After keeping us waiting for a century, Mark Twain will finally reveal all

[Iphinome]

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...l-1980695.html

Now here's something to have a legitimate copyright debate about. Is this public domain? Should it be? The author clearly didn't intend to make money the editor and publishers sure do intend it, does this matter? Why?

November's publication is authorised by his estate, which in the absence of surviving descendants (a daughter, Clara, died in 1962, and a granddaughter Nina committed suicide in 1966) funds museums and libraries that preserve his legacy.

They certainly had the right to hold unpublished papers but that's property law not copyright law so what should happen now people?

Have at.

[jgaiser]

While I certainly think that the copyright laws, as currently enacted in the United States, are broken, I think this is different.. *Mark Twain* asked that this be delayed publication until 100 years past his death. I think it's a wonderful tribute to the man that the publication was delayed.

[Iphinome]

Well the copyright law in effect when he died would have allowed 28 years from publication but the one in effect today is just messy and i honestly can't tell if this is a public domain work or not. Look at this

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/303.html

(a) Copyright in a work created before January 1, 1978, but not theretofore in the public domain or copyrighted, subsists from January 1, 1978, and endures for the term provided by section 302. In no case, however, shall the term of copyright in such a work expire before December 31, 2002; and, if the work is published on or before December 31, 2002, the term of copyright shall not expire before December 31, 2047.
(b) The distribution before January 1, 1978, of a phonorecord shall not for any purpose constitute a publication of the musical work embodied therein.

yet at the same time

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...2----000-.html

(c) Anonymous Works, Pseudonymous Works, and Works Made for Hire.— In the case of an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. If, before the end of such term, the identity of one or more of the authors of an anonymous or pseudonymous work is revealed in the records of a registration made for that work under subsections (a) or (d) of section 408, or in the records provided by this subsection, the copyright in the work endures for the term specified by subsection (a) or (b), based on the life of the author or authors whose identity has been revealed. Any person having an interest in the copyright in an anonymous or pseudonymous work may at any time record, in records to be maintained by the Copyright Office for that purpose, a statement identifying one or more authors of the work; the statement shall also identify the person filing it, the nature of that person’s interest, the source of the information recorded, and the particular work affected, and shall comply in form and content with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation.
(d) Records Relating to Death of Authors.— Any person having an interest in a copyright may at any time record in the Copyright Office a statement of the date of death of the author of the copyrighted work, or a statement that the author is still living on a particular date. The statement shall identify the person filing it, the nature of that person’s interest, and the source of the information recorded, and shall comply in form and content with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation. The Register shall maintain current records of information relating to the death of authors of copyrighted works, based on such recorded statements and, to the extent the Register considers practicable, on data contained in any of the records of the Copyright Office or in other reference sources.
(e) Presumption as to Author’s Death.— After a period of 95 years from the year of first publication of a work, or a period of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first, any person who obtains from the Copyright Office a certified report that the records provided by subsection (d) disclose nothing to indicate that the author of the work is living, or died less than 70 years before, is entitled to the benefits of a presumption that the author has been dead for at least 70 years. Reliance in good faith upon this presumption shall be a complete defense to any action for infringement under this title.

And how are we going to decide published if the papers were made available to scholars to read and quote before the full text was put in book form? And is the name attached Mark twain or Samuel Clemens it seems to matter for copyright term. This one is messy making it perfect for debate here.

[WillAdams]

Deleted in favour of pdurrant's much more detailed commentary

[Iphinome]

Except the original was never published. Or was it? Was making it available to scholars an act of publishing? Was it an act of publishing when the scholars quoted it? Or is it not officially published till now. There seems to be an exception in the law for things not published before 1978 but created before then and I can't make sense of it.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

They certainly had the right to hold unpublished papers but that's property law not copyright law so what should happen now people?

I'm making the assumption that this is the first publication of an unpublished work. This certainly seems to be the case. IMO, publication of very limited excerpts from the manuscript don't count.

So - this is an unpublished work as of 2009, first published in 2010, created before 1910 by an author who died in 1910.

In the USA, copyright for unpublished works with a known author is life+70. So it's in the public domain, and has been for 29 years.

In Canada, copyright for unpublished works of authors who died before 1947 expired 1st January 2003. So it's in the public domain and has been for 7 years.

In the UK, the situation is different, and it's in copyright until 1st January 2040.

That the manuscript has been edited doesn't matter. Additional notes, preface, etc are copyright the respective authors, but the actual text cannot be made copyright just through the editing process. Especially as in this case the intention is to make as accurate a version of the original manuscript as possible.

Of course, IANAL, so do you own research or take proper legal advice if you intend to republish.

Hmm... checking the US copyright office, an autobiography of Mark Twain was published in 1959, copyright renewed in 1987.

Assuming that this contains some or most of the material now being published, the copyright status changes.

in the USA, copyright continues for 95 years after publication. That is, until 1st January 2055.

In Canada, copyright in the work published in 1959 expired 1st January 2010.

In the UK, copyright in the work published in 1959 expired 1st January 2010.


So here we have a weird situation.
In the USA, because the work was published in 1959, copyright continues until 2055, otherwise it would be out of copyright.
In the UK, because the work was published in 1959, it is now out of copyright, otherwise it would be in copyright until 2040.
In Canada, it's out of copyright either way, by a few months or a few years.


Again, IANAL.

[Iphinome]

pdurrant: This is the part that confuses me. I can't for the life of me figure out what it means. It seems to give 24 years starting in 1978 except for the part where it give at minimum 45 years for anything published before 2003 and says nothing about what happens after December 31'st 2002.

(a) Copyright in a work created before January 1, 1978, but not theretofore in the public domain or copyrighted, subsists from January 1, 1978, and endures for the term provided by section 302. In no case, however, shall the term of copyright in such a work expire before December 31, 2002; and, if the work is published on or before December 31, 2002, the term of copyright shall not expire before December 31, 2047.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

pdurrant: This is the part that confuses me. I can't for the life of me figure out what it means. It seems to give 24 years starting in 1978 except for the part where it give at minimum 45 years for anything published before 2003 and says nothing about what happens after December 31'st 2002.

(a) Copyright in a work created before January 1, 1978, but not theretofore in the public domain or copyrighted, subsists from January 1, 1978, and endures for the term provided by section 302. In no case, however, shall the term of copyright in such a work expire before December 31, 2002; and, if the work is published on or before December 31, 2002, the term of copyright shall not expire before December 31, 2047.

I'd advise just using the table at http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/res...blicdomain.cfm as this is maintained by real lawyers who study this stuff.

The problem is that the laws are all amended and updated by various acts, so that following through everything is very hard. However, I'll give it a go for you. Note that it seems that some of the autobiography has been published (in 1959) so the unpublished works section might not apply. But for those bits where it does:

§303 (a) Copyright in a work created before January 1, 1978, but not theretofore in the public domain or copyrighted, subsists from January 1, 1978, and endures for the term provided by section 302

Now, we're assuming unpublished and uncopyrighted. If it was already in the public domain it remains in the public domain. So that tells us that the term is that provided in section §302

§302 (a) In General.— Copyright [...] endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author’s death.

So - the copyright term is life+70, except for the provision in §303

§303 (a) [...] In no case, however, shall the term of copyright in such a work expire before December 31, 2002

But since we're now in 2010, this doesn't affect us.

The last point you raises concerns the last part of 303 (a):

§303 (a) [...] and, if the work is published on or before December 31, 2002, the term of copyright shall not expire before December 31, 2047.

But we're assuming that the work was not published before 2003, so this section doesn't affect us either.

The intention of this sections seems to have been to encourage the publication of unpublished posthumous works, to get copyright protection for them until 2047. But after the end of 2002, this special provision has no effect, and posthumous publications gain no extra copyright above life+70.

HTH

[Iphinome]

Thanks that almost makes sense, as much as any of this can make sense. Going ack to the 1909 copyright act sure would be nice.

[gastan]

This is a perfect example of why I pay absolutely no attention to copyright, at least in its current form.

The major reason always given for copyright laws is to promote and protect creativity. In other words, to protect the creators of original works. Bull. It's about protecting publishers. In this case there is no author to protect -- not even any heirs. It's all about a corporation raking in more money just like it always is.

I'm all for protecting creativity. A much more sensible copyright law would protect a work for a REASONABLE time -- say 10-15 years -- not in perpetuity, and never once the author is dead.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by gastan

This is a perfect example of why I pay absolutely no attention to copyright, at least in its current form.

I'm all for protecting creativity. A much more sensible copyright law would protect a work for a REASONABLE time -- say 10-15 years -- not in perpetuity, and never once the author is dead.

I wouldn't be happy with quite such a short limit, nor would I disallow posthumous copyrights.

I'd like to see copyright being a fixed time from publication in general. For posthumous publication, I'd suggest that treating it as if published on the last day of the author's life would seem reasonable, with a proviso that the minimum copyright length for posthumous publication should be (say) five years).

There are good reasons for allowing posthumous publication. It gives authors an incentive to produce works throughout their life, in the knowledge that their works might being an income for their heirs.

My proviso of a (short) minimum copyright length for posthumous publication is to give an incentive to publishers (which now includes all of us) to transcribe and publish otherwise unpublished works by authors.

Unfortunately, these are pointless musings. The Berne convention is so well established internationally that it seems impossible to ever get rid of it.

The best we can do with any hope of success is to campaign for copyright to return to life+50.

[Worldwalker]

When copyright lasted for 56 years maximum, people wrote books. Good books. The tripling (or more) of copyright terms does not seem to have resulted in a similar tripling of the quality of books.

This expansion into the lifetimes of people who weren't even born when the author's grandchildren died of old age benefits one group, and one group only: corporations. Like so many other things, the interests of the citizen have become secondary to the interests of the corporation. It's the golden rule again: he who has the gold makes the rules.

Copyright law was meant "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts" -- that is, to serve the public good. Making it possible to earn a living as an author ensured that the public would have books to read.

I'm fairly sure that Mark Twain, if asked about the "rights" of his distant descendants (or, in this case, a foundation serving as his literary executors), would have said something like "Tell them to write their own damned books."

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

I'm fairly sure that Mark Twain, if asked about the "rights" of his distant descendants (or, in this case, a foundation serving as his literary executors), would have said something like "Tell them to write their own damned books."

Nope. Mark Twain was on the side of perpetual copyright.

http://www.bpmlegal.com/cotwain.html

although it's possible that he might have had a different opinion if free distribution without publishers had been possible in his time.

[Worldwalker]

Actually, right at the beginning he says:

I like that extension of copyright life to the author's life and fifty years afterward. I think that would satisfy any reasonable author, because it would take care of his children. Let the grand-children take care of themselves.

It seems that his real peeve is with publishers:

He goes on publishing the book and as many of his confederates as choose to go into the conspiracy do so, and they rear families in affluence.

You'll note, also, his repeated comments about how few books outlive the then-current copyright -- apparently he's referring to books that anyone wanted enough to reprint. The public wasn't losing much because they didn't want the books anyway, in Twain's view, except for those of a tiny handful of authors. But this was before corporations became "people", except people with marketing machines and eternal life. I think his opinion on copyright today would more closely mirror the "let the grand-children take care of themselves" part of his speech, because very little of the modern issue about copyrights is due to the concerns of individual authors (honestly, do you care about whether some kid who will be born in 2130 makes money off your book?). It's all about the Mouse.

The people "rear[ing] their families in affluence" based on perpetual copyrights wouldn't be the authors; they would, in fact, still be the publishers. Look at it this way:

Let's say you wrote a book this year, you're 30 years old, and this is also the year the first of your two children is born (in fact, to make the math easier, let's declare them twins). You live to the biblical threescore and ten. All of your descendants have families and lifespans exactly like yours. Also, assume all figures are in inflation-adjusted pricing. Your book is published, earning the publisher $8000 a year in profit, and you $8000 a year in royalties. By 2120, you will have 24 living descendants, but assuming only the oldest ones are getting income from your estate, we're talking $1000 a year each (assuming, of course, that the book is still selling). So your great-grandson makes $1000 ... the publisher makes $8000. With each generation the benefit to your individual descendants decreases. In another 20 years, for instance, when your great-grandchildren Charles, Connie, Corey, Carol, Chester, Cecilia, Craig, and Cassandra die, your great-great-grandchildren (Dora, Dave, Denise, Duane... you get the picture) will be getting only $500 each, but the publisher will still be pulling down that full $8000.

And meanwhile, the publisher has sued and bankrupted a half-dozen other authors who wrote something that looked a bit too much like your book -- or at least, they could convince a jury that it did -- leaving nothing for their great-great-grandchildren ... or the authors themselves, for that matter, so they're now doing data entry for an asteroid mining company.

Again: It's not about any of our great-great grandchildren. It's all about the Mouse.

[Teddman]

His autobiography's already been published a few times... I guess this version might be more complete, but I bet the most substantive and interesting parts have already seen print:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Tw..._Autobiography