You can sell public domain materials all you want. And whenever anyone else copies stuff in the public domain, even if they copy it from your copy, they're not infringing copyright.
1,529 karma · joined July 18, 2015
In effect, anyone on YouTube can upload material and claim that it is their own copyrighted material, even if it's not. And there's no way to dispute this.
If you write and say it's public domain, then the claimaint gets 30 days to dispute the claim. If they choose to dispute it, I believe they are required to DMCA you (which they rarely do, especially considering that they'd be totally in the wrong for a c1927 item).
Usually, they just let the claim lapse after 30 days. But if you upload the content again, then you will have to dispute it again, because there's no way to mark a claim as invalid in itself.
I prefer to read it as an homage to Steve-O.
I mean, it's not really hard. You just need the hardware to print the photo well.
Some of the points may be true, but it is virtually impossible that these uses are fair.
Here are some reasons:
1. While the content may be old, and the production quality may not be considered high by today's viewers, these factors are not really relevant. The quality of the reproduction of the works, meanwhile, is good enough that they can be effectively viewed; while these may be less marketable than a copy made from a master, this is more than faithful enough to serve as a market replacement for the original (and thus infringes).
2. The current overall market value of the works is irrelevant. The question in an infringement suit is not whether or not there is a market for the work; it is whether or not whatever value the work could have is affected by the re-used version being used as a replacement. A popular work may have a greater market value than an unpopular one, but copyright law does not protect works based on popularity. Even if the actual market value of the original is near zero anyway, this does not make giving away free copies a fair use (since that destroys whatever market value the original could have).
3. The work has not been transformed in any way. The reproduction is faithful (to the extent this was technologically possible). The copies tend to be of the entire work. The purpose of the work (display for viewing) is the same as the original purpose; there is no transformation.
The channel here is reproducing the original works in their entirety. These copies serve as a good substitute for any copies the original copyright holder could be making and selling/licensing. This boils down to the question: do these copies fulfill any demand there might be for the originals? The answer is yes. This is not fair use.
The question of whether or not a copyright holder strictly enforces the copyrights — in many cases, they don't — isn't relevant; they remain valid.
Now, for a lot of people, this seems unfair. The original works are often not available on the market. A lot of people think that non-marketed works should be able to be copied by non-profits for the public's use. But that's not something the law allows.
The CC-Zero waiver is a dedication to the public domain combined with a fallback provision.
> For instance, I could write a book today and do so... and people are probably safe to do what they want with it. Then tomorrow, when I croak, my family still retains copyright for the next 95 years. They might decide that this is their golden ticket, and everyone who continues to publish it would be in trouble (past actions shouldn't be sanctionable... while alive, I essentially gave license to do so).
If you did not grant an actual license with specific terms, then your reusers are SOL. If you did grant a license with specific terms, then your heirs still have to honor those terms. If you dedicated the work to the public domain, then the work is not copyrighted and your heirs can't do anything about it.
Also, copyrights for works created in 1978 or later are not publication+95 (except for works for hire), but life+70.
> Even if something is legitimately within the public domain, the courts (in the US) have at times decided to yank works out back out and give them as gifts to the various big licensing regimes (ASCAP, if I remember correctly).
The only instance of this happening in the US was the URAA (which was not tied to licensing regimes, but to international pressure to "restore" copyright in works published outside the US which had not complied with the pre-1989 notice requirement). It took an act of Congress, by the way.
Contrast this with the EU's early-1990s 20-year retroactive extension of copyrights.
The resulting arrangement would virtually certainly be something like Tuvalu and .tv. Nobody is suggesting that they go into a Freenom-style domain mess like .ml and a few other domains (which some countries decided to just give away for free).
The whole point is that they are trying to use the words "open source" to appeal specifically to people, like those here in this thread, who work on free and open source software in the FSF/OSI sense.
This is a message for the exact group of people who use the term of art because they're practitioners of that art.
But we're not talking about technicalities here. We're talking about the vey basic idea of what it means to be "open source." I'm not telling anyone that they can't use words however they want. They can. But the way they're using the term "open source" is just fundamentally incompatible with how the vast majority of people in the field use it. So it's at the very least going to cause some confusion to use the term "open source" in the way they are.
Besides, I think people have a bigger problem with the licensing change itself than any wordsmithery.
When the UK left the EU, they didn't negotiate any EEA-style agreement to get access to .eu in their Brexit deal.
What ChatGPT definitely does do is generate falsehoods. It's a bullshitting machine. Sometimes the bullshit produces true responses. But ChatGPT has no epistemological basis for knowing truths; it just is trained to say stuff.
Maybe you don't like modern clefs, but by no means are they any sort of "original" work by the standards of copyright law in any country. (Even in the small handful of countries that recognize typographical arrangements/engravings per se as copyrightable in themselves, like the UK, changing the clefs used is not considered original in any way.)
Pure transposition, by the way, is also not considered an original copyrightable creative change.
I think you have focused in on the wrong aspect entirely from the musical standpoint... the purpose of any of these editions is not to be a facsimile of some existing document (facsimiles of autograph manuscripts exist), but really just to be critical editions taking into account a number of sources and intending to establish the work as it is in a certain state (generally, an early state) according to certain editorial principles, rather than reflecting the editor's personal creative opinions on how the work should be interpreted.
As for the fingerings provided in some critical editions, these are not really relevant, because they are clearly marked (when applicable) as separate from the text itself, and they can easily be redacted (as we need to do sometimes) or ignored. By the same token, the preface or editorial footnotes in these editions are separate from the presented musical object — do you believe a preface or footnotes somehow makes the thing provided in the same pages indescribable?
I am working on adding new scores, but in many cases these old things are either the only editions published or the only editions we can take.
IMSLP accepts urtext editions over 25 years old. We have a good amount of these from series for the most famous composers (e.g., Mozart, Bach...) but these are only a minority of the collection. We of course would like to add more.
Otherwise, for "original" editorial editions, as well as arrangements, etc., we take them so long as the contributors of original creative contributors died in 1971 or earlier, or, as the case may be with amateur editions, with permission (note: we actually do have a significant number of quite good editions/arrangements contributed with permission, but we have a lot of files on the site overall).
The other thing is, since we draw from many existing digitizations (such as national libraries), and most of their digitized documents are quite old.
If you have any particular requests, please add them to the wishlist: https://imslp.org/wiki/Wishlist
Anyway, we are not really like Wikipedia, since we have a great deal of those primary sources on our site (incl. many autograph mss., as well as historical editions), and we're fundamentally more a collection of sources than a synthesis of them like WP. But we are certainly not a complete collection of sources, by any means (for both practical and legal reasons).