|
Poster:
|
stbalbach |
Date:
|
December 02, 2009 09:02:06am |
|
Forum:
|
texts
|
Subject:
|
Help with copyright |
Gerry or anyone,
Need help to determine the copyright status of a book. It's one of my favorite books, but it was never reprinted, and in high demand ($50 and up in used market).
It's called "With Dersu The Hunter", by Vladimir Arsenyev, adapted by Anne Terry White. A Venture Book. Published by George Braziller, New York, 1965.
There are other books with a similar title and same author Vladimir, this is the one adapted by Anne Terry White.
Thanks,
Stephen
|
Poster:
|
garthus |
Date:
|
December 02, 2009 06:48:12pm |
|
Forum:
|
texts
|
Subject:
|
Re: Help with copyright |
Is there a copyright notice in the book?
|
Poster:
|
stbalbach |
Date:
|
December 02, 2009 06:58:59pm |
|
Forum:
|
texts
|
Subject:
|
Re: Help with copyright |
Yes. With Library of Congress number 65-25971
|
Poster:
|
garthus |
Date:
|
December 02, 2009 07:53:40pm |
|
Forum:
|
texts
|
Subject:
|
Re: Help with copyright |
Then it is under copyright and you will need permission of the authors and/or publisher. to post it. Unfortunately ... .
Gerry
|
Poster:
|
stbalbach |
Date:
|
December 02, 2009 08:15:18pm |
|
Forum:
|
texts
|
Subject:
|
Re: Help with copyright |
She'll be hard to reach: Anne Terry White (1896-1980). This is
one of the orphan works Google is trying to free up from copyright limbo.
Not that I agree with Google's terms, we defiantly need something. But I wouldn't know how to track down the copyright holder.
Thanks for the copyright info Gerry.
Stephen
This post was modified by stbalbach on 2009-12-03 03:15:18
|
Poster:
|
Time Traveller |
Date:
|
December 02, 2009 09:41:10pm |
|
Forum:
|
texts
|
Subject:
|
Re: Help with copyright |
Would not the last publisher of a book, be aware of who now (if anybody) owns the copyright?
And in my mind, if the last known owner of the copyright, is the author and deceased, then the book should be automatically in the public domain, instead of Google's hands
Copy rights are all about ensuring that the creator (Author) of a work of art (Book) enjoy the financial income from said work of art (book
The deceased author can no longer enjoy any income, thus who is getting the income? Seeing the book is out of print.
As part of the publishing contract, I guess the publisher can force the author to hand over the copy rights.
I dont know the realivent law, but in my mind, if a copyright can be assigned to a publisher, then the copyright terms need to be different from a authors copyright.
I am beginning to understand, that copy right for books is very different from copy right for movies, and some audio works of art.
Which means, books should have very understandable, plain language copyright laws.
Generally a book is produced by one person, sometimes 2 or 3.
Movies, every person involved in making the movie, the actors, technicians, directer, producer etc, have a stake in the copyright.
The same, but to a lesser extent, with audio.
And if you think about about it, mass produced text came before mass produced audio recordings, and more recently, video came along.
Nobody ever stood back, and reviewed text copyright laws, they were adapted to suit audio, then video, then the zeros and ones of computer software. (Windows OS for e.g.)
Then when the world evolved, and photocopying came along, then audio tape for copying, VCR CD DVD HDD recording or copying, laws had to be reinterpreted.
The publishing industry is greatly annoyed, and takes big bucks legal action on people in Europe, North America, lawyers are getting rich, in fact, its a whole new speciality for lawyers, because publishers are taking more and more legal action.
And all the time, 3rd world countries including China, are working flat out copying stuff that us under copyright. (China got Windows 7 on the market before Microsoft did)
I think copyright laws have become totally useless.
My advice to anybody in the USA sued for breach of copyright, is to immediately do a counter-suit, (If you call it that) about discrimination, why you, and not all the others, unnamed, but known to be breaching copyright.
E.g, if Microsoft sues you for breach of copyright on Windows 7, you point out, that is discrimination unless Microsoft is, at the same time, also suing all the other copiers of Windows 7
Then point out, Microsoft says there are millions of illegal copies, and that you only made one---or two, maybe free.
If it is to use you to set an example, why you?
Anyway, its a lost cause, copyright, the genie is out of the bottle.
And if the publishers forgot all about legal action, certainly they will be better off cash wise, at the expense of the lawyers bank accounts.
its a win win, for the publishers and consumers then.
|
Poster:
|
stbalbach |
Date:
|
December 02, 2009 10:56:02pm |
|
Forum:
|
texts
|
Subject:
|
Re: Help with copyright |
Good suggestion. It turns out
George Braziller is a small independent publisher still in business and not gobbled up by one of the majors. So the likelihood of their keeping consistent records and being friendly to deal with are pretty good. I just sent them an email. No idea where it will lead. I've heard it can be time consuming to find rights holders, but maybe I'll get lucky with an easy one.
Stephen
|
Poster:
|
Time Traveller |
Date:
|
December 03, 2009 12:34:33am |
|
Forum:
|
texts
|
Subject:
|
Re: Help with copyright |
great, but if you do find the owner, dont expect much, if they know the book has a resale value, they might go for a reprint, thus deny your request.
Peter
BTW, that number you quoted to Gerry, is that specific to the book, or common to books?
If its specific, maybe looking up that record might help
|
Poster:
|
Time Traveller |
Date:
|
December 03, 2009 12:38:31am |
|
Forum:
|
texts
|
Subject:
|
Re: Help with copyright |
they might even own the rights themselves
I had woodworking articles published in a UK magazine, but to get paid, I had to sign over ownership of my work.
|
Poster:
|
garthus |
Date:
|
December 03, 2009 09:23:31am |
|
Forum:
|
texts
|
Subject:
|
Re: Help with copyright |
If the Russian author is not an American citizen then the Berne rules apply; 50 or 75 years after the death of author(s); depending on counrty residing in.
Gerry
|
Poster:
|
anthonypaul |
Date:
|
December 03, 2009 10:13:36am |
|
Forum:
|
texts
|
Subject:
|
Re: Help with copyright |
Does not copyright pass to the heirs of the deceased? IMHO there will be a copyright due to the heirs of the translator as well as the original writer, unless the translation was done for a fixed fee, in which case copyright there does not apply. It depends on the terms of the contract.
The publisher should be able to sort this out.
|
Poster:
|
garthus |
Date:
|
December 03, 2009 10:20:50am |
|
Forum:
|
texts
|
Subject:
|
Re: Help with copyright |
Yes, but only during the term of the copryright. You are correct, however, a translation of a work by a foreign author complicates the matter.
Gerry
|
Poster:
|
stbalbach |
Date:
|
December 03, 2009 11:22:12am |
|
Forum:
|
texts
|
Subject:
|
Re: Help with copyright |
It's not a translation but an adaption. The original work is in the public domain (published pre-1923), but this is a re-writing of it, an adaption, significantly different from the original.
Stephen
|
Poster:
|
Time Traveller |
Date:
|
December 03, 2009 05:06:51pm |
|
Forum:
|
texts
|
Subject:
|
Re: Help with copyright |
So the original work MUST still be in the public domain.
And only the adaptation therefore has a new copyright.
But if the original work, was still in copyright, any unauthorised adaptation would be breach of copyright of the original work.
Which adds up to, an adaptation of a work in the public domain, can only have the same copyright status as the book it was adapted from.
And that is none, the adaptation should be in the public domain from day one.
Copyright applies to a set of ideas put into words, NOT exact words in exact sequence.
But if the original author (not current copyright owner) authorised the adaptation, then the original authors ideas were not, in effect, stolen, and then the adapting author would be entitled to a new copyright in order to ensure adapting author gets reimbursed for their labours.
The above means, that once the original author becomes unable to authorise an adaptation (deceased, etc) that authors ideas expressed in his/her book, "The plot of the book" (not exact words) MUST remain in the public domain.
Meaning the book of expressed ideas can not remain under copyright for ever and ever, by regularly publishing adaptations.
A book publisher, would very likely take advantage of such a situation, if the book was still selling well, and would have in-house adapters, not necessarily authors to adapt the book.
And then, you have legal argument, what is an adaptation, what is a copy, or better worded, what, or how much needs to be changed before a copy becomes an adaptation.
And lawyers continue getting richer, at the expense of the authors and readers.
As for copyright renewals, only the original author should be allowed to do that, or an copyright assignee only during the reasonable life span of the original author. Lets put that at 100 years. If the author dies young, say at 50, then any renewal rights expire 50 years after death. If the author dies at 90, any renewal rights expire 10 years later.
Which applies even if the author first published the book at age 89, as copyright laws, were only intended to protect the original creator of any work of art, rights to reward, for their labours.
Its like an inheritance tax, why should the author's children, for example, live a life of luxury and leisure, from their mother or father's work of art.
Copyright laws were created country by county, when stakes were not so high, now any book has a world wide market automatically, and for example, copyright owners and publishers are taking maximum profit for themselves and their shareholders, when the original creator is long gone.
its the difference between words expressed on paper (ideas) and inventions, (hardware) where a manufacturer invests in a production line, to mass produce that invention.
Think of it as Star Trek replicater technology, the way a book is reproduced, very little energy points needed, as a book is just a collection of ideas put into words but to reproduce an invention, it takes heaps more energy, to create that hardware, copy by copy.
Then forget replicater technology, and see how easy it is to copy a book of ideas, as opposed to manufacturing an invention.
Even the patent system, was originally only set up, to safeguard an inventor's rights to reward for their ideas and was not really to protect an industry of manufacturers. (and publishers with copyrights)except it had to protect the manufacturer but only to ensure that the inventor still got his just reward during his life time.
#The above is not based on actual law, as I dont know actual law, its just what I believe it should be, based on fair play and logic, and near the end, I list possible pitfalls with current copyright law.
Peter
This post was modified by Time Traveller on 2009-12-03 23:53:45
This post was modified by Time Traveller on 2009-12-04 00:06:51
|
Poster:
|
Time Traveller |
Date:
|
December 03, 2009 04:59:17pm |
|
Forum:
|
texts
|
Subject:
|
Re: Help with copyright |
I just though, protecting ideas put into words, using copyright, badly affects other people's rights to have similar ideas, slightly adapted.
Take it too far, means current new books are always at risk of breaching some other copyright, its not as if untold monkeys and typewriters are producing untold best sellers and no junk.
There is only a finite number, of combinations of ideas in words, that make sense.
In effect, above, I have shown current copyright laws are outdated, because today, technology makes it so easy for anybody and everybody to write a book, so many books therefore, a high number must be unintended "adaptations" of ideas in a book, that the author might have read years ago.
Its like years ago, when the USA Patent Office declared a crisis, it no longer had the ability to go back thru all its records, to check if a patent application was an unique idea or had been patented before, or even, if the idea had been in the public domain for longer than a year.
I should have been a lawyer, they make heaps of money, arguing copyright breaches under obsolete outdated laws, in courts of civil law.
I suppose that means judges and juries must suffer nervous breakdowns from overload of discussion of every comma and period, in the law books.
Peter
This post was modified by Time Traveller on 2009-12-03 23:59:17
TVNews
OpenLibrary