London 29987 scan

[mscuthbert]

Dear all --

I see that someone has uploaded the scan of the London Codex 29987 -- the images of which are out of copyright under American copyright law, though most libraries will try to claim copyright still. (Though one could almost argue that it took photographic creativity to create such BAD images of a manuscript, ) However, the first 12 pages of the facsimile are the commentary to the manuscript, created in 1965 by the esteemed Gilbert Reaney (d. 2008) and thus under copyright, and should be removed.

These scans are, btw, more useful than the original facsimile which had the versos (backs of pages) on the front and thus couldn't be viewed in the correct order. Here they finally can be.

I would also urge IMSLP to take a stand on facsimiles similar to the one on PD-Urtexts -- to give a set of time after a facsimile is published in which it not be uploaded (even if the images are PD), the photographing process is quite expensive, and I would think that the publishers deserve at least 10-15 years to recoup costs; otherwise such facsimiles will not be published to be scanned.

http://imslp.org/wiki/The_Manuscript_Lo ... onymous%29

Best,
Michael Scott Cuthbert
(musicologist working on 14th c. music)

[Philidor]

I would also urge IMSLP to take a stand on facsimiles similar to the one on PD-Urtexts -- to give a set of time after a facsimile is published in which it not be uploaded (even if the images are PD), the photographing process is quite expensive, and I would think that the publishers deserve at least 10-15 years to recoup costs; otherwise such facsimiles will not be published to be scanned.

When you say the photographing process is quite expensive, which bit of the process do you mean? I could go along to a library today, photograph a PD manuscript, come away with top quality digital images, and upload them to IMSLP's servers, all at nil cost. Sure, I already own the camera, and I'd be giving my time, travel costs, software costs, etc. for free. Are you talking publishing house profit?

If so, isn't it better, arguably, if they don't make that profit, and the PD manuscripts are available, via IMSLP, free on the internet 10-15 years earlier?

[mscuthbert]

We may be talking about different levels of photographic quality here. Many of the best recent facsimiles are photographed with extremely sensitive 60-80MP cameras on vibration absorbing tripods with the light levels extremely closely monitored -- this is what is necessary for a lot of the work being done today, with MSS being distributed on external hard drives and not CDs or DVDs (see for instance the LIM facsimile of Bologna Q15).

I didn't suggest a grace period on images of sources you've flown out and taken yourself -- but that's not the same thing as slapping a newly published $1,000 facsimile on a scanner. I would think doing the latter too often could end up being a case of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

[Philidor]

We may be talking about different levels of photographic quality here. Many of the best recent facsimiles are photographed with extremely sensitive 60-80MP cameras on vibration absorbing tripods with the light levels extremely closely monitored -- this is what is necessary for a lot of the work being done today, with MSS being distributed on external hard drives and not CDs or DVDs (see for instance the LIM facsimile of Bologna Q15).

Fair enough. I couldn't produce that quality. But I could get close and, I suspect, others here could get closer.

I didn't suggest a grace period on images of sources you've flown out and taken yourself -- but that's not the same thing as slapping a newly published $1,000 facsimile on a scanner. I would think doing the latter too often could end up being a case of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Fair enough (2) . I need instruction from a copyright expert here, but am surprised there's no legal protection afforded to those $1,000 images.

[mscuthbert]

Fair enough. I couldn't produce that quality. But I could get close and, I suspect, others here could get closer.

Oh, definitely it'd be close enough for study, enjoyment, performance, and (what I'd like best) getting a wider audience for Medieval music.

Fair enough (2) . I need instruction from a copyright expert here, but am surprised there's no legal protection afforded to those $1,000 images.

Bridgemann vs. Corel is the case that determined that photographs that attempt to faithfully reproduce 2D objects are not protected by copyright in the U.S. -- it's less than 10 years old so it's still not known in many areas, and no similar case has been argued in the E.U. yet (though a similar case was decided similarly in Switzerland, I believe). My sense is that eventually there will be a way found to protect them (though hopefully not for the absurd lengths that current copyright law in the states protects them), but for now, no. But I am not a copyright expert either so I could have the details wrong, I'm just someone who deals a lot with manuscript facsimiles. All the best, Michael

[Carolus]

The issue addressed by Bridgeman v. Corel, and by the Supreme Court case Feist v. Rural is the "threshold of originality" question. Both cases destroyed the argument that "sweat of the brow" constitutes the original creative work required to qualify for copyright protection. There was a fairly significant case (whose name escapes me at the moment) ruled on last year in an Appeals Court which strongly re-affirmed the "threshold of originality" concept outlined in both cases.

[mscuthbert]

Hi -- The main point of these posts still needs an admin to resolve: the introduction to the facsimile is almost certainly in copyright (Reaney only dying two years ago). Could an admin please remove those pages from the PDF? (pp 2-12). Most of the info there is now available online anyhow (La Trobe database of Medieval Music) in a more up-to-date form. Best, Michael

[Carolus]

Yes, you're correct. The preface should not be there. Sorry for the distraction. I'll go ahead and remove it at once. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

[mscuthbert]

Thanks! y'all are awesome.