Hi Emery. I noticed that you correctly tagged this page while doing copyright review. Since you seem to have a pretty good grasp of the format of the tags, would you consider officially joining the categorization project? Thanks, KGill talk email 18:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hi KGill. I wish I could help more with the project, but I really don't know very much about tagging, categorization, or librarianship. I agreed to be a copyright reviewer so I could lend a hand and re-tag a few files I thought needed tweaking, but I'm not sure I can extend the same rational for joining the tagging team. While I'm not sure I know much about copyright either, I had a few reasons for joining the team. I think I know less about librarianship, but maybe I could help from time to time by tagging some easy files as they come along? Respectfully, Emery 19:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- You have demonstrated a very large amount of knowledge of copyright law, so even if you know "less" about librarianship then that's no reason to be discouraged :-) Anyway, being part of the categorization team is just that - it implies that one has read and understood the guidelines and can be trusted to use them competently, not necessarily that one is well-versed in other matters (although you definitely are). And in any case it would still be a help for you to tag easier works :-) As you are no doubt aware, there is still a large backlog of untagged pages and any assistance whatsoever would be most appreciated. Cheers, KGill talk email 19:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
And welcome aboard! Lndlewis10 03:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello Emery! You might be interested in this forum topic. What are your thoughts? Cheers, Lndlewis10 03:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Lndlewis10. I think it's time I've tried out the forum software. Respectfully, Emery 03:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Manookian, Khustup Yerger
Dear Emery: Just thought I'd let you know that I re-tagged this. We can tag according to subtitle, and the word "song" was in the subtitle (probably a translation of one of the title words?), so it becomes "songs" instead of "pieces". Thanks, Steltz 06:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello Emery! What an amazing page. I actually have an idea and was wondering if you would be interested. My idea is that there could be a similar page for every single country on earth. It's very ambitious, I admit, but it would be a very unique resource that I don't think has ever been done. What are your thoughts? Would you like to help? Cheers! Lndlewis10 02:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Lndlewis10. I agree that I don't think anything detailed like your idea has ever been published online, and I think it would be an interesting project. Something like this idea was actually my long term goal. I think we should target the major countries first, such as Canada, but eventually I do not see any problem in expanding. I think we should ask KGill and Carolus what they think of the idea as well. If they agree, I will create a project page tonight and we can treat it as a long term project. Respectfully, Emery 02:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
"Major countries like Canada"—cute :P-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 03:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Such a resource would be amazing indeed - but as I see it, there are several problems with the idea of implementing it:
- Practicality - there are approximately 200 countries on Earth and most of them have copyright laws of some sort. Maybe we could at least group them into, say, those that are members of the Berne convention, etc.? It would probably save a fair amount of effort.
- Amount of information - are there actually sources commonly available that describe the laws of every country on Earth, especially their copyright laws? I could imagine that it might be tough to find out specifics with some of the smaller, more obscure countries.
- Applicability - IMSLP is only really concerned with three different copyright regimes, adjusting somewhat for the difference in statutes between various members of the EU; would it really be acting within our core necessities to document the law of every other country as well? Perhaps this would be a project for Wikipedia rather than IMSLP, noble as its goal is. I realize that one of the aims of IMSLP is to educate people about copyright law, but do we need to take it this far?
Please understand that I am not against this per se - I just want to make sure we really want to go down this path before doing so. Cheers, KGill talk email 03:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hi KGill. Thank you for your detailed response. You bring up some excellent points:
- Practicality - I will have to do some serious thinking about how to group the different countries. If you have any more ideas, please let me know. We will group several countries into those which are members of the Berne convention, with short sections about each countries. Many countries' copyright laws that are part of the convention still vary significantly, but luckily most are not as detailed as the United States.
- Amount of information - there are actually sources for every country that has copyright law. The exact legislation can be found in the country's constitution, records, court decisions (where applicable), and books. My local library has many sources for the different countries, and I'm sure other local libraries also have sources for the major countries.
- Applicability - IMSLP acts as a unique resource for copyright law. I think there are advantages to having this project on IMSLP instead of Wikipedia. One advantage is that we do not need to follow their standardization rules which are sometimes not conducive to this kind of project. Another advantage is that it could be easily monitored and quality controlled.
I agree that this is an ambitious project and that we should start slowly. There will not be over 200 pages for this project; there are many ways to consolidate. In any case, I decided it wouldn't hurt to create a page explaining the miniature project :-) It can be deleted if necessary. Respectfully, Emery 03:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- In principle, I like the idea of it. I don't know if your ideas about consolidation would involve more than one country per page (if they have the same "life+n" years), but bear in mind that case law can still make major differences, even where that formula is the same. For example, South Africa is also life+50, but has such a low threshold of originality (already set by case law) that editors are covered for the full 50 years. This means we can't just take anything legal in Canada. Steltz 06:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Steltz. There are a variety of standards that should be met before considering consolidating countries. Life + n alone would probably not meet the criteria. One problem that I see with consolidating at all is organization. It makes sense for the countries to be sorted in alphabetical order and by continent, but a consolidation would likely destroy this ability. Therefore, I think the following solution works:
- A sortable list will be made with the following information: country, continent, copyright term, and main copyright treaties of the country; all in a standardized, alphabetized form. The contents of the sortable list may benefit from tweaking - I haven't thought about this in too much depth. The advantage to this is that it allows one to sort by whatever criteria they would like. Any suggestions for additions and improvements to the sortable list are welcome.
- Countries that are candidates for consolidation will still be listed separately, but will also be linked to a consolidated page. For example, [[Indochina Copyright (Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam)|Laos]]. Neither the sortability nor consolidation efforts, I think, would be destroyed by doing this. If it does not sort correctly sort, we can figure out a more complex approach using redirects... Can anyone think of a more simple solution? (There's a reason I'm not a librarian!)
I think P.davydov and KGill will have some good ideas for improving both of the suggestions. Thanks for bringing the issue to my attention, Steltz, and I hope my response has quelled some of your concerns. Respectfully yours, Emery 19:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hello Emery. There are two existing models on Wikipedia, which might be useful:
- * List of countries' copyright length
- * Wikipedia:Copyright situations by country
- I think both could be made a little more user-friendly, with extra columns, etc., but the first step is to decide what information should go into the table, before deciding on its layout — P.davydov 20:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, P.davydov. We should consult with Carolus as well to see if he has any more information that would be useful in the sortable wikitable. My thought right now is that it will simply be organized in alphabetical order and treated as any regular sortable list of works. I will draft a full explanation on the project page this evening. Respectfully, Emery 20:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- This is very much in keeping with one of IMSLP's primary missions - to make accurate copyright information which effects music readily available to all for free. This is naturally a long-term project, so it might be best to first concentrate on certain countries which are the origin of a large number of scores (Germany, Italy, France, England, Russia) as well as including those countries where there is a great of musical interest and activity (the previous list plus Japan, China, Korea, Australia). Obviously, the three territories which represent out three-tiered tagging system (Canada, USA, and EU) need to be covered. The EU directives are a 'layer' over the copyright laws of the constituent countries, a number of which have unique features (France's war extensions, for example). Carolus 02:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm wondering what we should call this—it's not really a "community" project...-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 04:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe a 'copyright admins' project' or perhaps a 'copyright community project'? Obviously, those participating will mainly be those of us insanely obsessed with copyright. ;) Carolus 04:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I think just keeping it as its own IMSLP-namespace page will be a good idea. Also, a forum thread is most likely in order.
The most important things now seem to me involve a lot of preparatory and planning work. With this enormous undertaking, we need to get our resources and methodology (and members) lined up—the US page is a wonderful start, and should serve us well as both benchmark and model. But we do need to figure out how we're going to move ahead, as of now.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 04:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Any experienced member on IMSLP is welcome to help and add pages :-) Is it an unreasonable request for all the newly created copyright pages to be proofread by Carolus, me, or any other experienced member of the team? I don't mean to sound as though I have much knowledge of copyright law - I'm the least experienced copyright reviewer on IMSLP; however, I might be able to assist in making sure everything is organized and well fleshed out. For that reason, Perlnerd666, I agree that this is not a "community" project. Perhaps we can just call it the "Copyright Project", similar to the "Categorization Project". Respectfully, Emery 04:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree—unlike a community project, I firmly believe that "not just anybody" should be able to join, and there will be a much more rigid sense of heierarchy, involving our in-house copyright experts (You, Carl, Edward) having to give the green-light for any page. It is critical that this information be accurate.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 04:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
There will unfortunately have to be a hierarchy that we will need to set up. Thanks for taking the initiative and moving the page accordingly. It's getting late here so I'm going to have to call it a night. I'll give more detailed responses to everything tomorrow. Respectfully, Emery 04:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Got it—added a paragraph. Good night-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 04:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- It all looks impressive and thoroughly researched! I wish could make a useful contribution myself, but I really need to concentrate on sorting out the Russian composers, as their pages need a lot of attention. So you might as well take my name off the list of possible project members for now, but I'm on hand if there's anything specifically you think I might be able to help with — P.davydov 08:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi P.davydov. It's understandable that you will not be be able to help too much with the project. You're doing very impressive work with the Russian composers. I'll be working on the Canadian page sometime next week and will let you know if you might be able to help with something. Respectfully yours, Emery 18:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Bohm, Still wie die nacht
Hi, Emery -- please note that the generic for a solo vocal work is "songs", so please don't use "lieder" unless it is somewhere on the music (title, subtitle, etc.) In any case, when I looked at this piece, it has a subtitle of "Paraphrase facile", and "paraphrase" is a taggable word. Thanks, Steltz 06:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'll have a look at the original when I get back from vacation. Keep in mind this is arranged and what is on the score may not represent the original piece. Respectfully, Emery 06:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- There are two issues here: one applies if the work is a straight arrangement (tag the original only), the other applies if it is sufficiently different to warrant its own page. In this case (like the Liszt paraphrases), they go on their own page and don't get the tag from the original work. Since this one is subtitled a paraphrase, it looks like it should be treated as its own thing, but at a cursory look, this one seemed more like a straight arrangement, and it did say Paraphrase "facile". I'll have another look and see if I can find the original to compare it to. I'll leave it as "paraphrase" for the moment. In the meantime, even an original vocal piece should only be tagged "lieder" if the word lieder is in the title or subtitle, or if a reputable source (e.g. scholarly editor) has put it in a collection of lieder. Thanks, Steltz 20:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Foreign Copyright Law
See the project talk page for my reasons for not using this term. Carolus 05:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- I see. Respectfully, Emery 05:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The page is looking very, very good. Lots of detail and yet much less confusing to read than the law itself. The section on "Works Made for Hire" is superb. It explains the issue in a very understandable and complete manner. Kudos. Carolus 06:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- The law is very confusing. I tried my best to avoid looking at it during this project except for the occasional insertion of external links for that very reason. But as you've shown on several occasions, working from memory doesn't always yield the best results! I think it could all use some improvement, even the works made for hire section, but I did try my best to present the information in a way that people without any copyright law background would understand. In the works made for hire section, for example, I did not discuss CCNV v. Reid in too much detail even though it is important for a complete understanding of works made for hire. There are several court cases, such as Carter v. Helmsley-Spear, inc, that are also relevant to the section. It is important, I think, to relax a bit and think about what the overarching factors are and then elaborate where needed. When writing any page like this, I think most of the time should be spent thinking about the organization of the page. Respectfully yours, Emery 06:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Did you intend to change my V/V/V copyright tag to N!/N!/N! on the overture full score I uploaded to the above work page? This seems like a pretty straightforward public domain work in all locales, and my understanding is that the N! tags are used for CC licenses only ... am i missing something?? Massenetique talk email 09:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Massenetique. I think it accidentally got changed when I used the mass tagger option for another work page. You're right that it should be V/V/V. Respectfully, Emery 18:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Emery! In school I had to use a piece of "clip-art" that you find in something like Microsoft Word. I'm having a debate with somebody about the copyright status of clip art files. Do you know if they are protected by copyright? Thanks, Lndlewis10 03:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Lndlewis10. This is actually a more complex question than it would appear. I really don't know too much about the issue and you might be better off asking Carolus. The term clip art refers to line art drawings and graphics that are contained in electronic files and can be displayed on a computer. Sometimes the clip art is supplied as part of a computer program and labeled "copyright-free" or "royalty free." However, you should not assume that the art work is in the public domain or free to use without limitation. In actuality, it depends both on the clip art file in question and the program that supplies it. I would recommend to read the shrink-wrap agreement on the program envelope, the "click-wrap" agreement posted at the website or the of "readme" file that accompanies the clip art files. According to a well known case back in 1997, Marobie FL v. National Ass'n of Fire Equip. Distributors, even if the clip art agreement permits unrestricted usage of individual images, that is not a license to copy the complete collection. Respectfully yours, Emery 14:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Interesting... I won the debate :-) Although I had no idea about the court case... How do you know all of these obscure court cases?!... :/ Thanks! Lndlewis10 01:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Lndlewis10. You're welcome - I am always happy to answer any questions one may have to the best of my ability. Respectfully, Emery 01:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree that it would indeed meet the minimum threshold or originality the more I look at it. That's why I retagged it and marked it with the template to be moved to the US server. The EU is sort of a difficult case also. Many EU libraries - notably the BSB in Germany - appear to take the view that section 70 (the section governing urtext editions) applies to everything in the edition - including prefaces, critical notes and continuo realizations. I think there was a court case in the UK about an edition which included quite a bit of reconstruction or realization on the editor's part. Don't know how that turned out, but I wonder if it pertains to the behavior of the libraries. Carolus 21:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello Emery. LC is back up, and the closest I can find is this. If it's the same work then we should go with LC's title, but can we be sure this is the only one? — P.davydov 21:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hi P.Davydov. I think the reason that I'm leaning towards including 8° tono por delasolre is because he wrote several "Tiento de Batalla's". As it turns out, number eight actually follows along the same lines as number four; two pieces are titled the same thing but have different S numbers; that's one reason why it is at least important to use the cataloging method. I think that maybe the LoC title is unclear, but it's really up to you. Respectfully yours, Emery 22:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
If we have "S" numbers for all the works, then that should be sufficient as a unique identifier, without the need for long descriptive titles. But I haven't seen a complete list, so it's difficult to come to an informed decision :-) — P.davydov 22:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think it should be clear as long as either the descriptive title or work number are present. I agree that having both may be a bit too long, but it's not unprecedented. Respectfully, Emery 00:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Emery! I started to work on the old music theory project that has been abandoned for a while. Do you have any comments about the intervals section? I'm open to any and all criticism. Thanks, Lndlewis10 01:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Lndlewis10. I don't know too much about music theory, but it looks wonderful. In the first paragraph, I'm not sure you explain fully why it is not "transitive to pitches", and I wonder if that might be useful. You talk a little bit about scalar distance, but do you think that it might be useful to explain why that concept is important (scalar transposition, etc?). I know that there is a professor at Princeton University who recently wrote a book called The Geometry of Music, and he is particularly fanatic about scalar distance. In fact, he doesn't agree with the current standard of the "letter based" system, and perhapr rightfully so. Maybe you could explain the Pythagorean theory a little bit more in the consonance v. dissonance section. There are a lot of theories about why certain intervals sound better than others, I'm not so sure it's a "postulate". Garlandia was one of many early music theorists, I'm just wondering why you picked him specifically but didn't mention the other ones. Does his impact on music warrent inclusion, while other theorists are just ignorable? When you say "Therefore, it can be said that melodic activity and motion is really the result of dissonance", do you think it would be possible to elucidate and explain its signifigance? Maybe the inclusion of some pictures / charts would be nice for people who are visual learners. Overall though, this looks very well fleshed out. Good job! Respectfully yours, Emery 15:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
You know Dmitri Tymoczko!? Wow, I'm actually going to be seeing him on Saturday! KGill is taking music 106 with him. How do you know about him? Thanks for the suggestions, I'll take them. I was thinking about doing an outline of the book. Would you be interested in helping with the outline? I'm sure someone of your knowledge (and writing ability) could do a much better job than me. Thanks! Lndlewis10 21:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Please don't tag these until I have been over them to determine if they are arrangements or sufficiently original to be classified as works of MR. If you tag before I get to them I could easily miss what he's added (since he's added so much!). Thanks, Carolus 21:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)