How it started, a reference.

[Carolus]

EDIT: This is how the story started. I have snipped the relevant posts from a thread in Copyright Discussions about CDSM.

This is for reference only, I will be closing this so there are no posts.

AW7




Strictly speaking, you're right. I seriously doubt that CDSM would have legal grounds for a trademark infringement suit just for the mention of their name. That being said, the reason I've advocated being a little more circumspect with regards to CDSM and EveryNote is that IMSLP does present a direct challenge to their business model - which consists of selling scans of public domain scores. While it's quite clear that a PDF generated from scans of a public domain score is not protected as a computer program - that does not prevent someone from dragging IMSLP to court over the issue.

After all, why on earth would anyone pay $15.00 for a CD-R of PDFs of scanned music scores when you can download the identical pieces from IMSLP at no charge? At least some of the print publishers I deal with view IMSLP differently: If someone download all 400+ pages of Massenet's full score for Werther, they then have to figure out a way to a) print it onto a size and quality of paper they can use (usually 8.5 x 11 in the US); b) bind all those loose pages in such a way that they can be used, etc. For many folks acquainted with the process of dealing with this type of thing, it's often a real bargain to simply go to Sheet Music Plus or Amazon and purchase a nicely printed and bound copy for $50.00 (or whatever).

I expect that IMSLP has now gotten so huge that it's unlikely that CDSM, EveryNote, et al are unaware of what's going on here. However, since we've already received threats from one major European publisher, I suppose we shouldn't be thumbing our noses at other parties who might be inclined to hire legal guns to attempt to shut the site down.

[Funper]

"However, since we've already received threats from one major European publisher..."

Which publisher? Could we view it?

[Carolus]

That's up to Feldmahler. I am not at liberty to say who it was. Suffice it to say, it's a very well-known and famous publisher.

[imslp]

I do not have permission to show the letter on IMSLP (as the letter is copyrighted, and it'd be ironic if I got sued for showing the letter). However, if you want I can show my response to the publisher. Indeed, as Carolus says, it is currently one of the largest publishers I believe.

[daphnis]

@Carolus:

In response to your last post, yes, I completely understand this precaution taken by IMSLP. My point in replying here is, should this reasoning be upheld, to add the following clause: To extend this circumspection and discourage mention of ALL reprinters irrespective of publication medium. After all, even though CDSM and EasyNote do distribute their product in an e-format (and admittedly pose a somewhat more direct competition to IMSLP being that we, too, offer our public domain scores in e-format), this is only the medium of transmission, not unique to the content, and therefore is not significantly different from Dover, Kalmus, or Master's, etc. And while there might be more of a cause for one of these e-publishers to make waves on our account, certainly it is also plausible that so, too, could any one of the physical reprinters in an albeit reduced likelihood. I guess what I'm getting at is--How safe should we be? Sufficiently guarded? or Thoroughly schizophrenic?

[Funper]

I do not have permission to show the letter on IMSLP (as the letter is copyrighted, and it'd be ironic if I got sued for showing the letter). However, if you want I can show my response to the publisher. Indeed, as Carolus says, it is currently one of the largest publishers I believe.

Sure I would want.

[Yagan Kiely]

I do not have permission to show the letter on IMSLP (as the letter is copyrighted, and it'd be ironic if I got sued for showing the letter). However, if you want I can show my response to the publisher. Indeed, as Carolus says, it is currently one of the largest publishers I believe.

Surely letters that are directed at a website and concern a website should be able to be privately viewed by "staff" (so to speak) for the purpose of complying with it?

How is it copyright to disclose who the corporation is?

And I would absolutely love to see the response.

[imslp]

I do not have permission to show the letter on IMSLP (as the letter is copyrighted, and it'd be ironic if I got sued for showing the letter). However, if you want I can show my response to the publisher. Indeed, as Carolus says, it is currently one of the largest publishers I believe.

Surely letters that are directed at a website and concern a website should be able to be privately viewed by "staff" (so to speak) for the purpose of complying with it?

Yes, but I'd rather not publicly post the letter. Slashdot ran an article yesterday (can be found here: http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/10/08/1453254.shtml) about C&D letters not being copyrighted, but I'd rather not risk it; there is pretty much nothing to be gained from publicly posting the letters... the action would be more of an attack than anything else, which is something I'd like to avoid. In any case, you can probably guess what the original letter has by reading my reply

How is it copyright to disclose who the corporation is?

It isn't... I just don't want to provoke anything. You can find the name of the company in my response letter here:

http://imslp.org/wiki/Image:U-E_C%26D_Response.pdf

[Carolus]

Daphnis,

We should not reproduce the current logos of active publishers like Kalmus, Dover, etc., since (as with CDSM) there would be a potential trademark issue. It's perfectly OK to use their name in a citation, though, like the publisher field in the standard IMSLP page. Library catalogs use it in this format all the time, and the case law is well-established that such useage doesn't rise to the level of trademark violation.

So, using a name in plain type as a citation is fine but reproducing the name using the particular face employed in the logo is treading on dangerous ground. Old logos that are no longer employed, copyright notices, and imprints on the first music page are all OK. I personally know people (including the president) in one of the major reprint houses, and they are well aware of IMSLP. They even use it to look things up and have downloaded some scores as source material in preparing a new editions. They do not regard IMSLP as a threat or as real competition in any way.

As long as we are careful not to reproduce actual logos, I don't see much cause for concern from the reprint houses. Other publishers with works that are copyright in places like the EU, for example, are another matter. We just have to remain diligent about making sure we don't violate copyrights by leaving things like Shostakovich titles up. That type of thing could result in a nasty lawsuit.

[Yagan Kiely]

Thanks for that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cease_and_desist#Criticism hehe

[emeraldimp]

I personally know people (including the president) in one of the major reprint houses, and they are well aware of IMSLP. They even use it to look things up and have downloaded some scores as source material in preparing a new editions. They do not regard IMSLP as a threat or as real competition in any way.

Yay! I'm glad some companies are sensible nowadays...