Why I Couldn't Delete My Works from IMSLP — On the Ambiguity of Creative Commons

Hello, I’m Chino Yoshio, a composer quietly creating music in Kyotanabe, Kyoto.

In this post, I’d like to share how my pseudonym "Xbzoxmqp Uxsdajwo" came to be, and the experience behind it—specifically, how I once released my works under a Creative Commons license, only to find that I couldn’t delete them later.
In particular, I will reflect on the ambiguity and limitations of the Creative Commons framework, as revealed through my attempt to request the removal of sheet music and audio files I had uploaded to IMSLP, which was ultimately denied on the grounds that CC licenses are irrevocable.

Until around 2021, I released my works under the CC BY 3.0 license on platforms such as SoundCloud and Bandcamp.
However, these tracks were later uploaded to YouTube without permission as "No Copyright Music" and even redistributed under different names on services like Spotify. As a result, I deleted those accounts in 2022.

I had also posted sheet music and MP3 files to IMSLP. Due to similar misuse concerns, I requested removal, but was told that works approved by moderators were considered derivative and thus the CC license could not be revoked.

Referring to Clause 3a3 of the CC BY 4.0 license, I requested the removal of credit. In response, an administrator proposed replacing my name with a pseudonym, which I accepted. This pseudonym was a randomly generated string from my password manager at the time.

Through my communications with various moderators, I often felt they lacked a full understanding of Creative Commons principles.
I began to suspect that IMSLP prioritized maintaining its total number of uploaded scores over respecting the author’s wishes, hiding behind the “irrevocability” clause.

As an additional note, even when works are reused under a Creative Commons license, providing a link to the original source is a required condition of the license.
In that sense, the current state of IMSLP’s usage could arguably be considered a technical violation of the CC license terms.

That said, I have chosen not to press this point further, because this kind of strict enforcement is exactly the tactic often used by so-called "copyleft trolls."
Personally, I prefer to adhere to the original intent and principles of the Creative Commons license, rather than weaponizing its terms.

Besides, I now find it kind of amusing that a strangely named IMSLP page like “Xbzoxmqp Uxsdajwo” still exists.

When I discovered one of my IMSLP-posted scores had been re-uploaded to Musescore without permission, I contacted Musescore and included an IMSLP admin in the message. He had previously handled my pseudonym change and had appeared in a YouTube video with Musescore staff.

I occasionally come across Japanese composers who post their original works on IMSLP, but based on my own experience, I believe this decision should be made with great caution.
While IMSLP may appear to be a public or academic platform at first glance, it is privately run, and there are serious limitations—such as the inability to delete works or revoke Creative Commons licenses.
Uploading your work may give the impression of being placed alongside great classical composers, but this is merely a superficial honor. In reality, IMSLP is a platform over which you have very little control once your work is submitted.

I use an app called Piascore on my iPad to view my own sheet music, and since scores registered on IMSLP can be easily downloaded through Piascore, I initially uploaded my works to IMSLP for the sake of convenience.

At the time, I did have some doubts about the Creative Commons license, but I received a response from Creative Commons Japan (CCJP) stating that they would “make every effort to ensure the license is used correctly.” Encouraged by that reassurance, I decided to publish my sheet music on IMSLP under a CC license.

However, as more issues arose from the misuse of CC licenses, I eventually requested the deletion of my IMSLP page. The response I received from the moderators and administrators left me shocked—I hadn’t realized that this was the kind of thinking behind IMSLP’s operations. Had I known what kind of people were managing the platform, I would never have uploaded my scores there in the first place.

Given the opaque nature of its management, I also suspect that IMSLP may shut down again in the near future.

I have personally gone through the "revision" process on IMSLP several times in order to update the credit in my PDF submissions to reflect a pseudonym. Initially, I waited for the administrators to handle the name change, but eventually I grew impatient and submitted the revision myself—only to find that the file replacement process was surprisingly easy.

This experience made me realize how potentially dangerous the "revision" feature can be if misused. Even files that appear legitimate can be easily replaced, and in theory, it would be technically possible to embed malware into a PDF and reupload it without raising immediate suspicion.
If such a situation were to occur, people would no longer be able to call it a “legendary site where you can download free sheet music.”

It is possible that AI music generators like Suno have used public domain classical scores from platforms like IMSLP or works under Creative Commons licenses for training. However, as of now, there is no official information or reliable evidence to confirm this. The datasets used for AI training are largely opaque, and even if such materials were used, identifying a clear trace would be extremely difficult.

It is also widely known that AI tools like Suno are often used purely for monetization purposes.
Rather than being embraced as tools for creative expression, they are frequently used with the sole aim of "generating music easily with AI to make money" — a trend I personally find deeply unsettling.

It seems many people use Creative Commons licenses more for their “free-to-use atmosphere” than with a proper understanding of the legal framework.
This ambiguity has given rise to what could be called “copyleft trolls”—those who commercialize CC works outside the intended spirit of the license.

Another issue I’ve long been concerned about is the improper registration of CC-licensed music to YouTube’s Content ID by individuals other than the actual author.

I believe Creative Commons licensing needs to be revised to reflect today’s digital realities. I sent this message—along with a donation—to the CC organization.
Unfortunately, judging from their official blog and updates, I no longer hold much hope for meaningful reform.

I recently revisited posts by Creative Commons and CCJP on X (formerly Twitter), and I was struck by how far removed their perspectives are from my own.
As with my experience with IMSLP, had I known from the beginning that such people were managing the system, I probably would never have used this license. But at this point, it’s already water under the bridge. That sort of thing happens in life.

Most of the responses I received from CCJP were fairly formal, but one person in particular who handles the back office — gave me the impression that she understood the weight of what I was saying.
However, given her position, I also sensed that there was little she could do personally. This experience further illustrated to me how institutional contradictions can limit the agency of even well-intentioned individuals within an organization.

Many people treat Creative Commons (CC) licenses as a kind of blanket excuse or "get-out-of-jail-free card." I have already contacted CCJP regarding this issue.

In the past, I have asked certain users to remove credit lines from their posts — even when they appeared to be attributed correctly — because the context of the reuse was misleading or inconsistent with my intentions.

Some users replied with comments like, “You’re the one who misunderstands Creative Commons.” This was eerily similar to my experience with IMSLP.

Still, after calmly explaining my concerns, there were cases where the users did understand my position and agreed to remove the credit or cease use. Having the credit removed has at least one advantage: it makes the content less likely to appear in search results.

As with IMSLP, I believe that if the current situation continues, there is a non-zero possibility that the Creative Commons organization could also face eventual collapse. For now, I plan to observe how things unfold over time.

Is IMSLP legal or illegal? — That’s something quite a few people seem to be searching for.
But honestly, this isn’t a question that can be answered with a simple yes or no.

IMSLP is operated using servers located in Canada, where copyright terms are shorter than in many other countries. That allows them to legally host a broader range of works — in Canada, at least.

But that’s not really the core issue here.
Poor license management, disregard for the intentions of copyright holders, and the unsettling presence of moderators who behave like overzealous internet “category masters” — all of these point to an unstable system.
That’s why I feel the real issue with IMSLP isn’t something that can be summed up as simply legal or illegal.
It’s a deeper, structural problem that goes far beyond that binary.

The new IMSLP interface

The new IMSLP interface (Clara UI) may look like a major redesign in terms of appearance and user experience, but in reality, it does not reflect any substantial improvements to the underlying system or security. In other words, it’s just a facelift—core issues such as weak copyright enforcement and lack of safeguards against unauthorized uploads remain completely unresolved.

As of now, when accessing the IMSLP website from a mobile device, users are automatically redirected to the new interface called “Clara UI” (clara.imslp.org). However, in this Clara interface, the download button does not function unless the user is logged in, creating the impression that one must register in order to access the scores.

However, if you click the “IMSLP Wiki” button at the top of the page, you are taken back to the traditional Wiki-based interface, where downloads remain fully accessible without logging in.

In other words, downloads are not actually locked behind registration, and the new interface merely creates the appearance of restricted access. This approach has nothing to do with real improvements in security or copyright enforcement—it's purely cosmetic.

While Clara UI appears to require login for downloading scores, the reality is different: by clicking the “IMSLP Wiki” button, users are redirected to the classic interface where downloads remain fully available without login.

If Clara UI were the only accessible version and access to the old interface were completely blocked, this could potentially restrict automated downloaders such as bots. However, the legacy interface is still available, and thus technically easy to bypass.

In short, the so-called “login requirement” imposed by Clara UI is merely cosmetic. It provides little to no real benefit in terms of security or prevention of misuse.

I believe the recent switch to Clara UI—and the way it gives the appearance that score downloads require user registration and a subscription—is driven by IMSLP's ongoing financial difficulties.

In my view, there are quite a few people who are dissatisfied with IMSLP’s management style but choose not to voice their concerns publicly on social media. They may be holding back because of the many positive posts praising the site as “a god-tier website for free sheet music.”

No one knows when IMSLP might shut down next, but if its financial issues persist, I believe future closure remains a real possibility.

🤖For more details or questions regarding this matter, my AI assistant is also available to help.
It is designed to assist those who may be in a similar situation.