(See my edit to the previous message). The folks at Ossian have been very helpful, but you need to contact them via phone or email (info@ossianusa.com), as the item was recently removed from their online catalog.
Bill
I’ll contact Ossian about the book. I wouldn’t need to sell very many copies to break even, and it’s obviously not currently available on the Amazons. I’m also looking at two books by Gratton Flood.
Andrew
Is not Ossian a middleman operation? They did not publish the book.
I got the one “IRISH MUSICAL STUDIES Musicology in Ireland”,
US $ 20.00 sth more than € 18…
The book was last published in 1987 and seems to be more or less out of print and certainly isn’t easily available. The text (and typography) are in the public domain, so I don’t need to ask Mercier Press if I want to reprint it. In any case, I would probably reset the type.
Andrew
To add to my last post: I’ve just checked Mercier Press’s website and I can’t find the book listed there, even if I search by the ISBN. Ossian have probably found a distributor who still has a few copies of the title in stock.
Andrew
You can also acquire the book through an InterLibrary Loan and photocopy it yourself, I did this with a few of O’Neill’s books. Trouble is the copying charges may be as high as the retail price of the book itself, but if the book’s out of print you won’t have a choice.
Note for anyone seeking to self-publish/republish: Although the original edition is probably public domain now, the reprints are not, so if you want to republish via photocopy/etc., you’ll have to find an original edition or at least an edition old enough to be public domain. Redistributing photocopies of the 1987 or 1977 reprints would technically be violating the copyright of the recent republishers (as you’d be using “images” of their more recent editions, which are still in copyright).
Bill
During the late 80s I was in one of the 2nd hand bookshops in Hay on Wye where there were two shelves: one each for Barry O Neill’s 1973 re-print editions of IM&M and IM:FH for a fiver per volume. I bought one copy for a friend in Wales we were visiting later that day but I always wondered why I didn’t buy a few copies (I have similar thoughts about a first edition I looked into in Kenny’s in Galway once which was 50 pts at the time).
I think the above is a little over-cautious. The text and the original typography (and probably the illustrations, for all practical purposes) probably went into the public domain in 1986 (and by 2006 will be inarguably public domain by just about all standards and revisions to local copyright law since O’Neill died in 1936.) The text in the Mercier edition is also in the public domain unless they have significantly added to the original, for example by editing the text or adding annotations. And since the Mercier edition is a facsimile of the original, Mercier have obviously added nothing to the text. The copyright for the overall design of the reprint edition would belong to Mercier.
If I republish the book I would retypeset it anyway, so I would only be reproducing the text and illustrations.
Andrew
The UK paper IM&M (formerly sold by Ossian) is a reprint of a reprint. These items have extremely limited appeal - it is nice to see them available for people - so litigation is more than remote. And that’s why people try to sue people like Michael Flately, Riverdance, etc - for their deep pockets.
This sort of thing has been a problem before. I do not believe that any “significant” changes need to have been made to the original in order to get you into trouble. Reproducing the Mercier edition is not OK AFAICT.
Bill
Andrew said:
" The text and the original typography (and probably the illustrations, for all practical purposes) probably went into the public domain in 1986 (and by 2006 will be inarguably public domain by just about all standards and revisions to local copyright law since O’Neill died in 1936.) "
Err, this isn’t true either. International copyright law has been amended so that the copyright now extends for 100 years past the death of the author. The 1986 edition won’t be publish domain for a long time, and perhaps, depending on how copyright laws are interpreted in future, never will be.
The public-domain-after-37-years policy is long gone. Anything that “fell out of copyright” is still out of copyright (except, as I said, for copyright on reprints), but the laws have been changed several times in recent years to ensure that this is increasingly difficult.
Don’t blame me, but if you are really interested I’d advise looking into recent international conventions on copyright, you’ll see the ugly truth.
Bill
Hi Bill,
South Africa has some interesting copyright law. Did you know that the composer of the melody of the song “In the Jungle”, Solomon Linda, was a black South African who died in utter poverty in 1962? He sold all the rights to the song to the Disney corp who went on to use it in the Lion King. Anyway, SA law provides that a composer can’t assign the copyright in his music for more than 25 years after his death. In 1987, the copyright reverted to his estate. His surviving relatives (3 sisters, also quite poor) are suing the Disney corp.:
http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,12589,1253141,00.html
OK, back on topic.
Bill, you’re putting my reputation on the line here, so I’ll have to provide some facts. I’m a small publisher and I have successfully published books that are in the public domain, and have also licensed works that are still in copyright.
In 1986 the term of copyright in the UK was 50 years after author’s death, and O’Neill died in 1936, so by 1986 the work was in the public domain in the UK. Mercier published their facsimile edition in 1987, and this most likely confirmed its public domain status.
According to the UK Patent Office, http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/indetail/ownership.htm
“Copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work (including a photograph) lasts until 70 years after the death of the author.”
So O’Neill’s Irish Minstrels almost definitely entered the public domain in 1987 and was published as such by Mercier Press. If this somehow turns out to not be the case (and I don’t see why it wouldn’t, but there are many twists and turns in copyright law), it will enter the public domain in 2006.
The 70 years after author’s death rule holds true for the USA too, but the USA’s previous policy of copyright registration and renewal means that many more works have fallen into the public domain. Also, anything published in the USA before 1923 is now in the public domain in the USA. O’Neill’s Irish Minstrels was published in chicago in 1913 in its latest edition, and is certainly in the public domain in the USA.
As for using the Mercier edition, it is in my interest to seek out an original copy because the quality of reproduction of the illustrations is likely to be much better. But you’ll have a hard job persuading me that the textual content of that edition is copyright.
Of course, I’ll check all of this carefully (along with the commercial considerations) before I publish. If you have any substantial information (including references to reputable websites or cases of law) that might contradict the above, then I would be interested, since copyright can be a very complex area, and the laws and their application are different in each country. But if you don’t have anything substantial then I’ll have to assume that you’re just trolling.
Andrew
As an addendum, it does seem possible that the copyright to O’Neill’s works might have been restored in 1996 in the UK, since the UK applied the 70 year term retroactively. But his works are due to enter the public domain again soon in the UK and are already PD in the USA. I wonder if his heirs even know who they are.
The only example of literary copyright extending to 100 years that I could find was Mexico and Cote d’Ivoire, and I’m not planning to publish in either country.
Andrew
Hi Andrew:
I assure you that I have better things to do than troll.
I didn’t mean anything I said to be a personal affront 
However, the O’Neill publications were published in the US, and the Berne Convention and recent conventions up to and including the WIPO convention that came into force in 2002, oblige signatory countries are to recognise the copyright protection in the country where the work is published - at the very least until the expiration of the “50 year rule”.
According to the UK Patent Office, > http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/indetail/ownership.htm
“Copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work (including a photograph) lasts until 70 years after the death of the author.”So O’Neill’s Irish Minstrels almost definitely entered the public domain in 1987 and was published as such by Mercier Press. If this somehow turns out to not be the case (and I don’t see why it wouldn’t, but there are many twists and turns in copyright law), it will enter the public domain in 2006.
I agree with that - but not because of UK law! Realize that US law also comes into play here, due to the Berne convention of 1886 http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/index.html.
In any case, we’re talking about the original edition here, and the original textual content, not any claim that might be made to the “images” of subsequent reproductions.
The 70 years after author’s death rule holds true for the USA too, but the USA’s previous policy of copyright registration and renewal means that many more works have fallen into the public domain. Also, anything published in the USA before 1923 is now in the public domain in the USA. O’Neill’s Irish Minstrels was published in chicago in 1913 in its latest edition, and is certainly in the public domain in the USA.
Here is the best reference I have seen regarding the US copyright protection duration periods at different times in history, along with the implications for when/what items are in the ‘public domain’:
http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Domain.htm
As you can see, with a renewal of copyright in the US, protection extends until 95 years after the date of publication. I was thinking of publication date when I said 100 years before, sorry, not death of the author; you’re correct that 100 years after the author’s death does not apply for the case of individual authors. However, for works of corporate authorship it can be 95 years from publication, or 120 years from the date of creation, whichever comes first; corporate authorship would apply to copyright on the visual layout, typography, etc. of an “edition” of a work.
As for using the Mercier edition, it is in my interest to seek out an original copy because the quality of reproduction of the illustrations is likely to be much better. But you’ll have a hard job persuading me that the textual content of that edition is copyright.
My main point is that there are other copyright issues which arise when photographically or mechanically reproducing an edition of a work, even when the original work’s textual content has entered public domain. By seeking out an original copy you avoid this problem.
Of course, I’ll check all of this carefully (along with the commercial considerations) before I publish. If you have any substantial information (including references to reputable websites or cases of law) that might contradict the above, then I would be interested, since copyright can be a very complex area, and the laws and their application are different in each country. But if you don’t have anything substantial then I’ll have to assume that you’re just trolling.
Andrew
I can’t cite legal cases for you regarding reproduction of primarily textual works, but these issues were hotly debated during the “O’Neill Project” days which sought to release a digital version of the O’Neill’s 1001 tunes in the public domain. There was lots of FUD flying around, true, and the project was nearly canned; it had to find a new host and many people are still worried about it; however I think it’s basically on solid footing. In the process of turning over stones however there were real, as opposed to imaginary, issues uncovered. I do recall legal precedents being cited at that time regarding photographic or photostatic reproduction of a text-only latter-edition, and holding them to be infringing. As you point out, textual reproductions are not, but this requires typing the contents in by hand; if one inadvertently reproduces even typos or other editorial changes in the later edition, the ground gets shakier. The only really safe bet is to reproduce an edition which itself has fully fallen out of copyright protection.
(One thing that may be of interest is that in the UK there is actually no legal concept of ‘public domain’ in this context; see info at http://www.beyondthecommons.org/. This is an issue of concern to traditional musicians, as in the absence of a legally binding definition of “public domain”, it is difficult for a composer of material “in the traditional style” to grant a blanket license for its use, and in fact it makes it harder to defend against spurious claims of infringement on an “arrangement” (read recording) of a traditional tune. But that’s getting even further off topic…)
regards
Bill
I do remember that O’Neill noticed that a few typos from the O’Farrell’s tutor ca 1810 - reprinted in both Irish Folk Music 1910 and Flood’s Story of the Bagpipe 1991 - appeared in both editions.
BTW - I visited O’Neill’s Mausoleum today during a visit to Mt Olivet Cemetery.
Hasn’t Paddy Moloney done the like, copyrighting “arrangements” of tunes? I’d been told this was what paid for the extra mansion or something. A bit further off topic.
Going more back on topic, the back issues of the American Piper’s Club Review can be had for reasonable prices, and have gems like Denis Brook’s “Irish Bellows Pipes” articles.
In PM’s defense, I believe this was due to another weird intellectual property policy of the royalty-distributing agencies in Ireland (and the UK?). If you claimed to be the ‘original composer’ of material you recorded, you got four times as many royalties as if you recorded someone else’s material. If the “someone else” was anonymous, the distributing agency pocketed the difference.
Or so I’ve been told, (maybe it was only twice as many royalties, but I recall 4x). Seen in this light, claiming authorship of The Bucks makes more sense. I’ve been told that this ugly royalty discrepancy no longer applies. However most ITM recordings still claim copyright on the ‘arrangement’ of tunes as well as the actual recorded performance, at least in theory.
Bill