Copyright question

[ewt]

I own the Schott edition of the Jenner trio for Piano, Clarinet and Horn. This edition is edited by Horst Heussner and is copyright B. Schott's Sohne, Mainz, 1990.

Jenner died in 1920: his work is no longer in copyright. That whole 70-years-after-the-death-of-the-composer thing suggests that Schott weren't able to publish until 1990, but how did they get hold of it?

Am I legally allowed to re-typeset this music? The big problem I can see is that there is no way to tell which markings are Heussner and which are original.

I very much doubt I can get hold of an earlier edition: this one was difficult enough to find. If Schott own it they certainly aren't going to let me have a peek. The Preface says that an early copy passed from the ownership of Mandyczewski to the library of the Gesellschaft der Musikfreude in Wien, but doesn't say where they got their later edition from (presumably Jenner himself sent it to Brietkopf & Hartel at some point, as he'd sent them an earlier version as well).

This is very sad: a lovely piece of music which is difficult to get hold of by traditional means is virtually unheard of (neither my current horn teacher nor my old teacher, Julian Baker, had any idea of the existence of the piece before I told them), the composer certainly doesn't stand to benefit and the work should be out of copyright, but I see no straightforward way to make a public domain edition available. It isn't that I don't think the editor should be paid for editing, or the typesetter for typesetting: doing these things well does take skill. I do wonder, though, how much of the editing was simply a matter of copying down exactly what was in the manuscript to begin with. If Jenner was anything like Brahms (who wrote down every meticulous detail) then there wasn't much to be done there. And while doing a better job myself on the typesetting is a tall order that I won't be able to fill anytime soon, I'd like to be able to have a crack at it, particularly given that there are some badly-crowded passages in the piano part I have.

There are practical considerations, as well. Foolishly I only ordered one copy of the music (at 57.15 EUR each there is good reason), but in the past I've played in chamber groups and had people not return parts to me. That gets expensive, and extremely annoying. At the moment there are two different groups I want to play this with, but me keeping control of all parts between rehearsals is completely unrealistic: they need to take them away and learn them. But I can't photocopy what I've got because it isn't legal to do so, even if there is no profit involved. In theory I should be getting four more people to buy their own copies, but that takes time and is rather silly. And no, it isn't in the Trinity library, or the Alan Cave chamber music collection, or anywhere else in London that I've been able to look.

I sort of hope that when IMSLP comes back in July I find that the Jenner is already in there. There is nothing by Jenner in MusOpen, or in the Werner Icking Music Archive, or in the Mutopia Project, but they're all smaller than IMSLP was.

Comments

[owlfish]

This would justify a trip to Vienna?

[drreagan.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, as it was edited and republished in 1990, that arrangement has a new copyright. You will not be legally allowed to reproduce it.

[barakta]

It isn't legal to photocopy them for personal use/retypsetting so that you can play them? Personally if people kept stealing my expensive music I probably would photocopy them and not use the originals, but that's probably illegal and if people keep them then not very ethical. :(

I think copyright laws have got stupid, they were supposed to be fair in recompensating the original rights holder, not restricting people from fair use afterwards. The complexity in identifying copyright means a lot of people can't use good stuff 'in case' it's copyrighted.

[siderea]

OK, my favorite way to find OOP eds of old music is to see if there's a copy over at Harvard University. If you find out that there's an OOP ed of the work at Harvard in a library I have access to (Isham Music, yes; Widener general, no), I'm happy to swing by and photocopy it for you and ship it to you.

[fwuffydragon.livejournal.com]

Personally, I see no problem with using a photocopy for practice purposes, as long as you own the original and if you are performing it or using it for an exam or anywhere in public you use the originals.

Especially when dealing with dippy students who don't return their music, or with (often elderly) amateurs who don't understand the concept of "light pencil markings". (cue rant!)

OR do what I used to do - keep a "signing out sheet" where people have to sign (with contact details) to say they have borrowed your music and that they will return in good condition by (insert date) or replace it. This I found focused peoples' brains beautifully and is a logical way to protect your personal property wot you hav paid money for!

I do the same when I lend out my CDs to pupils.

Also put "this belongs to ... contact details" on ALL parts of music you lend out. Even in pencil is good enough.

Either that, or put a request in to your library to buy a copy. Which might arrive by the time you have to play it in public...

[idoru.livejournal.com]

If the music police came after every musician & music student who made photocopies for collaborating musicians, they'd be rich. It's ridiculous to expect everyone [participating] to own originals of everything, point blank.

That said, I try to only make copies of pieces I own, and the copies are then returned to me by conscientious participators. I do it understanding there's no "fair trade" about it -- I've had to argue with copy centers about making copies of music I own, because it's in current copyright -- but it's the only practical way to do things. I don't need to buy 4 copies of a piece I'm singing so that my teacher, accompanist, coach, and I can all have it in hand.

I say: photocopy away, and if you're worried about it, make sure the photocopies are destroyed or otherwise filed away.

I should say

[(Anonymous)]

Thanks for the post