Is Solo Pomposo in the public domain?

[Todd S. Malicoate]

Now I'm confused. If "Lassus Trombone" (1915) and "Rolling Thunder" (1916) are public domain, how can a piece by the same composer written in 1911 not be?

[shovelingtom]

At work I deal with historic photos frequently, and this issue comes up frequently (we house a collection of negatives, photographs, drawings, paintings, and so fourth starting around 1895 and continuing through this morning) we guard our copyright on our images to the greatest extent that we can. The law is clear - everything produced prior to 1923 is in the public domain, and the original musical score for this work would be included. Many publishers will argue against me on this, but it's pretty clean cut. A notable instance of a photo publisher trying to claim copyright over something that isn't theirs is Corbis and their claims that they own the Mathew Brady photos of the Civil War. That is a blatant abuse of the copyright system - Corbis owns the negatives, but ownership of the negatives does not imply ownership of copyright. This is a common situation...in Chicago there's a famous new sculpture called Cloudgate, the city owns the sculpture, but Anish Kapoor owns the copyright.

Where you run into an issue is when there's been an update, so say for example if you have an original score for string bass that has was altered in 1972 to make it more suitable for playing on the tuba - that score is still under copyright. You do have to be careful. Classical Works very definitely owns copyright over a particular recording of this song that was made in 2006, and may own the rights over an updated score, but they cannot own the rights over the original score.

If you are sure you are holding an unaltered version of the 1911 score, then yes, it is in the public domain.

[eupher61]

I guess, in the case of the photos, Corbis would have a good claim to rights, even if NOT specifically copyright, since they have the negatives. The right of public domain stems from the original, or editions of the original before 1923 ( in this instance). So, if there are prints of those negatives which were done before 1923 those can be used, but only from the original source where they were printed. IOW, you could copy a magazine page that had those photos, if it were an original 1922 copy of the magazine, but not a "Life" magazine from 1947.

It just struck me that 1923 is about the time that Walt Disney started his second, and second-most successful, animation studio in Kansas City. I can't find the specific date, but it was between 1920 and 1925. That makes sense.

[Rick Denney]

The law is clear - everything produced prior to 1923 is in the public domain, and the original musical score for this work would be included.

The better way to say this is that works published before 1923 in the U.S. lapsed into the public domain before the law was changed in 1978. Prior to that law, U.S. law provided a once-renewable 28-year copyright, for a total possible copyright period of 56 years. 1979-56=1923. Stuff that was still under copyright when the law changed grandfathered into the new law, which provides protection for a long period after the composer's death (for attributed works) or after publication (for anonymous works). "Long" has varied since then, being ever extended (largely) to keep Mickey Mouse under protection, it would seem.

So, if you have a copy that shows a publication date prior to 1923, it is in the public domain. Copy without worry. If it has a copyright date after that time, more research is required.

Rick "thinking the old law wasn't so bad" Denney

[shovelingtom]

The better way to say this is that works published before 1923 in the U.S. lapsed into the public domain before the law was changed in 1978. Prior to that law, U.S. law provided a once-renewable 28-year copyright, for a total possible copyright period of 56 years. 1979-56=1923. Stuff that was still under copyright when the law changed grandfathered into the new law, which provides protection for a long period after the composer's death (for attributed works) or after publication (for anonymous works). "Long" has varied since then, being ever extended (largely) to keep Mickey Mouse under protection, it would seem.

So, if you have a copy that shows a publication date prior to 1923, it is in the public domain. Copy without worry. If it has a copyright date after that time, more research is required.

Rick is correct. I thought about that after I had turned off the computer last night. Published materials pre-dating 1923 have all lapsed - there are more serious questions about things that were produced prior to then, but published later or left unpublished.

I guess, in the case of the photos, Corbis would have a good claim to rights, even if NOT specifically copyright, since they have the negatives. The right of public domain stems from the original, or editions of the original before 1923 ( in this instance). So, if there are prints of those negatives which were done before 1923 those can be used, but only from the original source where they were printed. IOW, you could copy a magazine page that had those photos, if it were an original 1922 copy of the magazine, but not a "Life" magazine from 1947.

It just struck me that 1923 is about the time that Walt Disney started his second, and second-most successful, animation studio in Kansas City. I can't find the specific date, but it was between 1920 and 1925. That makes sense.

I agree with some of your points. Corbis does a tremendous service to the world by making those photos available, and I appreciate that they do. They are good stewards of the national heritage in the way that they store said negatives (a lot of them were being used as panes in greenhouses prior to Mr. Gates acquiring them). Corbis can and should make money off of them - it costs a lot to properly archive things. I have no issues with them selling these items, only with them claiming copyright (I think their claim is that their scans of the negatives are a new and independently copyrightable work - that is a bogus claim).

As far as the 1922 original or 1947 copy of Life Magazine - my understanding the copyright defaults to the image, not the magazine. You're good either way.

Walt Disney's studio does have a lot to do with the 1923 date. That's 5 years prior to Steamboat Willie, which was released in Nov. 1928. There is a frequently made argument that keeping Mickey Mouse out of the public domain is the reason why copyright law has been updated and changed so frequently over the last century.

Tom

[Stephen Shoop]

Solo Pomposo is in public domain, as well as some of the other early solos. I posed this question to the copyright division at Carl Fischer Music before listing Solo Pomposo (and others) in my catalog. Carl Fischer had no problem with my interest in offering these pieces for sale. Many of the early instrumental solos as well as band music (especially marches) from the Carl Fischer catalog (as well as other early print music publishers) are being revived and revised-- and made available to the current generation of musicians. This is the reason, for example, why a newly-revised edition of Shepherd's Hey (for band) is available from Carl Fischer and another recent edition from Southern Music Company. Many of the early solos are considered to be specialty items, with relatively low interest. If demand were higher, Carl Fischer (and others) would be bringing these pieces back into print. An example is the recently-released William Bell Tuba Solo Collection (by Carl Fischer). However, current demand is low for many of these items- so energy and resources are directed to more profitable projects. Regarding my current project of re-publishing some of these early tuba solos: I try to keep prices relatively low since I am not paying royalties to anyone. I add computer-generated parts that were not originally included-- F horn (instead of Eb Alto), C flute (rather than Db piccolo), bass clarinet, etc., and a cardstock cover with historical notes. I hope this helps clarify the issue. Steve Shoop

[LJLovegren]

Solo Pomposo - Tuba Solo - published 1911 for band. Tuba part notes "also with Piano acc".
Band parts (including solo tuba) are at https://www.bandmusicpdf.org/solopomposo" target="_blank

[hup_d_dup]

Corbis does a tremendous service to the world by making those photos available, and I appreciate that they do. They are good stewards of the national heritage in the way that they store said negatives (a lot of them were being used as panes in greenhouses prior to Mr. Gates acquiring them).

Corbis Images has been sold to the Chinese new media company, Visual China Group.

Unity Glory, a subsidiary of Shenzhen-listed Visual China, will own and manage the images and motion archives, names and trademarks associated with the Corbis Images, Corbis Motion and Veer licensing brands.

Hup