User talk:Carolus/archive29

Contents 1 Category talk:Williams, Joseph 2 CPE Bach Sinfonies ed. Fedtke 3 Changing username and name of my composer category page 4 Stults, I Am the Resurrection 5 Watchlist or what? 6 Chaminade 7 Chopin 8 further on archive.org 9 BNF and Gallica, Prudent 10 Copyright (Compilation) 11 Public Domain (Details) 12 Edition(s) Russe(s) 13 Peterson-Berger, Stemning, Op.11, No.1 14 Mompou works likely published before 1923 15 Changing license to attribution only 16 Parody 17 Music Publishers 18 Mozart K361 19 Vocal scores re Huber opus 41 20 Hermann Ritter 21 Handel Overtures 22 PD-US status of Havergal Brian's Gothic Symphony 23 Typesets by RSB 24 Vladimir Belsky 25 Version Template, etc. 26 Canadian Copyright 27 Line breaks 28 Composer who may be PD-US-only 29 The Ugly Duckling, Op.18 (Prokofiev, Sergey)

Category talk:Williams, Joseph

Hi Carolus. I'd be very much obliged if you could find the time to look at the above discussion thread which I started today. ~~Regwik 18:25 1 Aug 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Regwik, It looks like KGill has already answered your questions. Mr. Williams had more aliases than Al Capone, it would appear! Carolus 01:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

CPE Bach Sinfonies ed. Fedtke

I'm poised to upload all 6 of CPE's Sinfonie as edited by Fedtke and first published by Peters in 1975-76. May I have confirmation that these along with editor's preface may be uploaded? They should be marked as Checked in Canada and the EU but obviously copyright in the US. Thanks, Daphnis 21:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Since Fedtke died in 1988, I'm afraid we can't do the prefaces. Kalmus has reprinted some editions of Buxtehude but nothing of CPE Bach. Do you happen to know if it was Peters Leipzig (GDR) or Frankfurt. GDR items are frequently not eligible for restoration in the USA. Of course, there's the whole Urtext issue also. Since these are over 25 years old, the music itself is fair game in Canada and EU at least. Carolus 02:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Leipzig I think. I wasn't able to find a death date for him, so now that I know what it is, we indeed couldn't include the preface and other front matter by the editor. Daphnis 02:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Changing username and name of my composer category page

Dear Carolus,

I would like to change both my username and composer category page to reflect that I wish now to be called "Sean Michael Salamon" in a professional context. I opted not to do a simple page move for my username for fear that it would cause a problem. And of course, moving a composer category page is impossible for me. Could you help me?

Sean Salamon 03:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

We'll take care of it! It might take a little while. On the username, if you upload things you will likely need to use initials in the uploader and scanner/typsetter fields - like this: [[User:Sean Michael Salamon|SMS]] (you can accomplish this by simply typing in "SMS" in the field when you're uploading) since putting a long name in those fields results in some undesirable line breaks in the file description. Also, next time you sign in, you will have to register as a new user "Sean Michael Salamon." Whe this is done, the new user page will be there waiting. Carolus 05:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help! Sean Salamon 22:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Stults, I Am the Resurrection

Dear Carolus: I notice you added an arrangements header to this. You wouldn't know by any chance what the original instrumentation was, would you? I need it for tagging. Thanks, Steltz 15:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it was just for voice and piano instead of duet and piano. It was common practice to issue both at once so it's impossible to tell which was first and which is the arrangement. Carolus 02:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Watchlist or what?

Just wondering how you keep track of everything that goes on around the site so well. Do you have a massive watchlist, go through all the edits, or just check all the copyright tags? Cheers, Lndlewis10 03:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I just check on what has been added, along with any copyright tags. Carolus 03:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I've hinted at this before, but it would be really useful if you would go on the IRC from time to time. Quite a lot of administrative discussion goes on (Davydov, KGill, Perlnerd, Feldmahler, PML, and I are often on). It is essentially a real-time forum. No one is on now, but in the future you might wish to sign in from time to time? Cheers, Lndlewis10 03:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll sign on from time to time. I just noticed that nobody's over there right now. Carolus 04:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem lies with predicting activity :P-- Snailey (_@/) _{Talk to Me Email me} 03:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I've made you an admin in any case. (I'm not sure Carl likes the idea of live chat ;) Lndlewis10 04:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Don't particularly mind. If I'm really intensively busy doing stuff it can be somewhat annoying. After all, if you've got something important to bring up, you can always post a comment right here! Carolus 04:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Chaminade

Sorry about that...have to be more careful about the "override" on the N! checkmark...thanks-- Snailey (_@/) _{Talk to Me Email me} 04:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It's way too easy for me to forget she's not PD in the EU. Of course, Henri Büsser (d.1973) is an even worse case - he's not free in Canada either. Carolus 04:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Chopin

Have you noticed that between the new influx of Joseffy, Sibley's Kullak, our complete Mikuli, and long-standing Klindworth collections, that we're going to have quite the Chopin collection here? Now for the Breitkopf, manuscripts, first editions, etc. :P. Cheers-- Snailey (_@/) _{Talk to Me Email me} 03:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's really getting to be an impressive collection. I'd like to see the Breitkopf & Härtel complete works added. They came out in 1879 when Chopin entered the public domain in most of Europe. Carolus 03:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You may get your wish. Hathi Trust appears to have the full set and I think I'll start processing them after I complete a number of Scholtz scores I was able to locate. --Cypressdome 02:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Outstanding! Hathi has turned out to be a decent source of things after all. Carolus 04:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Frédéric Chopin: Werke in the meantime...-- Snailey (_@/) _{Talk to Me Email me} 01:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

further on archive.org

seems to be a good-sized collection of organ recordings uploaded by their own performer- under community audio but will need to double-check the license- but what's rather annoying to me anyway is lack of identification on a number of the pieces; connoisseurs will recognize the music which is good, but Lefebure-Wely wrote dozens of Communions for organ without opus number (I've managed to eliminate, I think, those in his L'Organiste moderne collection, assuming what we have uploaded is the whole thing), of which the one this fellow performed and uploaded is which exactly? :) and so forth- not an unusual problem I know - sorry. The organist is a Philippe Malgouyres. Eric 05:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

BNF and Gallica, Prudent

In my last Prudent, Séguidille contribution you've changed the link to Bibiliothèque nationale de France to Gallica. Gallica is a subset of BNF that offers online scanned scores thereof. My scan is based on a photocopy I obtained after filling a long form in 1998. It doesn't come from nowadays's Gallica site. --Coulonnus 07:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. I though they were the same. Perhaps we need a template for the plain BNF? Carolus 02:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright (Compilation)

Hi Carolus. I'm interested in scanning a few items myself (with KGill, actually) and was wondering about the copyright status of compilations. How exactly are they treated? Cheers, Lndlewis10 03:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

A copyright can be claimed upon a compilation itself, provided the compilation is original in nature. Simply gathering all 32 Beethoven piano sonatas and trying to claim a compilation copyright on a collection of 32 sonatas would not meet the threshold of originality for obvious reasons. Placing a public domain item in a new compilation does not afford it any protection, unless it is also a new edition or arrangement of the public domain original. Some publishers affix copyright claims to every piece in a collection, even when its painfully obvious that it has been reprinted form something quite old. You and KGill are experienced reviewers, so I am sure you'll do fine. Carolus 04:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lndlewis10. Compilations are sometimes a complex issue in copyright law. Carolus did a fantastic job at explaining it; but for clarification, this is my understanding of it. When an author selects various components and groups them together in a unique way it can be protected under copyright law. For example, if an author selects and compiles quotes from various composers, it is protectable as a compilation. The definition of a compilation can be found here. The part that is a little confusing is that not all compilations are protectable. For example, a compilation will not be protected just because an author worked hard to gather the information. In the case Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. the Supreme Court ruled that the names and telephone numbers in the directory were facts, and the method of arranging the names / numbers did satisfy the minimum standards of copyright protection. The question is the following: what is protectable after Feist?

1. Under the Feist ruling, the owner of a compilation must demonstrate that the work deserves to be copyrighted as a result of selection, coordination, and arrangement of the data. While it's true that the Feist ruling did eliminate the protection of White pages, it did not eliminate the protection of the Yellow Pages.
2. The Feist ruling has been applied in numerous other ways. For example, a real esate title commitment is not protected under copyright law. In a 1996 case, a system of codes and formulas developed by a company rating workers' compensation claims were not protected under copyright law due to a lack of originality.

Another term is collective works, which is a "periodical issue, anthology, or encyclopedia in which independent works in themselves are assembled into a collective whole" (~ From the link above). Unlike other compilations, such as a directory, the underlying elements assembled into a collective work can be separately protected. One example would be a collection of piano concertos of the 20th century. However, like all compilations, it must meet the threshold of originality. As Carolus said, simply putting together the Beethoven piano sonatas in chronological order does not meet that threshold. What are you planning on scanning? Respectfully, Emery 04:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Public Domain (Details)

Hi Carolus. There is a section on US copyright law on the public domain page here that is very useful. Do you think is might be worthwhile to create a separate page (United States Copyright Law) that has more information? It would be linked to the level 3 header. I don't think it would be appropriate on the Public Domain page because there is far too much information to be practical. I think some aspects would be useful for the new version of the copyright review test. In other words, it would be a detailed history with practical examples. If this is something anyone is even remotely interested in, I can finish a page for it by next Sunday. Respectfully, Emery 04:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought Icactus was going to retain the page you linked as is to be used by chiefly by admins, while creating a more condensed and simplified version for general users (of course we already have the page "Copyright Made Simple" so the simplified might not be needed). As for a detailed page concentrating on US copyright, the new page you're suggesting might be quite useful. What's even better is that there are now a number of volumes for the Catalog of Copyright Entries available over at Internet Archive, and others now available at Hathitrust. A new detailed page on USA copyright would be the ideal place to have the a link to the page for searching the CCE volumes on IA. A direct link to the copyright office's own search page could be added as well to make it a very detailed "one-stop" to find out about the status of any given work in the USA with a fair degree of accuracy. Links to important cases like Feist vs. Rural and Bridgeman vs. Corel would be a real plus also. I you want to go ahead and start constructing this, I'll be glad to review in detail. Carolus 05:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I will start a draft for the page tonight. Once I'm finished you can review my work in detail of course. I didn't mean to imply we would be getting rid of either of the two pages (Copyright Made Simple or Public Domain); I'm sorry if I implied that. Respectfully, Emery 05:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think you were considering eliminating any pages - I was thinking we should check with Icactus to coordinate in order that there is no needless duplication of efforts. I really think a detailed page for the USA could be very useful as it is such a complicated area. Carolus 05:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a rough of idea of some of the contents. Please let me know what else you think would be useful. I will begin writing each section tomorrow, so let me know your thoughts on organization, etc. Respectfully, Emery 05:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a good start. This should be quite an interesting project! Carolus 06:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully I've acquired some knowledge of copyright laws over the years! I'm very much looking forward to the project, thank you for your comments. Respectfully, Emery 06:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Carolus. Just to let you know, a little more has been added to the page. Your very helpful comments and critiques would be appreciated as always. Respectfully, Emery 02:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. I'll be looking over in detail later. Carolus 02:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Great. Even though this is a rough draft, I do not want to get ahead of myself while missing important details. Let me know if I forgot something or should elaborate on any topic. I'm trying my best only to write what I think is useful for IMSLP, but I realize certain important elements of US copyright law may be accidentally skipped in the process. Respectfully, Emery 06:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You're doing a fantastic job. I'll be reviewing it some more tomorrow (it's getting late here!). Carolus 06:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Carolus. I decided that it would be best to place the duration of copyright as number 3 in the table to contents. My original thought was that it would be better to explain all the terms used (e.g.works made for hire) in the section first, but I think the current layout makes more sense. I will end up including links to the appropriate section of the page in the level 3 header for further explanation and definitions of the terms. I set the order of contents within the duration of copyright section as I think makes the most sense. Do you have anything to add? Also, is it worth doing something similar for all countries listed on the public domain in your opinion? If so, I have no problem starting that after the publisher and US copyright projects are complete. Respectfully, Emery 04:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

My thinking right now is that we should try to follow the basic outline of the copyright law itself - specifically those sections which pertain to music and to what we do here at IMSLP. This would primarily involve Chapters 1-5, 10-12, plus the appendices. This is obviously going to be a huge job, but ultimately a worthwhile one - my hope is that this page you are constructing will serve as a detailed explanation and guide to how the US copyright law applies to musical works. First sale doctrine and Fair use are limitations upon the exclusive rights listed, for example. There's also the who issue of termination of grants (to publishers) - an area of absolute critical importance for the descendants of composers who assigned their works to a publisher and now find that the original publisher has been absorbed by a huge conglomerate (as with Leo Ornstein's work). As for other countries, I think we should do one of these detailed pages for Canada (where our main servers are located) and for the EU after we've got this one in decent shape. Specific cases like Russia, France and the like can come later as needed. Carolus 04:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it would hurt to have detailed sections for those two countries at least. I can begin the other pages later if you'd like, but I'm not quite as well versed in foreign copyright law. In fact, I'm not sure I'm so well versed in US copyright law. The termination of grants was going to be in the section "Transfer of Copyright" where I would write about which grants can be terminated, etc. We can try to follow copyright law itself; it's been a while since I've reviewed it in detail. Luckily I have a fresh and knowledgeable pair of eyes to look over what I write. Thanks for the revisions. Respectfully, Emery 04:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you certain you would like it under Exclusive Rights (5.5)? Respectfully, Emery 03:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it really belongs under Transfer of Copyright - because the provisions have to do with the author's rights to terminate previous transfers. I thought of that last night after I shut down, naturally. Carolus 03:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you might be interested in this. Do you have any serious reservations? Respectfully, Emery 03:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Carolus. I hope all went well on your vacation. Many thanks for your comments about which countries to work on first. I created a project page here with you listed as project leader since you are the head of the copyright review team. Would you like to assume leadership of this large scale project? I'm also wondering if you have any more information that would be nice to add to the sortable list I mentioned on my talk page. A rough draft and explanation can be found on the project's talk page. Respectfully, Emery 04:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Emery, I had a great vacation - thanks. I'll be over to check out the sortable list shortly. Yes, I will be happy to assume leadership of this large project. I've already been tweaking your lovely US copyright page and will continue to do so. I really like the general organization of this page very much. As I remarked on your page, making copyright information freely available is one of our core missions here. Thank you very much for all of the detailed work you have been doing on this. It's much appreciated. Carolus 04:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Carolus. We're on our last lap! I think I will be finished with this tomorrow evening. Since you asked earlier about the termination of grants, I set up the page how I think it would be most organized. This is a very detailed section so I would appreciate any comments you have about the outline before I begin. Respectfully yours, Emery 03:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we're finished! Respectfully, Emery 03:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Edition(s) Russe(s)

Hi Carolus. While working on the Prokofiev list I found "Editions Russes de Musique" was used in most sources when referring to the organisation e.g. Grove Online: "Koussevitzky founded the publishing house Editions Russes de Musique in 1909", and the Russian Wikipedia site. Doesn't this suggest that individual scores bearing the imprint "Edition Russe..." were produced by the publishing house for "Editions Russes..."? But I agree there's scope for interpretation, so it would be helpful to have some primary sources bearing the official company name in French. Maybe there's a post-1920 publisher catalogue that could settle the matter? — P.davydov 09:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep looking around. It's confusing to be sure, especially with the move of the main office from Berlin to Paris. New Grove uses "Edition Russe de Musique", which is the imprint I've encountered most often. Carolus 02:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I've sent you some more info by email which might cast further light on this... — P.davydov 15:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Peterson-Berger, Stemning, Op.11, No.1

Dear Carolus, I've made a typeset of this piece based on this sheet (because it's a copy of a copy of a copy etc.). Obviously not free in EU. But what's the exact status of that edition? Concerning the spelling of the German words it's printed before 1902. That fits to Hofmeister (maybe only including German words). But musicanet,org and worldcat say something completely different. Would you help me please? Thanks! --Ralph Theo Misch 22:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That appears to be the original Hansen print from 1898. The plate number is consistent with that date also. Hansen frequently issued works of this nature in German with the native Scandinavian language beneath - whether Swedish, Danish, Norwegian or Finnish. The date in worldcat is a reprint date (often encountered in WorldCat). The scanned edition is free in the USA and Canada. Carolus 02:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks!! --Ralph Theo Misch 07:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Mompou works likely published before 1923

I have a couple of works here I recently acquired and scanned: Pessebres from 1917 and his earliest song "L'hora grisa" from 1915. Both of these show many, many conflicting dates on WorldCat, however based on the engraving style and the plate range within Unión Musical Española's catalog, I highly suspect both are fair game in the US. Neither have been reprinted by Masters, however two other pianos works which are confirmed published in 1920 weren't picked up by them either. These two will be going up tomorrow. Given this, would you think it fair of me to go ahead and upload them both? The copy of Pessebres contains "Unión Musical Española / Filial de Barcelona / Concesionario FRANCISCO MARTI" with plate number F. 107 M. while "L'hora grisa" has plate 4330-1 and contains "Copyright 1954 by Unión Musical Española Madrid." Daphnis 02:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is highly likely that both items you mention were actually published before 1923. UME (now a division of Music Sales) is notorious for putting copyright claims on reprints of music older items. The worse case with something like this is that they'll bark and show us a registration from 1923 or later plus a renewal - in which case we'll take it down. Carolus 02:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, Daphnis 02:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Changing license to attribution only

I noticed that the license for all the pieces on my composer page (Hedien, Mark) was changed to attribution, non-commercial. I appreciate the interest in protecting my music, but I actually really have no objection to commercial use of it in the event someone is actually wants to do that, and I wouldn't expect royalties. About the only thing that would irritate me is if someone paid for my music without knowing they could get it for free. Would there be any problem with my changing it back to the simple attribution license? Thanks again for all of your help over the years.

No problem at all. The one thing a non-commercial license would at least have a chance of preventing is the situation you describe. For example, under the plain attribution someone can copy your works and sell them on Ebay - so an unwitting part could actually end up paying when they could get it here for free. Carolus 02:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Parody

I have another question about copyright law in general, but not related to scanning. According to Emery's US copyright page a parody counts as fair use. Does this extend to musical works as well? Also, does satire also count as fair use? For example, if someone posted a work that was a parody of a Bernstein symphony, could it be tagged N/N/N? Cheers, Lndlewis10 04:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

That would really depend upon the extent of quotation of the original. You might be able to get away with using a melodic fragment or something similar, but I certainly wouldn't want to go up against Amberson, Inc. lawyers over using whole chunks of the piece. Carolus 04:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lndlewis10. I would not feel comfortable, as Carolus said, posting a parody of a musical work on IMSLP. There really is a fine line of fair use versus infringement when dealing with such a case. Judges understand that by the very nature of a parody, fragments from the work work must be used. In court, the main analysis would be if the work was transformative. To address the satire point, I'm not sure how this could apply to music. Inverted melodies? In general a parody uses a copyrighted work as the target. In a satire the copyrighted work is the medium used to make fun of something else. The problem is that a satire is not a transformative use and would therefore not be as likely to qualify as fair use. There was one famous case, Wright v. Warner Books, where the work in question called The Cat NOT in the Hat!, which retold the facts of the O.J. Simpson murder trial. Warner books sued for infringement and the work was seen as a satire, not as a parody, and did not qualify as fair use. The reason given was that the work did not make fun of Dr. Seuss. Sometimes it is a fine line between the two terms, though we should hopefully never have to face the issue on IMSLP. Respectfully, Emery 04:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Music Publishers

Hi Carolus. You might be interested in this project. Respectfully, Emery 03:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Mozart K361

Hello Carolus,

Thank you for inserting the BSB scan of the above work.

At the moment it appears under "parts".

Surely it should appear under:

Arrangements and transcriptions 2.3.1.2 for 2v va vc/cb fl 2ob 2cl 2ob 2bsn 2hn (Gleissner)

The copy entered under “Adagio” should be removed.

Might I suggest that an entry under Sinfonia Concertante K361 be made, linking to this work?

Regards

WilliamBunting

Dear William, Thanks for pointing this out. It has now been moved to Arrangements and Transcriptions, which is exactly where it belongs. We do not normally create additional pages for works we already have. In this case, the title "Sinfonie concertante" was never used by Mozart, nor was it published that way in his lifetime. If it is used a great deal, it might be worth setting up a re-direct. If you think that is justified, you might want to discuss it with either P.davydov or KGill - who are both highly expert at library procedures, correct title designations, etc. I believe we have you to thank for posting this very interesting scan, BTW! Carolus 01:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Carolus,

Thank you for your prompt attention to this question. I wish I had known about this arrangement when I was a student. It helps not having to recruit basset-horn players. The adagio movt is as good as exists.

It looks as though it could be played either by a group of 13 or a full orchestra.

Perhaps a woodwind enthusiast could be persuaded to make nice monochrome version - a lot of work with 140 pages.

It might be a mistake on my part, but I didn't see it among the new works on the main page.

Regards WB

That's because your browser's cache hasn't updated yet. Of course if you uploaded this several hours ago, it might be too far back in the list to appear also. Carolus 03:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Vocal scores re Huber opus 41

not sure I understand vocal score heading re Huber opus 41- didn't see a sign on the score that the texts were meant to be recited? (Will unrevert if so, sorry!!!) Thought they were poetic stanzas in the manner of e.g. the lyric on top of one of the movements of Brahms’s 3rd piano sonata and so many other piano works, say. (Or, in this case, piano duet.) Eric 03:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Ha! I thought they were songs. I didn't even look at the score itself. I guess the header should either be left blank (so it reverts to "General") or we should use "Piano Scores" - but that begs the question of the Hoffman 'arrangement' beneath. Sorry Carolus 03:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It's an arrangement from a piano duet to a piano solo piece??... still confused... Eric 04:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You're not the only one! Carolus 04:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have lots of practice (-- at being confused, if not at returning from the state.) Cheers! :) Eric 04:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It all looks fine now. It was the Goethe inscription which inspired my unfortunate confusion. Carolus 04:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hermann Ritter

Dear Carolus:

Thank you for your help with Mozart k361.

At last I have mastered archive.org, and presented Ritter's Viola Alta book (1877) to IMSLP.

Unfortunately the book's page is occupied by another book, namely "Hermann Ritter und seine Viola Alta" by various authors including Ritter himself.

It seems logical that this latter book should have its own work page.

The system would not let me upload the 1877 book, so I created a new work page as you can see.

Could you please have this sorted out?

Regards WBunting

Handel Overtures

Hi Carolus - the work pages here and here don't seem right to me - obviously at least the 2nd should be deleted. Wouldn't it be prudent to split the scores contained on these pages and post them to the corresponding opera/oratorio work pages? I would be willing to do so, but thought I'd make sure that having a work page entitled "Overtures" is not appropriate. Thanks! Massenetique _{talk email} 23:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, This is one of those areas that is a little confusing. Was this collection published by Walsh during Handel's lifetime (seems likely)? If so, the first page we have set up for the published collections is indeed the place they should be. In addition, the files should be split up so that the parts for the different overtures appear under their respective operas and oratorios. On the other hand, if this collection was issued by Walsh Jr. after the composer's death, there is certainly no justification for giving it its own work page. I redirected the second page to the page to the first (the one for "Overtures"). As I have mentioned to both Irishmaestro and p.davydov, our Handel section is in some serious need of cleanup. Carolus 00:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

PD-US status of Havergal Brian's Gothic Symphony

Hi Carolus! The Copyright Office just uploaded the remainder of the 1960 Catalog of Copyright Entries. All that we need now is 1961 which hopefully they will upload soon. Pending absolute confirmation in that volume it is looking like Havergal Brian's Gothic Symphony may be PD-US (as PML believed to be the case). I was not able to find a registration for it in the volumes from the 1930s (it was published in 1932) on Hathi Trust and so far nothing for the Gothic has turned up in the volumes from the late 1950s and 1960 (still need to check 1961). If it does not appear in the 1961 volume shall we post it or is it better to avoid "pulling the lion's tail" considering recent issues IMSLP has had with publishing interests across the pond. Thanks, --Cypressdome 04:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

There would be another fly in the ointment potentially with this one - they could file an NIE at any time since the work would very definitely still fall under copyright in its country of origin. However, if there is no renewal to be found in 1961 and no NIE was filed from 1996-1998, we are pretty much immune from liability even if they file an NIE as a result of it ending up here (which they could do). There hasn't been a lot of discussion about it, but at least one school of legal thought takes the position that NIEs filed after the two-year window (which closed in 1998) are basically not very enforceable. Carolus 04:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information now the next question is how difficult is it to determine if an NIE was filed? Thanks, --Cypressdome 04:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

That's the easy part! They are listed online at the copyright office website now. They pop up under any author/title search. Carolus 04:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Carolus and Cypressdome. I will check tomorrow to see if it was renewed in 1961. I don't think it was renewed, but I really don't know. It's a possibility. Respectfully, Emery 04:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Emery! I just searched through their online database and could find no NIEs. Crossing my fingers! --Cypressdome 04:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Carolus, Cypressdome, and Emery. I’m still rather surprised Cranz would have dropped the ball on this, seeing as the work did receive its première in 1961, but the evidence is clear that the work was not registered at the time of publication (unlike the vocal score of The Tigers published alongside the Gothic, which would be a desirable item also, if no renewal was made). The 2006 reprint removed the original date of publication (1932) while asserting copyright, and there are no changes to speak of in the reprint (unlike other Brian scores offered by UMP which are newly typeset). Regards, Phi1ip 21:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Carolus, Cypressdome, and PML. It was not renewed in 1961 as far as I could see. Respectfully, Emery 22:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Emery. It’s rather surprising, given the subsequent history – the Gothic is the most-performed work of Brian’s symphonic canon, despite it arguably being the most difficult work in the repertoire to put on (I’m not counting other impossible things like Sorabji’s Jāmī symphony). I’m aware there’s a scan of the 2006 reprint, that someone attempted to upload here earlier this year, which if I’m not mistaken has three defective pages: by the numbering of the Cranz score, pages 38 (1st movement), 72 (3rd movement), and 181 (5th movement). If someone is inclined to put that version up over at IMSLP·US, I strongly suggest splitting it into its six component movements. Regards, Philip _{@ © talk} 01:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I am so inclined. Carolus, do I have a green light? Thanks, --Cypressdome 02:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

If Carolus is inclined, I’ve uploaded an additional page of “prefatory matter” to the page: Symphony No.1 (Brian, Havergal) – this would best be moved to the US server as well (and I will then delete the copy on the Canadian server). The single page doesn’t include any music and is not a copyright infringement. Philip _{@ © talk} 02:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Go for it. I see no reason this cannot be uploaded to the USA server. It's almost certainly free in the USA. Carolus 02:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless I am wrong and it was renewed in 1961. I'm not sure if I feel comfortable being the only person to have that confirmation. Does someone else also have access to double check for me? I'm not so sure I'm the most thorough or careful person to be involved in potential copyright legal problems. One example is when I wrote the dates for the Copyright Term Extension Act. I mentioned the date 1988 when it was actually passed in 1998. Respectfully, Emery 04:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Emery, if you’re at the Library of Congress, perhaps it would be fairly easy for you to grab the CCE volumes for music renewals in 1961 and ask a colleague to double-check the entries? The format of the musical renewals varied somewhat over the years, but there would have to be a short entry under BRIAN in the composer’s section of the tables, with matching entries for each work title in the (much longer) alphabetical list of titles. Various others of us have leafed through numerous copies of the entries and renewals, and usually if the item was registered it will be straightforward to find with an initial reference under the composer’s name, so that you then won’t be searching for such a needle in a haystack in the other list. Cheers Philip _{@ © talk} 05:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, except checking 1956, Part 5C on archive.org, it looks like they didn’t have a composer index through those years. Still, it should be sorted alphabetically by title; the title of the work will be “Symphony No.2” (the work was re-numbered down to No.1 in 1967). Philip _{@ © talk} 05:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi PML. The entries are almost always straight forward except in the rare pseudonymous cases. I think that several local libraries have the complete Catalog of Copyright Entries. When I briefly visited Chicago I stopped by a local library to browse their collection and I noticed the complete catalog there. Having access doesn't mean one has to be near the LoC! I did not know that the work was originally titled symphony No.2, thanks for letting me know. I'm not sure if you noticed the copyright project underway, but it's a very large effort that cannot be completed without help. I'm wondering if you would be interested in joining the team - you seem to be a very knowledgeable copyright review team member. Since you live in Australia, would it be possible for you create a page about Australian copyright law? I'm not sure I could attempt to outline a page since I know only very little about Australian law. You are under no obligation to join the project and there is no rush at all. I think Carolus will need to sign you up since he is the project leader, but I don't think he would have any reservations. Respectfully yours, Emery 05:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Brian had to register the work in order to renew it in 1961. I know someone who has a complete CCE set at a certain publisher who relies on it and can have him check tomorrow just to make absolutely certain there was no renewal. There has been nothing filed under NIEs either as far as I can tell. No reservations from this particular peanut gallery about PML working in Australia copyright page. With their non-retroactive increase of the term to 70pma, Australia is a pretty interesting case. Carolus 06:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it largely means we have a 20-year window of stasis, with no new works entering the public domain, until 2026. Also, the laws changed markedly with respect to recordings and photographs, if my memory’s not mistaken. I’d be glad to research and write up the Australian page – I’ve viewed developments at the US page with considerable interest, even if I have nothing to add myself. Philip _{@ © talk} 06:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the US page is finished on my end, but you are absolutely welcome to add whatever you would like. I'm happy to know I have the fresh eyes of the team checking over my mistakes. Remember that organization and simplification are absolutely the most important things, although I do know my US copyright page could use some improvement with both. Good luck. Respectfully, Emery 06:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Emery. BTW, my friend has double checked the entries in the books located in his office and confirms there is no registration or renewal for the Gothic Symphony . Carolus 02:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Typesets by RSB

Hallo Carolus,

Maybe you could doublecheck the "arrangement" recently uploaded by RSB: The Andante from Symphony No.44 by Mozart is not an arrangement but a typeset of the Andante movement, which is for 2 oboes and strings. Nothing has been altered except some missing slurs. And the oboe part is a score of Oboe I+II - while parts for this Symphony are very much appreciated, parts should be split into single instruments, wind players hate to play from scores. I also noticed that typesets by RSB are quite frequently in single movement files (Mozart Violin Sonatas K6-8), have and lack much phrasing present in the originals. Maybe a bit of friendly advice on his talkpage could get RSB to make his typesets more userfriendly? --Kalliwoda 17:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Kallwoda. I thought that this was an arrangement on the basis of the naming of the parts - that it was a single oboe plus string quartet. I'll look over and leave a note on RSB's page. Carolus 02:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Vladimir Belsky

Hi Carolus. I've started working on the Rimsky-Korsakov pages, and I've just found that Vladimir Belsky, who was the librettist for 4 of RK's operas, died only in 1946 (in Yugoslavia, strangely enough). I'm a bit rusty on the copyright reviewing, but am I right in thinking that as a consequence, all four operas (besides the overtures and instrumental numbers) won't be PD in the EU until 2017? — P.davydov 23:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You are exactly correct. They are protected until 2017 in the EU. That's an interesting case. Carolus 02:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation, and for updating the copyright tags. I corrected few others last week while identifying the librettists for the Arensky songs (one of whom died as recently 1952!) — P.davydov 07:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Version Template, etc.

I noticed you'd made some changes to the layout of the Swan Lake page last night, which made it inconsistent with all the other pages that use the new template. Rather than alter all those as well, I've gone back to the earlier layout on Swan Lake, which is the usage that gained rare unanimous approval on the forums  :-)

The information in the publisher field is also done in a consistent way, with the editions purposely sorted in date order, rather than by full scores followed by piano reductions, as it is the earliest publication date that's usually the most important for copyright purposes. I also found that giving the number of pages in the edition before the plate number makes it easier to see where one number starts and another ends, especially where there are multiple plate numbers separated by commas. I've updated the manual of style to make it clearer on these points, and to allow for more information to be included where available — P.davydov 07:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Putting a template in front of the date might interfere with the read function in that particular field, which is is used to partially determine copyright status. While not likely to be important in a case like Swan Lake, I wonder if this particular field should be strictly confined to the year of first publication, with all the publication history info going into a supplementary field added to the "General Information" - like "Publication History." This is the reason I also used the wiki-indent colon after First Performance - it helps separate the date itself from all the stuff which might come afterwards. There's also quite a bit of redunancy in the First Publication Date field as presently configurged in the style guide. On the page for Mazeppa, for example, I note the stack of "Moscow: P. Jurgenson" in the listing of all the publications. Would it be better to have a separate field named "Original Publisher"? I'd also like to see if we could eventually add the extensive contents listing to the appropriate filed in "General Information" - but this gets horrendous for operas (as for Swan Lake) so I expect we'll be awaiting the MediaWiki upgrade before doing anything. As I understand it from Feldmahler, there are three fields which are actually read by the system for the purpose of assigning works into copyright categories: 1) Year of composition; 2) Year of first publication; and 3) First performance. He recently added first performance to the list, which resulted in the somewhat strange ordering in numeric form being used). The whole copyright factor only comes into play with post 1922 items and/or composers dead less than 70 years ago. (BTW, I was actually away when you invented the template and the discussion took place on the forums - that'll teach me to take a weekend off and not check the forums!).

Hopefully Feld's system is clever enough to ignore any templates in front of the date and just read the first number it found, but if not we could always but a hidden value at the start of the line. Let's see what he says about that — P.davydov 05:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

After writing the above I realised that different versions of works could have different copyright dates anyway, depending on when they were first published and the dates of their creators, so the version template should help to flag up these special cases — P.davydov 17:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

On your wider point about the publication field, after a working on couple of hundred pages I found the previous method just couldn't cope with cases when there were multiple publishers and/or years involved, and so always having separate lines for each edition was the clearest way to present that information. The ":" indents don't work well in the situation where there's more than one entry per line, and I think we should do our best to adapt the layout to fit the content, rather than vice-versa — P.davydov 05:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Feldmahler has now confirmed the three fields which are read by the system. The problem, as I see it, is that we're trying to do a couple of different things at once which might not be strictly compatible: 1) Have a simple year which is being read by the system to facilitate copyright categorization; 2) Having a detail-rich publication history. For example, while I am all in favor of having detailed publication history - having the issues of the Tchaikovsky complete works, plus arrangements by others listed in the field (originally) devoted to one simple thing - the year something was fist published - clouds the whole (original) purpose and objective of the field and creates potential functionality/performance issues. My proposal (see his talk page) is that we add a non-read "Publication History" field where all the extra (very valuable) detail (and even more) can go - without having to be overly concerned keeping about a rigid format to satisfy system readability requirements. We might want to think of adding a similar type of non-read field for first performance information. As you point out, the real headaches start to surface with a piece like Swan Lake, where the first thing published was an arrangement made by someone other than the composer, with the full score being issued nearly 2 decades after the premiere. It gets even worse when different formats are issued by different publishers - parts from publisher A, score a decade later from publisher B, etc. Adding a new, non-read field will leave us free to come up with a formattiing schema which would work for nearly all situations (as we did with the page hierarchy). Carolus 03:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I just replied on Feldmahler's talk page before I saw this, so apologies for any duplication. I would argue that having a field for "the year something was first published" is meaningless unless you know which version of the work it relates to, as it's usually the copyright status of that version or arrangement (and not the work as a whole) that's being indicated. This is why I think it's important to give the separate publication history of each version, and that this need to be included in the GI section, rather than banished to a section at the end of the page that people could easily miss if they don't scroll down. I don't think it's the case including details of performers' names in the GI section has any effect on the machine readability of the date at the start of the first line. But perhaps you and I taken a different view on how much detail should be presented in the GI section generally? The last time this was discussed, and we added new fields, I thought there was a general preference among IMSLP users towards including more information within this section, but maybe we should throw this over to the forums to see if that's still the case? — P.davydov 08:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

From the standpoint of US law, the year something was first published - regardless of which version - is absolutely critical for anything published before 1978. The general rule on publication holds that all extant versions are considered published when the first item (whatever version that happens to be) is published. There is now a whole 'copyfraud' cottage industry built around the premise that a publisher can publish a full score of an opera 100 years after the vocal score derived from that same full score was published and claim at least an editio princeps copyright (in the EU and possibly Canada) or a full-blown 95-year term in the USA (if issued before 1978), or protection up to 1/1/2048 (if issued from 1978-2002). This is the chief reason why the "year of first publication" field is a 'read' field. The date of first performance field comes into play from a copyright POV due to Canada's expansion of "publication" to include performance or recording for works of composers dead over 50 years. Year of composition is read as a 'back-up' in the absence of anything being present in the "Year of First Publication" field. One way to think of the collection of these year-dates is sort of like a GPS-system using triangulation to determine a location. This goes back to what I was stating in the first part of my last entry - we're basically trying to do two very different things with a single field. Like you, I am all in favor of having all the detailed information which (for example) you've been adding to Tchaikovsky available. My reason for advocating new fields is so that all this detail can included without having to make sure the formatting does not interfere with the system reading something for copyright purposes. So, yes, it's great to have lots of detailed info available in the GI section - no dispute there at all. I am merely thinking it might be best to keep the read fields clean and use supplemental fields to put in all the detail. Carolus 02:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Understood, and presumably the rule about first publication would apply in Canadian and EU law too? If so, then the only circumstances where the publication field won't start with a year, is when there's a version template preceding it, and hopefully there will be a simple technical fix for that – maybe ignoring everything that comes before the first digit in the field, which would also catch all the "ca.1xxx" dates that are still out there. Otherwise, if I understand correctly, all the information in the three fields should start with the year in any case, and the amount of information that follows shouldn't affect the automated reading. Maybe after the new Mediawiki upgrade it will be possible to include footnotes in the GI section, which could help a little? — P.davydov 06:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, all three fields should have the year date first, followed by month and day (YYYY-MM-DD), followed by any supplemental info. This is critical for anything published, performed or composed 1923 and later. Probably not so important with earlier items (the majority of what we have) - at least I haven't noticed any bizarre copyright messages. The rule about first publication (and versions) might not actually apply in the EU, though it could. The rubric I mentioned above is derived from US case-law, which is in turn based upon many concepts from English common law. A similar definition might be operative in Canada, the UK (though that could be trumped by EU), Australia, etc. This is an area where more legal research needs to be done and eventually posted on the new pages Emery is constructing giving detailed info on each country's copyright laws. Date of first publication (however that is defined) comes into play in the EU when it's been less than 25 years since first publication took place. Like you, I am very much in favor of having all this information available in the GI section. I expect we might want to go a little slow in adding a lot of extra info as there is the big MediaWiki upgrade that will take place in the next several months to consider. For example, I'd really like to find a way to have the nice detailed content listing for Swan Lake - which now appears beneath the GI section - appear in the GI section as an 'accordion' type listing which unfolds upon clicking a triangle. Looking at the big picture, we need to make the info easily readable on iPhones and other things with small screens as there appear to be an ever-increasing number of users accessing the site from those platforms. Carolus 00:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Canadian Copyright

Hi Carolus. I thought that it would be useful to keep in contact about the Canadian copyright page that I will begin writing tomorrow. Let me know if you have any comments or suggestions. Respectfully yours, Emery 03:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Line breaks

Hi Carolus. You mentioned that some of the lines in the collected works templates are breaking in an awkward place on your screen, and you've inserted <br> breaks to stop this happening. Unfortunately this is having an undesirable effect on my monitor, where the full lines only used to extend just over half the screen width, and with your breaks they're now crammed into the left third of the screen, which looks very odd indeed compared with the surrounding text that flows all the way to the right.

See below. I even reduced my point-size to a nearly unreadable 8-points and the extended description with the Cyrillic in parens still breaks without fail into two lines. I'll go to the local public library to check on the appearance there, but at the end of the day we have to try to make the layout and design fit the majority of browsers' default settings (which are almost always going to be 12 to 14 points). Part of the problem lies with the change in font with the updated design - which appears to have a wider horizontal spacing than the Helvetica-type font previously used. I don't like having to add line breaks, frankly. The problem arises in having an extended series title with added Cyrillic in parens breaking into very unsightly uneven segments.

Your point about people accessing IMSLP through hand-held devices with small screens is certainly a valid one, and something that might be addressed with style sheets in the next Mediawiki upgrade. But it's really not a good idea to be manualy inserting hard line breaks to cater for people with a specific monitor resolution, as we'll end up with lots of wasted blank space down the right side of pages, and when a satisfactory solution is found we'll still to go through and take out all the manual <br> tags. If Wikipedia can make full use of the screen width then there's no reason IMSLP shouldn't either, if we're using the same software  :-) So on the basis that we shouldn't favour or presume any one screen size over another, I've taken out the hard line breaks on the pages in question, so that they'll default to the user's display, wherever the line breaks happen to fall — P.davydov 07:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm expecting that we'll ultimately have to have some sort of system whereby users with hand-held and small-screen devices will be routed to an alternate design-layout to facilitate the site's use. I have checked for the line break issue on the foloowing three browsers using the default settings: Safari, Mozilla, Internet Explorer. I should see about looking at it in Google's Chrome browser also. It would probably help if we expand the width limitation a little on the FTE template for files along with the FTE template for the General Info section. I wonder if this is something Icactus - who is an experienced web designer - could help us with. The Mussorgsky and Rimsky templates both break in such a way in the three browsers' default settings so that the second lone consists of only a few characters - an "orphan" to use the old typographic term. In other words, there is a long line of description followed by a very short line. I wonder of there is a way to set up the template so it would have only certain places at which it could break. I'm getting the breaks in all three browsers regardless of whether there is the line-break in the template itself or not. The break was just used to determine where the break would occur. The only other alternative I can see is to do away with the Cyriliic text in parens - which would be somewhat superfluous if a full Russian translation matrix was in place anyway. I just thought of another possibility which might solve the issue without having to use the hard line-break tags. Carolus 01:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the page design, I notice that the various sections of each workpage have different widths. For example, the panels with the opening header with the TOC and the Amazon links are both full page width, while the ones with the scores and general information section are only 80%, which gives a jagged appearance on the right of the screen. I think this may be contributing to the problem you raised, and it's definitely something that we should ask Icactus to look at. I'll alert him to this discussion... — P.davydov 09:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to help but I'm very much confused as to what exactly we're talking about. I don't know where this is:

"the panels with the opening header with the TOC and the Amazon links are both full page width, while the ones with the scores and general information section are only 80%, which gives a jagged appearance on the right of the screen."

If you're talking about the main page there's nothing with 80% width. And if maybe you meant the featured/newscores/newrecordings menu, that menu is scaled to 95% width so that the background wraps around it slightly for asthetic affect but I don't see how that's a problem on any browser/size so I imagine that's not what you're referring to.

If you could give me some links to pages that show this problem (sounds like "collected works" pages and I don't know what those are) I'm sure there's an easy way to set up an auto-scaling more effectively. --Icactus 16:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Icactus. Sorry if it wasn't clear, but we're talking about ordinary work pages (e.g. The Nutcracker (suite), Op.71a (Tchaikovsky, Pyotr)), from which the PDF/MP3 files can be downloaded. Nothing to do with the main page, which is just fine  :-) — P.davydov 21:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we're talking about the file templates which appear in ordinary work pages. Another one I noticed if you're looking at this type of thing is the file template for items on the USA server - the top portion of it stretches all the way across the page. Carolus 01:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Composer who may be PD-US-only

there is an editor Karl Rissland who may or may not be PD-US depending on who it is- there were at least two related composers by that name. Karl Rissland (1872 to 1960 - I have the dates filled in assuming it's he, but shouldn't really) was born in Germany and emigrated to the US, where he was violist of the Hoffmann quartet (from 1902) and violinist in the Boston Symphony. His nephew Karl Ernest Rissland (1894 to 1971) was born in New York City and played trumpet - I think they both played for Stokowski; these pages are both at stokowski.org, where this information is- but the younger Rissland in San Francisco mainly by the time his career was at that point, I gather. (That page has more bio, and is interesting- he was on "What's my line?" and similar shows. ... This stuff is fun. Anyway...) Unfortunately, there's a number of pieces in The Ditson Trio Album that Mr. Bunting is splitting up that would have to be resubmitted to the US server, but that's the way it would have to be if one decides better safe than sorry, it's true... (or finds out somehow that it is the nephew, not the uncle, in question.) Any advice? :) Eric 02:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the basic questions which will need to be answered are a) which of these two was the more active composer or editor; and b) the location and careers of the two Karl Risslands. My instinct is that the older of the two - the violist - was the one more likely to edit a Piano Trio album issued by Ditson in 1917. The nephew, who was from New York, would have been only 23 at the time - likely working as a trumpet player. There's also the fact that Ditson's headquarters was located in Boston, which is where the elder Rissland lived and was active. I think we're on fairly solid ground to ascribe these to the one who died in 1960 - making them eligible for the Canada server. Carolus 02:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The Ugly Duckling, Op.18 (Prokofiev, Sergey)

Sorry to trouble you again, but could I seek your opinion on this case? In most sources the text of this song is accredited to Nina Meshcherskaya (sometimes Meshchersky), after Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tale. Her year of birth is given either as 1889 or 1895, according to different sources, but more importantly it seems she survived until 1981, by which time she'd settled in France and become "Nina Krivochéine".

If that's the case, and her contribution to the libretto was significant, then the two files we have of this work will both be non-PD for a very long time, and might as well be deleted. But I'm handicapped by not being able to download the files to see if she's credited therein as the librettist, due to the fact that Prokofiev is still blocked in the EU. So for the time being I've just changed the tag to N/N/N, pending confirmation of whether they ought to be deleted. Thanks — P.davydov 09:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That's an very possibly a truly ugly little thing from a copyright view. If it's true that she lived until 1981, then these items will need to be blocked and moved to the USA server - where the piece is (mercifully), PD. It's presently available in an edited reprint edition from Kalmus. BTW, the "orchestral" version that was posted (now deleted) as actually a vocal score made from the orchestral version - which must have had some real differences with the original. Carolus 04:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)