# Public Domain in USA?



## Enthalpy (Apr 15, 2020)

Hello everybody!

I just wonder which composers, or if needed what pieces of a composer, are in the public domain in the USA. Could you explain?

In the EU, it seems simple. Rights for 70 years after the composer's death, then public domain. Canada seems to follow the same rule.

But in the USA? I saw some bizarre rule, approximately "100 years of the composer transferred his rights to a company".

So Béla Bartók or Joseph Achron are in the public domain in the EU but maybe not in the USA. Is there a rule simple enough to apply? Or maybe a website that tells it for each well-known composer?

Thank you!


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

No. (The answer is simple, but the rules are not.) For books, being printed before about 1925 is a good line. (Everything else can quickly get far more complicated.) I don't know how that applies to music. Russian works up until that time get a lot of use, I believe, because something was done that declared them public more broadly (and because so many are so good). And even if Tchaikovsky might not be copyrighted, a performance might be.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Sigh.

Public Domain for Classical music in the USA.

First off, PD isn't based on composers: You can't say, for instance, that all of Irving Berlin's songs are PD. Some are, some are not.

But I mention Berlin because it was because of him that copyright laws were revised. He simply lived so long that some of his earlier works ended up in the PD while he was still alive.

So . . . while it does depend on who wrote a work, what's more important is _*when they died*_.

If the creator *died more than 70 years ago* (1950), his or her works _*should*_ be in the public domain.

The copyright duration of composed music is the same as for books, paintings and other literary and artistic works: *the author's lifetime + 70 years.* Therefore, the musical compositions of old masters like Beethoven (1770 - 1827) or Mozart (1756 - 1791) are all in the public domain and you can freely use them. However, as mentioned above, you need to keep in mind that a musical composition and a sound recording are two different works: even if the former is in the public domain the latter may be still protected by copyright. So, if you want to create a video using one of Beethoven's compositions you need to find a recording of that composition that is free to use. A good source of freely available sound recordings is Incompetech, a collection of songs produced by the American artist Kevin MacLeod and distributed under a Creative Commons licence. You can freely use all the songs originally produced by Kevin MacLeod under the only condition of crediting him. But you have to be careful when the song is a reproduction of another composition because - again - copyright law is territorial. So, you can freely use Kevin MacLeod's recordings of Beethoven compositions, because Beethoven's work is in the public domain in the UK, but, you cannot use, for example, Richard Strauss's Also Sprach Zarathustra: this composition is in the public domain in the *US* because it was published before 1923, but _*not*_ in the *UK* as Richard Strauss (1864 - 1949) died less than 70 years ago. Oh wait, yes he did. It's 2020 now.

_And here's a fascinating tidbit: Some very old unpublished works remain in copyright until 31 December 2039, even though their authors have been dead for hundreds of years. Imagine, for example, that you discovered an unpublished manuscript by William Shakespeare. As incredible as it seems, that unpublished manuscript would still be in copyright today.
_

In the United States, *any musical works published in 1924 or earlier*, in addition to those voluntarily placed in public domain, *exist in the public domain*.

In October 2018, the Music Modernization Act was signed into law, which will bring sound _*recordings*_ into the public domain either 95 years after they were released or 120 years after they were recorded, whichever comes first. Songs recorded before 1923 will expire on October 11, 2021; recordings made between 1923 and 1946 will be protected for 100 years after release; recordings made between 1947 and 1956 will be protected for 110 years; and all recordings made from 1957 to February 15, 1972 will have their protection terminate on February 15, 2067.

To learn how to tell if a work is in the public domain for these reasons, and more, take the *tutorial* on copyright and the public domain: http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/copyright-public-domain.html


----------



## Enthalpy (Apr 15, 2020)

Thank you all!

This isn't indeed simple, but you and your links made it clearer to me. Nice of you!


----------



## Enthalpy (Apr 15, 2020)

So let's take an example: *Bartók's 44 duos for violins* 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/44_Duos_for_Two_Violins
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/44_Duos_für_zwei_Violinen composed 1931 probably in Budapest, *published 1933*
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/44_duos_pour_deux_violons

Bartók emigrated in 1940 to the USA and *died in 1945*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Béla_Bartók

The score claims:
Copyright 1933 by Universal Edition
Copyright renewed 1960 by Boosey & Hawkes, Inc., New York

In the EU, the duos are public domain because Bartók passed away more than 70 years ago. In the USA, my attempt to guess...

The 1909 act applies, supposedly amended by the 1976 one.
The copyright was renewed, so its validity extends beyond 28 years. Whether the first publication was outside the US shouldn't hence matter.
Since the 1976 Copyright Act, the renewal brings a total of 75 years protection starting from publication, which would mean public domain since *2008*.
But elsewhere (1909 act), I see 95 years from the publication, meaning protection until *2028*.
So what? The 1976 act alters the 1909 one, and the copyright expired in 2008?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Copyrights in the US have been very much complicated by what is sometimes called the Mickey Mouse law. Disney created Mickey Mouse about 1928, and whenever that time begins to approach a period where the character might enter the public domain, a new law gets mysteriously passed to extend protection. The original laws gave creators a fairly short period of time to capitalize on their creation, but with corporations (that never really die) entering the field of ownership, and then passing those rights to other corporations in a kind of perpetual ownership, the idea of public domain has become very complicated. It is, of course, what lawyers tend to do.

There was a wonderful 13-part documentary on the silent movie era in the US. It was called Hollywood and produced by Kevin Brownlow and David Gill. Inevitably, it included many clips of the films discussed, and at the time no one much cared about them so it was easy to obtain rights to use what no one thought had much value. The documentary itself helped to launch a major revival of interest in silent films, and now the documentary (which was released on VHS and laserdisc) cannot be licensed for DVD or blu-ray because the holders of the copyrights want so much money to renew the use of their material for a new format that it is not cost effective. (It is available only as a bootleg.)

Edit: Apparently the copyright extension act comes up again about 2023, so we are likely to hear about it again shortly.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Enthalpy said:


> In the EU, it seems simple. Rights for 70 years after the composer's death, then public domain. Canada seems to follow the same rule.


I don't think it's even that simple!

Bach, for instance: Bärenreiter's 'urtext' edition of his works was published in Germany in the 1970s/80s/90s. Apparently, under German law, a scholarly work becomes public domain after 25 years. That leads to the weird result that some of their Bach cantata scores, for example, are public domain (at least in Germany), but others are not -because if they published it in 1996 (say), the required 25 years have not yet elapsed.

I don't know whether the German 'scholarly work' public domain rule applies elsewhere in the EU, but I hope so!

Apparently, urtext works are public domain in Canada, too, regardless of publication date because they are not considered to meet the minimum threshold of originality (which is probably a bit of a bummer for any of the scholars who worked on them!)

And, of course, none of the above applies to the USA, which varies depending on the date of publication, as others have already explained.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

*IMSLP
International Music Score Library Project*
Sharing the world's public domain music

https://imslp.org/wiki/Main_Page

Great resource, although a little difficult to navigate.

For instance, I browsed by TIME PERIOD, chose Early 20th Century (1900-1945), clicked on *Alban Berg*, and found 26 works, including *Wozeck, Op. 7*, for which there are 8 recordings in the PD, and the score (with a not that it is *"Non-PD US"*).

It was composed between 1914 and 1922 and first performed in 1925.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Performance rights drive me crazy. There was a time, before the GATT treaty, when you could actually purchase scores and parts for Soviet composers and perform all you want without any worry. Then along comes the new Russia which demanded to regain control of the music. Now Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Khachaturian and others aren't online for free, and there are performance fees! Most smaller orchestras just ignore it. Given the obscene rental fees and performance fees demanded it's no wonder that so many orchestras continue to play 19th c music long in the PD.


----------



## Enthalpy (Apr 15, 2020)

pianozach said:


> *IMSLP*


Thanks! IMSLP tells "probably not public domain in the US" for Bartók's 44 duos, without an explanation. Looks like even experts don't risk an assessment.


----------



## Enthalpy (Apr 15, 2020)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Apparently, under German law, a scholarly work becomes public domain after 25 years.
> 
> I don't know whether the German 'scholarly work' public domain rule applies elsewhere in the EU, but I hope so!


I can't tell about that German law. Normally, such laws are uniform within the EU.

Whether someone obtains a valid copyright by compiling Bach's work? It needs hard work, but in itself it isn't creative work. I tend to believe that only the added comments or possibly the typesetting might get a copyright.


----------



## Enthalpy (Apr 15, 2020)

mbhaub said:


> Performance rights drive me crazy. [...] Given the obscene rental fees and performance fees demanded it's no wonder that so many orchestras continue to play 19th c music long in the PD.


Probably composers and their agents think along the lines "the orchestra pays that much for the musicians, that much for the hall, so I can demand this much for the music".

Can you give us a sense of how obscene the fees are? The orchestra pays to rent or buy the scores, play the music, broadcast it and sell the CDs supposedly?

Soloists use to have agents who take the contacts and negotiate the fees as it looks. Do composers have agents too?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Enthalpy said:


> Normally, such laws are uniform within the EU.


 Not necessarily. For instance Denmark (relevant for TC!) has different copyright laws compared to most countries.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Enthalpy said:


> I can't tell about that German law. Normally, such laws are uniform within the EU.
> 
> Whether someone obtains a valid copyright by compiling Bach's work? It needs hard work, but in itself it isn't creative work. I tend to believe that only the added comments or possibly the typesetting might get a copyright.


Well, I would hope so, but even if that's true, it's not much use to a now non-EU member state such as the UK! One hopes that the incorporation of all current EU law into UK law that took place before the day of Brexit means that if the 25-year rule _did_ apply uniformly across the EU, it hopefully still applies in the UK. Even though that might change in the future.

Trouble is, I'm not convinced it _does_ apply EU-wide anyway. I can't find a relevant statute, anyway.


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

Time to hit "reset" on this thread and start over from the beginning...

Question - "Which composers, or if needed what pieces written by said composer, are in the public domain in the USA. Could you explain?"

Answer - Use the Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States reference chart published by Cornell University to determine which of the four main categories and seven sub-categories should be used to determine the status of the composition - (Note this is a lawyer's "Quick Reference" type of chart that is initially used as a guide which will eventually lead to a correct determination of status - there are several steps which need to be taken after consulting the chart before a definitive answer can be provided...

https://copyright.cornell.edu/publicdomain

Four main categories and seven sub-categories -

1) Never Published, Never Registered Works

2) Works Registered or First Published in the U.S.

3) Works First Published Outside the U.S. by Foreign Nationals or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad

. 3:A) Works Published Abroad Before 1978

. 3:B) Works Published Abroad After 1 January 1978

. 3:C) Special Cases

4) Sound recordings

. 4:A) Unpublished Sound Recordings, Domestic and Foreign

. 4:B) Sound Recordings Published in the United States

. 4:C) Sound Recordings Published Outside the United States

. 4;D) Special Cases

Under each of the four main categories and seven subcategories are three sets of criteria used to determine status -

Note: the three sets of criteria vary from category to category.

And so using the category/sub-category/criteria information provided within the reference chart the following would lead to a status of being in the public domain in the U.S. as of 1 January 2020 -

Note: All terms of copyright run through the end of the calendar year in which they would otherwise expire, so a work enters the public domain on the first of the year following the expiration of its copyright term. For example, a book published on 15 March 1925 will enter the public domain on 1 January 2021, not 16 March 2020 (1925+95=2020).

1) Never Published, Never Registered Works

Type of Work / Copyright Term / In the public domain in the U.S. as of 1 January 2020 -

Unpublished works - Life of the author + 70 years - Works from authors who died before 1950

Unpublished anonymous and pseudonymous works, and works made for hire (corporate authorship) - 120 years from date of creation - Works created before 1900

Unpublished works when the death date of the author is not known - 120 years from date of creation -	Works created before 1905

2) Works Registered or First Published in the U.S.

Date of Publication - Conditions - Copyright Term

Before 1925 - None -	None. In the public domain due to copyright expiration

1925 through 1977 - Published without a copyright notice - None. In the public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities

1978 to 1 March 1989 - Published without notice, and without subsequent registration within 5 years - None. In the public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities

1925 through 1963 - Published with notice but copyright was not renewed - None. In the public domain due to copyright expiration

3) Works First Published Outside the U.S. by Foreign Nationals or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad

Date of Publication / Conditions / Copyright Term in the US

Before 1925 - None -	In the public domain

3:A) Works Published Abroad Before 1978

1925 through 1977 - Published without compliance with US formalities, and in the public domain in its source country as of 1 January 1996 -	In the public domain

3:B)Works Published Abroad After 1 January 1978

1 January 1978 - 1 March 1989 -	Published without copyright notice, and in the public domain in its source country as of 1 January 1996 -	In the public domain

After 1 March 1989 -	Published in a country with which the United States does not have copyright relations under a treaty - In the public domain

4) Sound recordings

Date of Fixation/Publication/ Conditions/ In the public domain in the U.S. as of 1 January 2020

4:B) Sound Recordings Published in the United States

15 Feb 1972 to 1978 - Published without notice (i.e, ©, year of publication, and name of copyright owner) -	In the public domain

1978 to 1 March 1989 - Published without notice, and without subsequent registration -	In the public domain

This provides the initial reference information however it does not provide the required information in regards to a specific composer or composition.

If you are unsure as to which of the "conditions" listed above applies to a specific composition you need to obtain that information from the U.S. Copyright Office's Records Research and Certification Section (RRCS) -

https://www.copyright.gov/rrc/

You can request a "Certificate of Registration" - the following information needs to be provided -

Your request for an additional certificate should include:

1) the title of the copyrighted work;
2) the registration number;
3) the year of registration or publication;
4) any other information needed to identify the registration; and
5) the correct fee. For current fees, visit the Copyright Office website, write the office, or call (202) 707-6787 or 1-877-476-0778 (toll free).

Note: If you don't know the registration number of the copyrighted work involved, *request a search* for the number before requesting an additional certificate.

Request a Search Estimate -

https://www.copyright.gov/forms/search_estimate.html

"The U.S. Copyright Office offers a search service for persons interested in investigating whether a work is under copyright protection and, if so, the facts of the copyright. F*or a fee of $200 per hour or fraction thereof (2 hour minimum),* the office will search its public records and provide a report of its findings. Based on the information you furnish below, we will provide an estimate of the total search fee before conducting the search.

If the information that you are seeking was published starting from 1978 you can use this search function to find the information without charge -

https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First

Prior to 1978 will require that you request a search as detailed above.

Bit more complicated than anticipated, eh?


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

JAS said:


> Copyrights in the US have been very much complicated by what is sometimes called the Mickey Mouse law. Disney created Mickey Mouse about 1928, and whenever that time begins to approach a period where the character might enter the public domain,* a new law gets mysteriously passed to extend protection*. The original laws gave creators a fairly short period of time to capitalize on their creation, but with corporations (that never really die) entering the field of ownership, and then passing those rights to other corporations in a kind of perpetual ownership, the idea of public domain has become very complicated. *It is, of course, what lawyers tend to do.*


Humourous but not quite accurate -

https://copyright.cornell.edu/publicdomain

Notes -

"The differing dates is a product of the question of controversial Twin Books v. Walt Disney Co. decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 1996. The question at issue is the copyright status of a work only published in a foreign language outside of the United States and without a copyright notice. It had long been assumed that failure to comply with US formalities placed these works in the public domain in the US and, as such, were subject to copyright restoration under URAA (see note 10). The court in Twin Books, however, concluded "publication without a copyright notice in a foreign country did not put the work in the public domain in the United States." According to the court, these foreign publications were in effect "unpublished" in the US, and hence have the same copyright term as unpublished works.

The decision has been harshly criticized in Nimmer on Copyright, the leading treatise on copyright, as being incompatible with previous decisions and the intent of Congress when it restored foreign copyrights. *The Copyright Office as well ignores the Twin Books decision in its circular on restored copyrights. Nevertheless, the decision is currently applicable in all of the 9th Judicial Circuit (Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands), and it may apply in the rest of the country.*

While the Copyright Office does indeed ignore the Twin Books decision in its circular on restored copyrights it is far more important to note that the Walt Disney Co. contemptuously and quite cheerfully ignores the Copyright Office's circular on restored copyrights.

Notice the phrase "and it may apply in the rest of the country" following the 9 states and two territories that comprise the 9th Judicial Circuit? - That's code for "just try - we dare you, in fact we double-dare you - using anything even remotely tangential to characters that we created and the Walt Disney Co. will bring down the wrath of almighty God himself down upon you, your children, and every generation that follows until the end of time". They have a veritable army - actually several armies - of the almost best and brightest yet still talented attorneys (the best and brightest go into private practice - it's much much more lucrative) who will relentlessly pursue any attempted infringement to the ends of the earth and back - it's just not worth the time and effort needed to fight this particular battle and so everyone backs off.


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

pianozach said:


> *IMSLP
> International Music Score Library Project*
> Sharing the world's public domain music
> 
> ...


Zach's right - this is a great resource but I'm not entirely certain just how relevant it is to the thread subject as despite the "Sharing the world's public domain music" qualifier, this website "IMSLP" consists almost entirely of Canadian copyright information with the exception of the occasional red-print Non-PD US status marker -

https://imslp.org/wiki/IMSLP:Public_Domain

"IMSLP follows Canadian copyright laws because the main IMSLP servers are physically hosted in Canada."

Just type in a composer's name in the search box or try this if you feel like exploring -

At the very top of the page there are five headings -

Navigation

Scores

Recordings

Participate

Other

Click on either "Scores" or "Recordings" - a drop down box will appear - click on "Composers" - they're listed alphabetically - choose a composer - following Zach's example - Berg, Alban....

https://imslp.org/wiki/Category:Berg,_Alban

Click on "Wozzeck, Op.7"

https://imslp.org/wiki/Wozzeck,_Op.7_(Berg,_Alban)

You can download copies of the score... and read some quite interesting information in regards to the composition itself...

And then you can impress your friends and family by telling them that in Canada Berg's Wozzeck is in the public domain...

Underneath "Full Scores" is "Copyright" - click on "Public Domain" and this page appears -

https://imslp.org/wiki/IMSLP:Public_Domain

"Basics of Canadian Copyright Law"... Start reading... when you feel yourself losing consciousness stop...

First-rate work, Zach - :tiphat:


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Duncan said:


> Humourous but not quite accurate -
> 
> https://copyright.cornell.edu/publicdomain
> 
> ...


Actually, I don't think it is funny at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

What are the precise details? Ask a copyright lawyer, which I am not and don't pretend to be.


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

pianozach said:


> _And here's a fascinating tidbit: Some very old unpublished works remain in copyright until 31 December 2039, even though their authors have been dead for hundreds of years. Imagine, for example, that you discovered an unpublished manuscript by William Shakespeare. *As incredible as it seems*, that unpublished manuscript would still be in copyright today.
> _


While theoretically "true" this is virtually impossible to enforce... The analogy being used above is a reference to the United Kingdom's "2039 Rule" -

"The general rule of UK copyright law is that copyright in a literary work lasts from the date of its creation until 1 January in the year following 70 years from the death of its author. So on that construction, Byron and Shakespeare's works are certainly in the public domain. But there is a little-known exception which would apply to any works by Byron or Shakespeare that have not been published, known as the "2039 rule".:

"Under the "2039 rule", any literary, dramatic or musical work created by an unknown author or by an author who died before 1969 and which had not been published by 1 August 1989 will be protected by copyright until 31 December 2039 (unless, in the case of the unknown author, it is reasonable to assume that the author died more than 70 years previously)."

If someone did discover an unpublished manuscript written by William Shakespeare technically you would indeed need to obtain the consent of the copyright owner to print or perform the work in question which would be a direct heir(s) or a legally recognized assignee... Trying to track down and identify the copyright owner by establishing a beneficiary order of precedence four hundred years after the creator's death would be quite literally impossible.

One can't file a copyright infringement suit without actually having a clearly established legal right to do so... Allow me to wish that particular individual/entity the very best of luck in attempting to prove that one is indeed the direct heir or assignee to the works of William Shakespeare and are thus entitled to file suit...

And so if no one can actually file a copyright infringement case that work for all intents and purposes is in the public domain.


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

JAS said:


> Actually, I don't think it is funny at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
> 
> What are the precise details? Ask a copyright lawyer, which I am not and don't pretend to be.


This is what I found humourous, JAS -



JAS said:


> Copyrights in the US have been very much complicated by what is sometimes called the Mickey Mouse law. Disney created Mickey Mouse about 1928, and whenever that time begins to approach a period where the character might enter the public domain, *a new law gets mysteriously passed *to extend protection. The original laws gave creators a fairly short period of time to capitalize on their creation, but with corporations (that never really die) entering the field of ownership, and then passing those rights to other corporations in a kind of perpetual ownership, the idea of public domain has become very complicated. *It is, of course, what lawyers tend to do*.


When even the humourous members lose their sense of humour perhaps it's time to find a new home...


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

pianozach said:


> Sigh.


Allow me to second that "sigh", Zach... and to add "why did I even bother" as a chaser... :lol:

The End...


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Duncan said:


> This is what I found humourous -
> 
> When even the humourous members lose their sense of humour perhaps it's time to find a new home...


Please don't judge by me. A host of personal issues have greatly tested my sense of humor. Among others, which I will spare you, I had more than 4 inches of water in my basement last night, with rains still ongoing, and water pouring out of the circuit box mounted to the wall. (It is amazing that I did not lose power, or get electrocuted.) I am still dealing with the aftermath this morning, trying to move things to other places so that I can try to shop vac out some of the water and mud.


----------



## Enthalpy (Apr 15, 2020)

mbhaub said:


> Performance rights drive me crazy. [...] Given the obscene rental fees and performance fees demanded it's no wonder that so many orchestras continue to play 19th c music long in the PD.


Could you give us a sense of how obscene the fees are?


----------

