A question on old vs new media and copyright

[crich70]

I found an article (it was released in six parts originally) that was written back in 1835 which featured "the Great Moon Hoax." It was part of a webpage when I found it. Would it be considered as under copyright due to having been posted to the site or would it be out of copyright due to having been written back in 1835? I thought about posting epub and kindle format copies of the article to Mobileread but don't want to accidentally violate copyright if it is in force due to being posted online.

[AlexBell]

Originally Posted by crich70

I found an article (it was released in six parts originally) that was written back in 1835 which featured "the Great Moon Hoax." It was part of a webpage when I found it. Would it be considered as under copyright due to having been posted to the site or would it be out of copyright due to having been written back in 1835? I thought about posting epub and kindle format copies of the article to Mobileread but don't want to accidentally violate copyright if it is in force due to being posted online.

An interesting question. I try to get permission from the poster of the new 'version', if there are any changes. But if it's just a reprint I don't ask for permission. I don't believe that the markup which makes it available for reading on a computer is copyright; but I don't have any documentation. I always give the credit to wherever I got the source text from.

I'm not putting this forward as guidance; just as what I do, and am very interested in following this thread.

[Toxaris]

If the text is published on the website has not been changed from the original source, you would not violate the copyright AFAIK.

[GrannyGrump]

Some old newspaper archives exist (although some of them are a PAID service, be careful!), where you can view scans of the actual newsprint pages. If you are lucky enough to find the originals of your articles, you can compare to the "modern" versions and see if any content was edited.

I haven't the time right now to search, but give a try to some of these links. I found a number of Mark Twain pieces at these links some time ago.
http://nyheritage.nnyln.net/
https://www.nypl.org
http://lostmuseum.cuny.edu/archive/

I also ran across this link that looks interesting, but it has nothing earlier than 1836. But someone might find it useful for another project:
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/

The Making of America collections at Cornell and at U of Mich are good, but I think they only have magazines on file.

[Tex2002ans]

Originally Posted by crich70

I found an article (it was released in six parts originally) that was written back in 1835 which featured "the Great Moon Hoax."

For the US, you may want to use this site:

http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

In the US, anything written before 1923 is Public Domain.

Other countries have different years/rules, you could read about some of that here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...pyright_length

For the most part, the entire world is under "Life + X Years", where X is 50/70/75 (there are a few outliers).

Originally Posted by crich70

It was part of a webpage when I found it. Would it be considered as under copyright due to having been posted to the site or would it be out of copyright due to having been written back in 1835?

Public Domain. Republishing something in the Public Domain doesn't somehow add/renew/give you copyright to the work.

If they added their own Foreword or added footnotes/annotations, just those specific additions would be copyrighted.

Feel free to take Shakespeare's or Plato's works and use them wherever.

Originally Posted by Toxaris

If the text is published on the website has not been changed from the original source, you would not violate the copyright AFAIK.

It is Public Domain! There is no copyright to violate!

Tangentially Related Topic: This sort of thing comes up all the time, for example, here is a Techdirt article talking about a museum trying to "copyright" digital images of Public Domain paintings:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...released.shtml

Originally Posted by GrannyGrump

If you are lucky enough to find the originals of your articles, you can compare to the "modern" versions and see if any content was edited.

I would highly recommend you try to do this anyway. I personally don't trust any source (typos slip in due to OCR, they missed/changed punctuation, they changed spelling, someone along the way missed important formatting (bold/italics/smallcaps), they didn't properly markup blockquotes, [...]).

What I typically try to do is an A/B or an A/B/C compare.

I try to find and use the original source (A) + download the HTML of the website (B) + if other websites have digitized it, I download that too (C).

I do a relatively rough/quick OCR on (A). I then code compare to (A) -> (B), (A) -> (C).

Typically different sources catch different typos, and your version can be superior to all of them. Plus you can see what the original looked like, and make your own stylistic decisions.

[dwig]

Originally Posted by Tex2002ans

... Republishing something in the Public Domain doesn't somehow add/renew/give you copyright to the work.

If they added their own Foreword or added footnotes/annotations, just those specific additions would be copyrighted.
...

Also, any other creative addition can be copyrighted. This includes typography, layout, and the actual code for the page. Copying the text would be fine, but copying the site's HTML code and CSS file and republishing them, on another website or wrapping them up as an ePub, would be dubious.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Tex2002ans

Feel free to take Shakespeare's or Plato's works and use them wherever.

Shakespeare, yes.

Plato is far less clear-cut. Any printed edition of Plato, unless it's a facsimile of an original Greek manuscript, is almost certain to be emended and annotated (assuming it's published in the original Attic Greek), and such changes are protected by copyright. If it's translated into another language such as English, the translation does of course carry its own copyright even if the material being translated is in the public domain.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by crich70

I found an article (it was released in six parts originally) that was written back in 1835 which featured "the Great Moon Hoax." It was part of a webpage when I found it.

Mere conversion of the text from printed to electronic form does not create a new copyright. If you take only the text that was printed in 1835, it is in the public domain and you may do what you wish with it, including turning it into an ebook and uploading it to MobileRead.

But if there is any modern commentary about the text at the web site, you may not copy that and include it in your book without the permission of the author of the commentary.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Mere conversion of the text from printed to electronic form does not create a new copyright. If you take only the text that was printed in 1835, it is in the public domain and you may do what you wish with it, including turning it into an ebook and uploading it to MobileRead.

But if there is any modern commentary about the text at the web site, you may not copy that and include it in your book without the permission of the author of the commentary.

Well it looks like they just took the original text and copied that. I did a copy into my epub file. Here's the original webpage link. Moon Hoax

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by dwig

Also, any other creative addition can be copyrighted. This includes typography, layout, and the actual code for the page. Copying the text would be fine, but copying the site's HTML code and CSS file and republishing them, on another website or wrapping them up as an ePub, would be dubious.

dwig:

As far as I know, typography and layout CANNOT be copyrighted. It's a common lament amongst designers, of every type of thing--digital media, physical, etc. You can design a brand-new website, and the layout, coloring, etc. aren't subject to any protection. (n.b.: of course, if you create a logo, a look, branding, THAT can be trademarked, but that's a different thing.)

The code? Yes, the code IS copyrightable. Thus, even if the book were remade into a glorious, webpage by webpage rendering of the original, the book itself--the text?--not, under US copyright law, and the layout, not.

Hitch

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Hitch

dwig:

As far as I know, typography and layout CANNOT be copyrighted.

Typographical copyright does indeed exist in some countries, but not in the US. Within the EU, for example, it has a duration of 25 years from the end of the year of publication.

[Tex2002ans]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Typographical copyright does indeed exist in some countries, but not in the US. Within the EU, for example, it has a duration of 25 years from the end of the year of publication.

I believe Typefaces would be covered under Community Designs in the EU:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intell...aces#Elsewhere

and may be covered by Design Patents in others:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe..._and_typefaces

I am not too sure where the entire Book Design/Layout itself would be covered... but I swear I read this over the years in my travels (I mostly read about US IP though, very rarely into the European topics). Usually it is just a sentence or two mentioning: "It is different in the EU/Country X".

Side Note: It comes up every so often in articles about the real obscure/arcane differences between US/Other IP Laws. Stuff like:

• Moral Rights
  
  • This is one of the largest differences between US/EU copyright.
• Phonograms
• Semiconductor Mask Works
• Boat Hull Designs
• Database Rights
• Fashion Design
• Architecture
• [...]

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Tex2002ans

I believe Typefaces would be covered under Community Designs in the EU:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intell...aces#Elsewhere

and may be covered by Design Patents in others:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe..._and_typefaces

In the US, typefaces are considered programs--and as such, ARE considered to be protected just as is software. If, however--wait for it--you didn't do the typography digitally, but rather, by hand--no. There's NOTHING that would protect that. Only the digital version of a typeface has those protections, as "software." (See Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc. There's a Wikipedia article about it, IIRC, which, at least at one time, was reliable. Can't say if it is now, of course.)

I am not too sure where the entire Book Design/Layout itself would be covered... but I swear I read this over the years in my travels (I mostly read about US IP though, very rarely into the European topics). Usually it is just a sentence or two mentioning: "It is different in the EU/Country X".

No idea. It isn't, here, for certain.

Side Note: It comes up every so often in articles about the real obscure/arcane differences between US/Other IP Laws. Stuff like:

• Moral Rights
  
  • This is one of the largest differences between US/EU copyright.
• Phonograms
• Semiconductor Mask Works
• Boat Hull Designs
• Database Rights
• Fashion Design
• Architecture
• [...]

Wow, Database designs. Who knew?

Hitch