, or none. Take the works of Erik Satie, for instance: the composer's page appears to be missing some pieces that might be expected to be included there; there is no complete worklist; and only the Wishlist page explains the discrepancy.
In the absence of significant works on a composer's page, there should be information for finding those works - and I don't mind what solution is adopted, but it is extremely desirable for the sake of comprehensiveness:
a) expanding the composer template to provide a set of publishers' external links - I guess this is the one which causes the philosophical disagreement; I confess I don't see a problem per se, since I think the implementation could be done in a way that minimises confusion;
b) a template on a composer's worklist page to provide the same list of links;
c) make a a link to a (partial or complete) list of unavailable works, and again provide the same list of links;
d) implement it any other way you want to imagine it, but include it somewhere!
Regards, Philip Legge @ © Φ 01:19, 26 November 2007 (EST)
P.S. If you are wondering what will happen to files PD in the US, there will be a separate project created to accommodate these files, much like the various Project Gutenbergs :) --Feldmahler 20:55, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
Hi Philip, Feldmahler, I am already talking with one publisher about the prospect of them relasing copies of selected scores for distribution on IMSLP when it comes up again. I think the panoply of CC licenses we already offer should cover their concerns about retaining a copyright while allowing free distribution of a score - much like Severo Ornstein has done with his father's work here. Hopefully, the Brian Society will realize that having scores of selected works available at IMSLP will only encourage interest in Brian's music - which will in turn eventually generate performances. The CC Non-Commercial No Derivatives should cover about everything from a rights-management point of view. As I said to Mr. Irons of UE on the forum, publishers need to stop thinkiing outside the narrow box when it comes to this type of distribution - which is here whether they feel comfortable with it or not. IMSLP already hosts hundreds of fully copyrighted works with the express permission of their copyrght owners. That will only increase as time goes on, and those publishers who are first to take advantage of the new method of distribution will likely be the ones who benefit the most. Carolus 22:52, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
Nice! By the way Carolus, I was wondering if you will have some time tomorrow (Wednesday) so I could call you and talk about the correspondence with PGC regarding Canadian copyright, and maybe other things (if there are developments). :) --Feldmahler 23:11, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
Hi Feldmahler! Today was a very hectic day for me. I should have some free time tomorrow (Thursday) to talk about PGC, etc. Carolus 01:13, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

New CR admission

- Brainstorm here about how to admit new CRs -

  • The user could prove some diffs he made where he or she added valuable publisher information (eg using CUU files or correcting new submissions), together with a tag .
  • We could send them tricky files that already have been deleted


I did a little coding, and got this page linked to the userlist.-- Snailey Yell at me Email me 20:26, 15 March 2009 (EDT)


After completing the test, where would one turn it in? --Philip Addison Jones shoot an email © talk 22:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Send to my e-mail. Thanks, Carolus 03:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)