Hi, how can I find out if C. S. Forester Horatio Hornblower novels are public domain or not?

In the United States, anything published before 1923 is in the public domain. Any author who has been dead for 70 years (1938) is in the public domain EXCEPT that any works published after 1923 is still protected by copyright and will be for 95 years from original copyright year. The exceptions to this 95 year copyright period are for works which were copyrighted before 1950 and whose copyrights were never renewed. -- they entered the public domain in 1977 or earlier and were not re-copyrighted by the 1978 rewrite of the U.S. copyright laws.

For Canada and Australia, any author who has been dead for 50 years (died in 1958 or earlier) is in the public domain.

Most European countries have copyright terms of life-plus-70 so authors who died before 1938 are public domain.

It seems from Forester's years and publication dates that his work is still protected by copyright and will be for a long time to come.

Hi, how can I find out if C. S. Forester Horatio Hornblower novels are public domain or not?

They aren't.

Hi, how can I find out if C. S. Forester Horatio Hornblower novels are public domain or not?

He died in 1966 so his works' will be public domain 1st January 2017 in death + 50 countries

The Gutenberg:Copyright How-To (http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:Copyright_How-To)might be a useful guide.

I have to say that copyrights have gotten so far from their original intent as to annoy me. At least in the United States, their purpose was to provide a period of protection for intellectual property to encourage people to publish so that ultimately the work would end up in the public domain for all to benefit (including authors who wanted to develop derivative works from it).

Now, ultimately, copyright law seems designed to protect Big corporations who own the copyrights on software, movies, TV and much of the music produced today. Length of copyright on software ensures that the software will still be under copyright long after anyone could possibly benefit from the software, and I suspect that when we get close to the limits of the copyrights of many intellectual properties again, that it might well be extended again.

Now, I could keep going with respect to the broader spectrum, but lets bring it back to ebooks. I bet if we look at the realities of the published word, most books probably make 90-95% of their sales in the first two years of of their first being published (I don't know this for sure, but it seems like a reasonable assumption). And I suspect that most of these books are out of print within 10 years of their being published. There are a small percentage of authors whose works remain in print for years, but eventually, the vast majority of works will go out of print and most will never be printed again. Such works will only be available in libraries, used book shops, yard sales etc.

Now lets assume that an author writes for something besides simply money (and I suspect, that is true of many authors). I grant that they want to make money, but once they have effectively made as much money as they will ever make on a book, do they want to see it go out of print? I suspect, that many, many authors would love to see their works available in almost any form that would make them available for new fans.

Certainly, I know this is true in Science Fiction. The New England Science Fiction Association (I think that is right) has for years approached authors or the estates thereof to secure the rights to their works to publish them in collections. The books I believe are published pretty much at cost (and generally are fairly small print runs) and the authors or their estates receive little or no royalties. Ultimately the authors simply want to make sure that their works will still be around even when they aren't.

Ok, I will admit, I am ranting and amazingly off topic here (since most of Forrester's books are in fact in print), but I think ultimately copyright now is far more likely to harm an author's interests than it is to help them (J. K. Rowling, Stephen King and their ilk excepted). Sure it benefits the 10% whose books are always in print, but it really hurts the rest of them. I suspect that a more reasonable copyright scheme where works go out of copyright 10 years after they cease being published would be a far better approach than the one we use now.

--
Bill

thanks everyone for answering. For some reason I thought the Hornblower books were much older.

re: Bill - it also bothers me somewhat that copyright is 95 years...I guess to me that feels kind of excessive considering most people have a life expectancy of 70-80 years (depending on country, Japan I think is 100)

For Canada and Australia, any author who has been dead for 50 years (died in 1958 or earlier) is in the public domain.
Australia recently revised their copyright laws in order to get a trade agreement with the USA.

"Under Australian copyright law, literary, dramatic, and musical work published, performed, communicated, or recorded and offered for sale in an author's lifetime are, if the author died in or before 1954, protected for the life of the author plus fifty years from the end of the year of the author's death. Therefore, for a work to be in the "public domain" in Australia, it is only necessary that the author died in or before 1954 and that the work was published (not necessarily in Australia) during her/his lifetime. As an example, the works of George Orwell, who died in 1950, are in the "public domain" in Australia. Where an author died after 1954 the copyright period is the life of the author plus seventy years from the end of the year of the author's death." -- http://gutenberg.net.au/submissions.html

thanks everyone for answering. For some reason I thought the Hornblower books were much older.

re: Bill - it also bothers me somewhat that copyright is 95 years...I guess to me that feels kind of excessive considering most people have a life expectancy of 70-80 years (depending on country, Japan I think is 100)

But shouldn't a person be entitled to earn income from something he/she created? And leave that potential income to heirs?

Certainly the person who developed the coca-cola formula has been able to leave it to future generations of the same family, why shouldn't the author of a book written at the same time be able to share the same good fortune?

How about the owner of a hotel built in the same year? That can be left from generation to generation with nobody complaining that the hotel should be public property after a period of time.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but I can see both sides of the situation. I think copyright protection is too long and too restrictive and far from the U.S. Constitution's original intent.

But if other types of property can be protected by law and left from generation to generation until they fall down or the universe ends, why not creative property?

But if other types of property can be protected by law and left from generation to generation until they fall down or the universe ends, why not creative property?

Have you read this?

http://baens-universe.com/articles/McCauley_copyright

It answer the questions you are asking.

BOb

Certainly the person who developed the coca-cola formula has been able to leave it to future generations of the same family, why shouldn't the author of a book written at the same time be able to share the same good fortune?

Apples oranges and peaches :)

A trade secret is just that -- secret. If I were able to deduce the forumula, I could legally sell JeffCola that tasted exactly the same. A hotel is physical property. And a book is copywritable. Originally under US laws copywritable for a very limited time, then passed into the public domain.

In a fair society Horatio Hornblower would be free to all, along with Jack Aubrey and Dr. Maturin.

But shouldn't a person be entitled to earn income from something he/she created? And leave that potential income to heirs?
...

But if other types of property can be protected by law and left from generation to generation until they fall down or the universe ends, why not creative property?

One of the more interesting things to do is to look into the history of copyright. I suspect that most people, who assume that things always have been the way that they currently are would be quite surprised. The term "Intellectual Property" was coined by a judge who was ruling in a patent case in 1845. The modern usage of intellectual property, i.e. that the idea is truly property that is owned by the artist, only dates back to 1967. The idea of copyright is purely a European idea that started as a monopoly granted by the king to make copies of works. It had nothing to do with paying the artist for his work. Ben Franklin got copyright put into the Constitution, but that was a very limited grant (20 year, if I recall correctly). For most of the world, the idea that an idea, or work is property is totally foreign. That is one of the reasons that piracy is so common in Asia, no one sees anything wrong with it.

C. S. Forester Horatio Hornblower novels

Are now for sale in the Border's Ebook store in Epub format.

http://www.borders.com.au/by/c-s-forester/