Public Domain Day 2016 in the UK: A Special Day

[murg]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I prefer to have evidence before throwing accusations around. Where is your evidence that the foundation is making inappropriate use of its funds?

Where's your evidence that they aren't?

Unfortunately, in the modern world, it reasonable to have an opinion that the default state of many charities is that their admin costs are too high, and many of them are just tax-free mechanisms for the people running them to profit.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by murg

Where's your evidence that they aren't?

You seem to want to turn the legal system on its head. Nobody has to provide evidence that they aren't committing a crime; if you think that they are, it's your responsibility to provide evidence to support your accusation. Where is your evidence?

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by HarryT

A reasonable argument if the editing involved a substantial amount of re-writing. The whole area of the copyright claims of editors is a legal minefield.

My simple test would be :-

Is he listed as co-author on the copyright page of the first print run?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Of course the rule of law must be followed, but the legal situation seems to be unclear here.

The author died (unfortunately) nearly seventy years ago, but the holders of the copyright are trying to extend that copyright in an underhand manner.

I certainly do hope that they fail in their attempt.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You seem to want to turn the legal system on its head. Nobody has to provide evidence that they aren't committing a crime; if you think that they are, it's your responsibility to provide evidence to support your accusation. Where is your evidence?

Well, they were offering an opinion rather than accusing them of a crime.

Besides, people tend to look at things as a whole, and as this looks like a rights grab it is understandable that people will automatically take a cautious view of any claims made by the same people.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Besides, people tend to look at things as a whole, and as this looks like a rights grab it is understandable that people will automatically take a cautious view of any claims made by the same people.

Going from "they want to retain their copyright" to "... so they must be a corrupt organisation who are using their income to enrich themselves rather than donating it to charity as they claim to do" is a bit of a stretch. It feels like a rather crude attempt at mudslinging because the organisation is doing something that the poster disapproves of.

Nate pointed out the self-evident fact that the work (may have) entered the public domain in life+50 countries 20 years ago. This is of course true, but the key point here is that next year it will/may enter the public domain in the country in which its original language is spoken, which would obviously have a far greater impact on the copyright holder.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Going from "they want to retain their copyright" to "... so they must be a corrupt organisation who are using their income to enrich themselves rather than donating it to charity as they claim to do" is a bit of a stretch. It feels like a rather crude attempt at mudslinging because the organisation is doing something that the poster disapproves of.

Nate pointed out the self-evident fact that the work (may have) entered the public domain in life+50 countries 20 years ago. This is of course true, but the key point here is that next year it will/may enter the public domain in the country in which its original language is spoken, which would obviously have a far greater impact on the copyright holder.

Well, you have 2 ways to look at it.
1) They want to retain their copyright.
2) They want to retain their income and are willing to use very shady means to do so.

If the correct interpretation is 1 then it would be crude mudslinging, if it is 2 then it would be a valid concern.

But it does allow a perpetual copyright - the manuscript was revised 25 years ago and that editor is still alive, so if you allow this extension you have set the precedent for the next one, so you now have to wait at least an extra 70 years before it becomes PD. And as soon as you allow editing to become "co-author" status for copyright, publishers are going to hire some very young junior editors and make sure they have themselves listed in the copyright page.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

And as soon as you allow editing to become "co-author" status for copyright, publishers are going to hire some very young junior editors and make sure they have themselves listed in the copyright page.

That's a little bit of a red herring. Editing is generally done as a "work for hire", ie you employ an editor to do the job for you for a fixed fee. "Work for hire" does not grant any copyright rights to the editor.

I would note, though, that there are many example of editors claiming rights as co-author. Eric Flint has edited many books published by Baen in which he is listed as co-author due to his creative input as editor. It depends on the terms of the specific contract under which the editor is employed.

The author needs to be aware of the contractual terms under which his or her book is being edited. Any "creative" input to a book has the potential to grant copyright rights.

[pdurrant]

I think you'll find that Eric Flint's copyright in books he's edited are entirely limited to the forewords he's written for the stories.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I think you'll find that Eric Flint's copyright in books he's edited are entirely limited to the forewords he's written for the stories.

How would one ascertain whether or not that's the case?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

How would one ascertain whether or not that's the case?

Double-check the copyright notice. For example, Interstellar Patrol II, and anthology of Christopher Anvil's work:

http://www.baenebooks.com/10.1125/Ba...8925.htm?blurb

Copyright © 2005 by Christopher Anvil. Afterword copyright © 2005 by Eric Flint.

But I agree that some are not as explicit. I just don't believe that Eric Flint is claiming joint copyright in the work of other authors because he's edited their stories into a collection.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Double-check the copyright notice. For example, Interstellar Patrol II, and anthology of Christopher Anvil's work:

http://www.baenebooks.com/10.1125/Ba...8925.htm?blurb

Copyright © 2005 by Christopher Anvil. Afterword copyright © 2005 by Eric Flint.

But I agree that some are not as explicit. I just don't believe that Eric Flint is claiming joint copyright in the work of other authors because he's edited their stories into a collection.

Thanks.

You would agree, though, I presume, that any creative input has the potential to grant rights under copyright law? Simple copy editing - correcting errors and fixing up bad grammar - is not creative, but merely mechanical. Something like story development editing, however, certainly is creative, and an author who employs a development editor would be well advised to be sure of the contractual terms under which the work is being done.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Thanks.

You would agree, though, I presume, that any creative input has the potential to grant rights under copyright law?

Yes. But I think it's a high bar for editing.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Yes. But I think it's a high bar for editing.

I agree.

[murg]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Yes. But I think it's a high bar for editing.

My understanding is that a lot of editors spend a lot of time at the bar. High or otherwise...