Elgar: Nursery Suite

[Irishmaestro]

I posted Elgar's Nursery Suite yesterday, but it's been blocked as copyright in the USA. Now, as far as I'm aware, the publisher (Keith Prowse) went out of business decades ago, and the Nursery Suite is now not available - at all! What, therefore, is the status of a publication when the publisher has been defunct for several decades?

[daphnis]

Copyright status of a given work, regardless of the territory, is not at all determined by current state of the publishing house but rather the date of copyright registration (U.S.) or death dates of the composer or last contributor (Canada, E.U.). Since this piece was published in 1931, it falls within copyright territory in the U.S. being that it was published after the 1922 cut-off date. And it's term remains valid unless it was failed to be renewed by the publisher. Such a renewal request can be verified through the Copyright Office either online or in person, or through renewal records in the Library of Congress. We prefer to err on the side of caution until irrefutable evidence can be provided to show the status otherwise.

EDIT: I also see that this score (the piano reduction by Woodhouse) was co-issued in America by Sam Fox Publishing, now owned by Warner/Chappell. And since I don't see this transcription was ever picked up and reprinted by either Masters, Kalmus, or others, the odds are very good that a renewal was indeed filed which upholds its copyright status in the U.S.

[Irishmaestro]

Ah, I see, yes. Thanks for clarifying that for me.

Terribly unfair, of course, if Warner\Chappell do indeed own the former Keith Prowse rights in the US, to let it go out of print. I know for a fact that this is a highly sought-after work, and surely it is their duty to keep fine works like this in the repertoire? I'd imagine, then, that they own the rights to the Severn Suite too.

This is, perhaps, one of the benefits of shorter copyright-terms (such as we have here in the EU) - publishers who fail to keep works in print no longer have sole possession of those works after a reasonable length of time, therefore making them available for study and performance once more.

[Carolus]

Daphnis is correct. It is most likely protected in the USA. The copyright notice is valid. So unless someone forgot to renew it, it's tied up. That's very interesting that there's a provision in EU law about defunct publishers. Such works are known as "orphan works" here in the USA. With the vast expansion of copyright terms here, the problem of orphan works has become quite serious. We have a number of them on the Wiki, notably any item issued after 1922 by the Art Publication Society of St. Louis. They renewed everything right on time, so there are several Godowsky editions and arrangements still tied up. The company went out of business in the early 1970s. Nobody knows who the legal heir to company is. A real mess.