McLaughlin & Reilly Co.
  • Don9of11Don9of11
    Posts: 803
    Does anyone know who holds the copyright's to the McLaughlin & Reilly music collection?

    The Holy Cross Hymnal was originally published in 1915 by Cardinal O'Connell who at the time was sole owner of the copyright. Now in 1944 when Cardinal O'Connell died, a special edition of the hymnal was published under M&R. The 1944 special edition is different from the 1915 edtion by an Appendix of traditional Benediction hymns (O Salutaris Hostia, Tantum Ergo, etc.).

    Would this hymnal be considered "public domain" ?
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 2,193
    McL & R were bought by Birchard which was in turn bought by Warner-Chappell.
    The original but not the 1944 would be public domain. The 1944 COULD be PD if it was not renewed, and it's possible that it might not have been considered valuable in 1971-72. You'd need to find the list of copyright renewals online for that year. I can't do that dig now because I'm off to a medical appointment.
    Thanked by 1Don9of11
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,210
    Yeah WMG owns their catalogue. This is a problem for much of the Marier stuff.
    Thanked by 1Don9of11
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,090
    Any material in the 1915 edition would be in the public domain.

    The copyright filing for the new edition in 1945 was made in 1946, and appears to cover only the new material in the appendix, which is arranged by James Reilly and Edward Grey (pseud.)

    A renewal was filed 17 May 1973 for that material, in the name of "A. P. Schmidt Co.", so the arrangements appear to be protected until 2040.
    Thanked by 3Don9of11 Jeffrey Quick oldhymns
  • Don9of11Don9of11
    Posts: 803
    @ chonak
    Okay, so if I understand correctly based on your information the renewal is for the appendix material only, right?

    I found this today, in the 1946 Catalog of Copyrights.
    Holy Cross Hymnal - Copyright Renewal.jpg
    424 x 155 - 40K
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,090
    Yes, that's the same copyright registration info I found on the Copyright Office website; and the renewal in 1973 looks similar, so, as far as I can tell, they only asserted a claim for the arrangements in the appendix.
    Thanked by 1Don9of11
Add a Comment