Can a library claim copyright on unpublished holdings?

[carmar1791]

I posted this on moderator and bug reports page.I don't know where is the right place.If it's not correct some admins will delete it
Thank you
Greetings

Carmar

Carmar

[Peter]

For technical issues, see other thread.

About blocking them again, we'll need consensus by the team about setting this precedent. Like already discussed, the library has no legal arguments against distribution of the scans, so this would be a major reason not to block these files.

However, if the personal legal safety of a user would be threatened, I would be inclined to do it. But I assume the library being "not happy" is no real problem, Carmar ?

What do they think about the legal issues involved? Did they provide any argument that gives them any credibility?

[carmar1791]

Thank you

Greetings

Carmar

[Carolus]

From the legal point of view manuscripts fall into three categories:

1) Works that have been published - in any form - more than 25 years ago.
2) Works first published less than 25 years ago.
3) Works never previously published.

For category one - manuscripts of works that have been previously published - the library has no claim whatsoever under Canada's law. I seriously doubt any sort of claim would hold much water in a EU court, though different countries have other laws regarding the duplication of manuscript holdings in libraries. This would appear to conflict with copyright law in many cases, however. (While stating they aren't claiming copyright, they claim a "right of reproduction" that is somehow not a copyright even though it functions exactly like a copyright.)

Manuscripts of works only first published less than 25 years ago (Category 2) in most of the EU - or less than 50 years ago if published in Canada - are probably not OK to post at IMSLP without written permission.

Category 3 is somewhat complicated. By posting a previously unpublished work on IMSLP, it is most likely you have in fact published it - deliberately injecting the work into the Public Domain. IMSLP is in favor of this position for works of composers dead more than 70 years. A rather strange situation has arisen in recent times with the first publication of recently discovered works from composers long dead whereby people other than the composer's descendants or legal heirs lay claim to copyright for 25 years (in most of the EU) or even 50 years (Canada) or even longer. The USA (for once) addressed this issue very effectively by injecting all unpublished material of authors dead more than 70 years into the public domain on 1/1/2003.

Under the EU's Editio Princeps rule, a library could conceivably make a claim to publication rights in the genuinely unpublished manuscript material in their possession. For that matter, if the long-dead composer has legal heirs (most likely descendants), they might have an even stronger claim to a publication right. We will need more discussion of this issue and its ramifications.

[Peter]

I wonder if making a manuscript available for library's visitors to inspect and even allowing to make duplicates of it, would be regarded as publication or "making available to the public".

[carmar1791]

In all these situation I see there is the possibilities to revert file to the previous version.

What do you think about this?

greetings

Carmar

[Peter]

Deleting an old version is perfectly possible, but don't be afraid: the reverting to older versions is only possible by admins or by the uploader himself.

[Carolus]

Carmar1791, I agree you should replace any CDSM files where a "white Box" has been laid over the offending logo. The CDSM logo is typically visible for a 1/2-second as the file is opening in such cases. Covering the logo with a layer of white is an inadequate method of removing the logo. It really needs to be completely removed without a trace.

[carmar1791]

I'll wait an admin announcement about this problem before continuing .

Greetings

Thank you

Carmar

[carmar1791]

Carolus , For my curiosity in which files did you find that white box?(only to be sure to clean all....).

Ciao

Carmar

[ras1]

I'm using photoshop to clean files, and I'm fairly sure that using a white rectangle is fine if you choose "Flatten Image" before converting to a pdf. This way, any information about editing is lost.

[carmar1791]

Gimp too.

.an admin k! go!

Greetings

Carmar

[Peter]

I know - like I told, it's not a permission problem but a bug and that's something for a coder = feldmahler. a little patience

[carmar1791]

Now, for what I can see ,it seem all ok .

Bug fixed !Thank you feldmahler!

Ps
I stress again my opinion that for copyrigth reasons ( files that have cdsm etc.. marks) the old version of files should be deleted permanently.May be in a second time or manually during the new copyrigth revision...I dnn't know..
I think it's a waste of space too (for bug reason I uploaded many time the same files (10M or more) so now you have 50 or more M. for files that could be only 10 ............but I think these are not my business.....



Thank you again

Greetings

Carmar

[JDH]

Greetings, Carmar!
I have downloaded many, if not most, of your files of viola music with the objective of making some of them available in my own way. Go to this address to see what I mean (I am trying to be brief):

http://shop.ebay.com/merchant/footepain ... omZQQ_mdoZ

After you have examined the samples and list, you will see that whoever--and I assure you that it is I--prepared those files has put in hours well over 1000--actually, thousands--to make these files clean and convenient to use all over the world (leaving to the purchaser the decision as to how to use those files that, upon printing, may not be copyright in his country). The monetary fee for this work amounts to $00.0015 per page, in the case of the "6,600 page" viola cd.

As you might guess by now, I plan to issue another viola cd--one which will contain some of the files that you uploaded to IMSLP. As you know, the scans of many of those editions that are historic do present the viewer with extremely "dirty" images. The 'cleaning' that I subject them to (mainly, selecting and deleting extraneous items or a group thereof) can take upwards of 1/2 HOUR per page. May I ask if you object to a fee averaging less than 1/5 cent per page by the the person who does this--and who makes no claim of copyright on anything but the cd as a totality--i.e., does not attempt to place any restriction on what anyone else does with any of the files--?
In case anyone is interested, I have sold a total of 1000-1100 cds since I started with the Kreisler one in December of 2005. The return on my labor is under $1 per hour, for sure.
If you have a comment on this, or concerns about what you may have added personally to any of the images (fingering, etc.), I would be happy to hear from you.

Sincerely,
John Howard