THIS PAGE IS ONLY A DRAFT OVERVIEW OF COPYRIGHT AND IS NOT AN IMSLP PROJECT PAGE
This page attempts to give a reasonably comprehensive view of copyright law as it applies to IMSLP. Due to the complexities of copyright law, this page cannot account for all possible circumstances and exceptions. Additionally, while every effort has been made to ensure that the information presented here is as correct as possible, it may be inaccurate, outdated or incomplete. For the most accurate and up-to-date information, please consult the official publications of the governments of the relevant country or countries. This page is an informational tool only and NOT legal advice. For legal advice, please contact a qualified professional in the appropriate jurisdiction.
Contents
|
IMSLP can only list items:
Files which in the public domain in Canada may be uploaded directly through the main IMSLP server. For files which are not public domain in Canada, but which are in the public domain in a country that hosts a separate server, such as Petrucci Music Library - US (PML-US), IMSLP will include listings of uploads made to that server within work pages and those items will be searchable along with those hosted on IMSLP.
Currently, IMSLP can accept files which are in the public domain in at least:
or, in the near future:
IMSLP reserves the right to remove files even if it is legal to host them, for example, for violation of the site's rules or not being within the scope (e.g., items completely unrelated to music are not allowed).
In all cases, the user of a file is responsible for adhering to the applicable copyright law. The relevant copyright law is that of the jurisdiction(s) in which the file is being downloaded/used (even if it is not the country of nationality/citizenship of the user). If you are physically located in France, for instance, you need to follow French copyright law to determine what you can do with which files on IMSLP. If you then plan on printing sheet music you downloaded in France and distributing it in the United States, you must make sure that you are have the right to do so under US copyright law.
When using items from IMSLP, you, the user, are responsible with ensuring that you are respecting the copyright law of the country or countries in which you are using the items. Items which are in the public domain in your country can be used for any purpose without any payment. Items which are protected by copyright in your country (and not released under a stated license) should generally not be downloaded or used; limited exceptions may apply for certain purposes based on the fair use or fair dealing exceptions to copyright, but IMSLP cannot provide advice on how exceptions to copyright may apply. For items which are copyrighted but released under a license, you are responsible for following the terms of the license, which may be viewed by clicking on the license tag in the file's entry.
Even where editions contain enough original material to be copyrighted, or where they are protected by the neighboring/related rights provisions protecting typographical compositions and scientific editions, these new protections apply only to the original work contained within that item, and not to the underlying work itself, whose copyright may be expired. Communications made from that edition, but which do not carry the new additions themselves in a substantial way, do not carry the copyright of that edition with them.
When performing a work, the copyright status of the work itself, rather than the status of the edition of a work being used, is the determining factor relating to whose rights legally must be respected, so long as the use of the edition itself does not introduce significant new copyrightable material into the performance.
For example, while a particular edition of Mozart's Don Giovanni may be copyrighted, with either all rights being reserved or some being licensed under a Creative Commons or similar license, any copyright that exists only exists in the new item itself. A recording of a performance of the opera where the singers rehearsed from a newly-edited vocal score and the orchestra plays from newly-edited parts does not constitute a derivative work of a new edition; if the edition played from were CC-licensed, the restrictions of the license would not apply to the recording.
By the same token, a work edited in consultation with previous editions does not inherit the copyright of those editions, insofar as much as it does not copy enough significantly original material originating in that edition in order to be a copy of that copyrighted work. As only expressions of fact are copyrightable, and not facts themselves, the facts relating to pieces' history, etc., and first published in research by other authors, whether or not in connection with a critical edition, are not subject to copyright in themselves.
On the other hand, recordings of a copyrighted arrangement of a public domain composition are derivative works of that arrangement insofar as much as they play the copyrighted arrangement rather than only the public domain work from which the arrangement was derived.
Certain files have been released here under a license, usually one of the Creative Commons licenses. These files are not in the public domain and can only be used according to the specified terms. If you do not respect the terms of the license, your rights to use the file may terminate. These licenses are most important when you are performing or recording using copyrighted original material from a licensed item, which can include:
In these cases, your rights to perform or record the work will be determined by the license. Furthermore, licenses may express conditions for and restrictions on the following activities:
Please check the license's term before use.
Here is a brief summary of the most common licenses used on IMSLP; these descriptions are not a substitute for the full license text.
Note - The CC licenses are not self-executing for creators of derivative works. If the original work was validly released under a CC-BY license, and the creator of a derivative work does not license that work under a compatible license, the derivative work is not automatically licensed under CC-BY-SA, although in that case the creator of the derivative work has terminated their own rights to use the original work.
In most countries, with the exception of the United States (see below), whether or not an item is protected by copyright is determined mainly (though not entirely) by when the contributors to the file died (except for posthumous works and in certain other exceptional cases). For copyright purposes, a contributors (in the musical context) may include:
A work can be covered by multiple separate copyrights. An arrangement by Doe of a piece by Smith has two relevant terms: Doe's and Smith's. In order for the arrangement to be free of copyright, the arranger's copyright on the arrangement must expire and the underlying work (by Smith) must also be in the public domain.
In the case of works with lyrics, in some countries, the sheet music can be posted here with the lyrics redacted if the composer's copyright has expired before the librettist's. In that case (where the copyright of the musical composition has expired), likewise, it is acceptable to post instrumental arrangements of a piece (provided that those arrangements are public domain or licensed acceptably). Similarly, in the case of translations, they may need to be redacted from a scanned score that would otherwise be in the public domain in order for it to be uploaded.
In the Brazil, the European Union and the United Kingdom, if the music and lyrics were first written together, even by two individuals, with the intention that they be considered as one collaborative work, then the copyright on both aspects of the piece (music and lyrics) lasts until the expiration of the term of the contributor who died most recently. This affects music first published in that piece in any form, even published without the lyrics. If the original libretto of an opera is not in the public domain, and was written specifically for the music, then the full work of the opera remains protected by copyright and arrangements cannot be posted. This rule does not apply in cases where existing words were set to music or new words were added to existing music.
The copyright status of editorial contributions is complex. Depending on the rules of the particular country and the exact contributions made to a specific score, an editor may or may not have been considered to have made a contribution for copyright purposes. Most international copyright treaties only relate to original works of authorship. Different countries have varying standards (see threshold of originality) in order to determine what constitutes an original work.
Editorial credits have been applied by different publishers in many cases. At one extreme, some "editors" are more accurately arrangers and have been responsible for original re-orchestrations of pieces, though this is rare (except for continuo realization, which can be subject to copyright and is often done by a person credited as an "editor" even today). At the other extreme, some "editors" have had their names attached to completely altered reprint editions.
In most cases (except urtext, critical or scientific editions), IMSLP presumes that editors may make a substantial enough contribution to earn a new copyright. However, in the US and continental Europe in particular, where the threshold of originality focuses on the original creative character of a work, in many cases, editorial contributions have been found to not be copyrightable. For Europe (including the UK), please see below on neighboring rights and new editions in Europe. In the US in particular, where the threshold of originality in general is high (see Feist v. Rural and Bridgeman v. Corel in general), it has been found that work that could be done by any technically competent musician (e.g., addition of fingerings, etc.) is not generally eligible for US copyright. More information is available on US copyright decisions: 1, 2.
A short summary of the spectrum of editorial contributions' creativity:
Editors of a series who are not involved in the editing of a particular work within that series are not relevant for copyright purposes. Furthermore, while reprint editions occasionally list new "editors," see below for information on why reprint editions do not have a new copyright.
Even if they contribute little or no copyrightable content to the score itself, any original preface, critical apparatus or similar material added by an editor is copyrightable. If these elements are not in the public domain, then they cannot be included in the upload. For example, a reprint edition which adds a new preface is a valid source for a scan, but the preface must be removed if it is protected by copyright.
Depending on the country, works for hire (i.e., works produced during the course of regular employment) may be subject to a different copyright term. Generally speaking, these works must have their copyright originally belong to (and not just be transferred to) a corporate person rather than a natural (human) person. The majority of compositions are not works for hire as most composers do not produce works as employees. Special terms for works made for hire apply mostly in the United States.
The copyright status of anonymous works and works whose authors cannot be identified is somewhat complex. In most countries, these works' copyrights last for the same number of years from publication that works by named authors do after the death of the author, e.g., for 70 years after publication in 70 years p.m.a. countries. However, when the identity of the author becomes widely known before the term has expired, usually the length changes to align with the death date of the author.
In some, but not all countries, works created by officers of the government are not subject to copyright. This is notably the case in the United States; works created by the US Federal Government (but not most state governments) are in the public domain. This applies for instance to the works of United States Military musicians created in the course of their official government employment. Similar principles applied to works created by government-backed Eastern Bloc editors of urtext scores, which is why many Soviet scores are in the public domain.
Despite what is sometimes claimed by museums and libraries, scanning or photographing a two-dimensional score (or document in general) virtually never results in the creation of a new copyright, as this is considered a purely mechanical process which does not involve any original creative work. Certainly reprints and scans do not have any new copyright in Canada, the United States or the European Union. It is OK to upload scanned reprints of public domain editions and these should be listed as public domain. IMSLP will not recognize any claim to copyright arising from mere digitization of a physical document.
Under European Union copyright directives, in addition to the copyright which may exist naturally in any original creative work, new urtext/critical/scientific editions of works may optionally receive protection for up to thirty years from their date of publication. Not all EU countries have chosen to implement such protections. Those which have chosen to do so are:
Additionally, though it is no longer a member of the EU, the United Kingdom implements the same rule in its own copyright law post-Brexit:
In the case of Spain and the UK, the right applies to typographical composition and presentation of the work, whereas in the other countries, the clauses implementing this provision do not mention typographical composition specifically.
In Germany, the 25-year right only applies to editions which represent the result of scientific-critical analysis and differ significantly from previously published editions of the same work due to this analysis. This means that the provision generally does apply to critical editions in Germany.
In most cases, in European Union countries which do not implement additional protections for Urtext editions, these editions are never eligible for protection, if prefaces, etc. are omitted.
Many urtext editions include US-form copyright notices. Additionally, many have copyright registered with the US copyright office. These notices are generally valid as relates to the copyright status of prefaces, critical apparatus, etc. According to the US Copyright Office, "The copyright in a derivative work covers only the additions, changes, or other new material appearing for the first time in the work. Protection does not extend to any preexisting material, that is, previously published or previously registered works or works in the public domain or owned by a third party." The US Copyright Office also notes that copyright cannot extend to research, typefaces, typography, format and layout, book designs. Based on US case law and Copyright Office documents, the engravings themselves are unlikely to be copyrightable in the United States in most cases, if these new materials (prefaces, etc.) are excluded. The US Copyright Office no longer accepts registration notices for "editing," noting that any editor's contribution to the text itself must be creatively significant in order to garner a US copyright. However, this ambiguous claim is included in many older copyright registrations and thus these editions should be treated with caution as it may not be clear which parts are and are not protected by copyright in the United States.
Note that certain US rules relating to failure to include a proper notice or renew copyright (see below) would invalidate any copyright that might exist in any publication of any kind in certain circumstances.
The copyright status of urtext editions in Canada has not been examined by Canadian courts. The Canadian courts have expressed that the threshold of originality in Canada is lower than in the United States, but works are still expected to show original character resulting from skill and judgment (du talent et du jugement) demonstrated by the creator. On the other hand, a mere exercise of a great deal of effort does not result in a new Canadian copyright, so long as this effort was more or less mechanical rather than involving the creation of original material through skill and judgment. Most Canadian courts have interpreted the this doctrine such that works require a significant amount of originality in order to be copyrighted. It is is the position of IMSLP that urtext editions are probably not protected by copyright in Canada if the new copyrightable elements (prefaces, etc.) are removed.
Independent of any legal requirement, IMSLP's current rule is not to accept any urtext edition until 25 years have passed since its publication.
Generally speaking, in most cases (largest exception: pre-1978 works in the US), the term of copyright is determined by the date of death of the contributor, with copyright expiring after a certain number of years after the year of death. The terms expire at the time of the new year, so if you were counting (for example) the 70-year term of a contributor who died in 1960, then the copyright would expire at the end of 2030, meaning the file will be in the public domain on January 1, 2031.
In a number of cases, countries have extended their copyright terms non-retroactively. Notably, this is the case for Canada. Where there was a non-retroactive extension, the last year of death of contributors whose works are free due to expiration before the extension.
The following are the list of ordinary copyright terms for contributors, by the number of years after the contributors' death for which their work remains copyrighted. These are referred to as years p.m.a. (post mortem auctoris, meaning after the death of the author). Exceptions apply in many countries for special circumstances, some of which are discussed on this page.
Additionally, consider the following exceptions to the usual term lengths:
Note that the following countries are not parties to the Berne Convention, Universal Copyright Convention or TRIPS, and so works by residents of those countries who are not nationals of a participating country are in many countries not eligible for international copyright - Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Kosovo, Marshall Islands, Palau, Palestine, Somalia (including Somaliland), Timor-Leste. However, works by nationals of these countries may be protected by various means, and recognized in different ways by different countries, in some cases especially depending on the position of each country on certain international disputes.
The usual terms of copyright in many cases only apply to works published within the contributor's lifetime. For works first published posthumously, the term may vary from the usual term. While this is a complex subject, the following list tries to summarize the copyright terms of works published posthumously.
It can generally be presumed that in countries where the copyright term is based on the year of death that the copyright term of a work published posthumously runs at least as long as for works published within the author's lifetime. However, at least the following exceptions exist:
Please note that the definition of a posthumous work may depend on the country and the particular case. In Canada, it is sufficient for the work to have been performed in order to be considered disseminated during the author's lifetime. In other countries, performance may not count as publication, but dissemination through a library or distribution of manuscript parts usually may be considered publication, such as in the EU (see the Motezuma case: commentaries 1 and 2).
Some countries apply the rule of the shorter term (RoST) in certain circumstances. When applied, the effective length of copyright the shorter copyright term between the work's country of origin and the country in which the rule is being applied. In many countries which otherwise apply the rule, international agreements prevent the rule from being applied for works from certain countries.
The rule of the shorter term is most often relevant in two cases:
The following countries apply the rule of the shorter term in general:
However, there are exceptions, including but not necessarily limited to the following:
According to E. Townsend Gard, bilateral agreements mean that the RoST might not apply to US works in the following countries (though in most cases this has not been examined by courts):
One issue with applying the rule of the shorter term is that it is not always clear which country's term is relevant. Putting aside cases of multiple citizenship and other situations involving transnational authors, simultaneous publication (defined by the Berne Convention as within thirty days of initial publication) may in some cases change which country's term is relevant for the rule. The rules relating to this are not settled worldwide and depend on intricacies of each country's law. This is especially problematic for US works from before March 1, 1989; since the US was not a party to the Berne Convention before then, and many US works were simultaneously published in Canada or the UK, in some cases the country of origin may be difficult to determine with certainty.
The United States has an unusual copyright system. While copyright in the US now works similarly to how it does in other countries for works published today, different rules still apply to older works in the United States which date to before the US joined the Berne convention in 1989. For US copyright, also consult the Hirtle Chart. US copyright status is mostly relevant in the US, but may be applicable in other countries due to the application of the rule of the shorter term for US works. A brief overview of US copyright oddities can be given as follows:
Many works were published outside the United States and did not comply with US copyright formalities, for example, by omitting a notice of the proper form or not applying a renewal registration.
Due to the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, copyright in many of these works was restored (or retroactively created) in the United States.
Despite what certain sources online say, copyright restoration does not require the filing of a notice of intent to enforce. A notice of intent to enforce (NIE) is a notice that must be delivered to a party that was using (usually reprinting) the work whose copyright was restored before the restoration date. The effective restoration date for Berne, WTO and WIPO countries in 1996 (i.e., virtually all countries) is January 1, 1996. IMSLP cannot be a reliance party in virtually any case, and so NIEs are completely irrelevant to IMSLP. Furthermore, NIEs do not have to be filed publicly, and any NIE that was not filed within two years of restoration cannot be registered publicly, so the absence of an NIE in Copyright Office records does not indicate that an item is in the public domain in the US.
The URAA restores copyright for sheet music when all the following requirements are met.
