[Foundation-l] Implications of IMSLP case

[Andrew Gray]

On 22/10/2007, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

> > Further protected, what are they talking about? Any ideas?
> >
> No.  If they are making such a claim it's up to them to provide a basis
> for it - perhaps a section of the Copyright Act.

The obvious exception that springs to mind is unpublished material -
this varies, but generally material which is posthumously published
for the first time gets a fixed copyright term (held by the
'discoverer') even if it would have been out of copyright through
being old. The exact form of protection, and how long it's protected
for, varies both on the specific material and on the local
legislation.

For example, you can say "all of Wilde's plays are out of copyright",
and be generally correct - he died 1900 - but the four-act edition of
"The Importance of Being Earnest" is still in copyright, because this
was only rediscovered and republished recently.

Determining which version of a musical work is the actually-published
old one, and which is the amended (altered, edited?) new one, can be
rather tricky for a nonspecialist.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk