Today is Public Domain Day

[Rob G.]

Originally Posted by omk3

I find all this enormously confusing.

Why should any specific work be public domain in one country and not in another? It was most probably only created in one country, shouldn't the laws of this country apply?

Say I am in Greece. I realize that the greek translation of a book has a different copyright than the original and that is fair. But if I want to read the original of say, an australian author, why should the greek copyright laws apply, and not the australian ones? It's a book written by a non-greek, in a different country, in a different language, most probably not even available in greece at all.

Is there some underlying logic in all this that I just can't see?

And as ggareau suggested, if I travel to canada and create a graphic novel based on a book that is public domain there, I have the right to do it. Then I make it freely available on the internet, on a canadian server. Anyone not currently in canada who goes to my website and reads it is breaking the law? Even me, if I travel away from canada again, can I not read my own graphic novel? Isn't it absurd? Or is it just me?

And this is (one of the reasons) why I think the laws as they stand are absurd and need to be changed. They just don't work in a "global" economy.

For instance, I'm a huge music fan, specifically into jazz. It's been baffling to me to see works created in the US that are 50 years old becoming public domain in the EU. I don't necessarily disagree with the 50 year limit, it's just bizzare to me to see works of artist compiled into affordable sets, across labels and time periods, in Europe when in the country of origin those same sets are technically illegal. Same thing as when I was in Tokyo and saw movies such as King Kong, Gone with the Wind and Alice in Wonderland legally being sold at newsstands in cheap unofficial versions as they are public domain in Japan. Just makes no sense to me, and I feel it's my country that is out of step with the rest of the world. (Of course, we'll see when the Beatles' records start falling into the public domain in the EU if those laws aren't magically changed. I'm not going to be shocked if they are.)

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Your bookstore is unlikely to carry such items. They can only get from publishers/distributors what it is legal for them to sell.

I can name three books off the top of my head that were pulled from publication for copyright violations. Buyers of those books weren't required to return them or pay any damages.

Legally, there's no difference between the copyright violation of "this book is in the public domain elsewhere, but not here, and therefore infringes on someone else's copyright" and "this book contains passages that were quoted without permission and therefore infringes on someone else's copyright."

It's not the customer's job to research the legality of the store's offerings; the store needs to make sure it's selling legal content. And if the store is multinational, like Fictionwise, it needs to make sure its content is legal in every location it sells.

Among the problems: I, as a customer, have no way of confirming whether FW is paying the *correct* publisher for permission to sell their books. I have no way of knowing if a free book is free because it's a promo, or because it's in the public domain.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Jellby

Why not? Wodehouse's current copyright holder/publisher might care. Maybe they're not all-powerful corporations, but some time they'll find someone that is.

If I'm a rights holder, my concern isn't the law, it's revenue. Copyright law is relevant insofar as it allows me to defend my rights and (hopefully) generate revenue. So my actions will be pragmatic, based on what I feel I stand to gain or avoid losing. PG US has a lot of Wodehouse stuff up because it's now PD in the US. I haven't heard of the Wodehouse estate trying to make PG impose download restrictions on places where it isn't PD. What would the benefit be?

PG Australia has two pages of "Plus Fifty" - works that are in the PD in Australia.

They make no attempt to restrict downloads. They simply make it clear that they are PD in Australia.

Anyone unhappy with PG Australia's hosting of various works would have to hire an Australian lawyer and file suit in Australia. That would cost. What would their incentive be to do it? Little or none.

The last time I recall that issue arising at PG Australia, they were hosting some Doc Savage titles. Conde Nast claimed rights, purchased from Lester Dent's widow. They had nibbles from Sony about possible licensing of Doc Savage and The Shadow for film production, with 8 figure license fees. They were aggressively going after sites that had e-versions available (like Blackmask) to assert their rights and preserve the potential revenue stream.

Someone over here dropped PG AU a note about possible issues, and PG AU removed the titles so they wouldn't hear from lawyers representing CN. CN would probably think it had sufficient motivation to file suit in Oz, so this was simple caution on PG Oz's part.

In a different area, a local contact was complaining a few years about the fact that every comic book published has high quality scans available for download the day after it hit the stands, and that he could help the publishers track down the sources and stop it, and who should he speak to at the comics publishers? The blunt answer from folks in the industry was "No one, because they don't care. The real money for them isn't sales of paper comic books - it's licensing the characters for film and TV. Scans of paper comics don't threaten their rights or deprive them of enough revenue to make trying to stop it worth the trouble and expense."

Ultimately, I think this is an issue if someone thinks there is sufficient money involved to make it an issue. For the vast majority of PD here but not there titles, that will not be the case.
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I can name three books off the top of my head that were pulled from publication for copyright violations. Buyers of those books weren't required to return them or pay any damages.

How could they? If the buyer paid cash, there'd be no way to identify them

Legally, there's no difference between the copyright violation of "this book is in the public domain elsewhere, but not here, and therefore infringes on someone else's copyright" and "this book contains passages that were quoted without permission and therefore infringes on someone else's copyright."

Yes, and I'm aware of some cases where books got pulled after publication for reasons like that. But the book was offered for sale because the publisher wasn't aware of the problem when they published it, and found out the hard way afterward. It's a different matter than "the publisher didn't have the right to offer that book in that territory".

It's not the customer's job to research the legality of the store's offerings; the store needs to make sure it's selling legal content. And if the store is multinational, like Fictionwise, it needs to make sure its content is legal in every location it sells.

Among the problems: I, as a customer, have no way of confirming whether FW is paying the *correct* publisher for permission to sell their books. I have no way of knowing if a free book is free because it's a promo, or because it's in the public domain.

Agreed, and it's not your problem. It's on Fictionwise.

But in the specific case of books PD here but not there, I don't see much incentive for Fictionwise to try to impose restrictions. Who would go through the time, trouble, and expense to try to force them to do so, and why? It won't happen unless someone sees a pot of gold at the end of a rights rainbow.
______
Dennis

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

If I'm a rights holder, my concern isn't the law, it's revenue. Copyright law is relevant insofar as it allows me to defend my rights and (hopefully) generate revenue. So my actions will be pragmatic, based on what I feel I stand to gain or avoid losing. PG US has a lot of Wodehouse stuff up because it's now PD in the US. I haven't heard of the Wodehouse estate trying to make PG impose download restrictions on places where it isn't PD. What would the benefit be?

PG Australia has two pages of "Plus Fifty" - works that are in the PD in Australia.

They make no attempt to restrict downloads. They simply make it clear that they are PD in Australia.

Anyone unhappy with PG Australia's hosting of various works would have to hire an Australian lawyer and file suit in Australia. That would cost. What would their incentive be to do it? Little or none.

The last time I recall that issue arising at PG Australia, they were hosting some Doc Savage titles. Conde Nast claimed rights, purchased from Lester Dent's widow. They had nibbles from Sony about possible licensing of Doc Savage and The Shadow for film production, with 8 figure license fees. They were aggressively going after sites that had e-versions available (like Blackmask) to assert their rights and preserve the potential revenue stream.

Someone over here dropped PG AU a note about possible issues, and PG AU removed the titles so they wouldn't hear from lawyers representing CN. CN would probably think it had sufficient motivation to file suit in Oz, so this was simple caution on PG Oz's part.

In a different area, a local contact was complaining a few years about the fact that every comic book published has high quality scans available for download the day after it hit the stands, and that he could help the publishers track down the sources and stop it, and who should he speak to at the comics publishers? The blunt answer from folks in the industry was "No one, because they don't care. The real money for them isn't sales of paper comic books - it's licensing the characters for film and TV. Scans of paper comics don't threaten their rights or deprive them of enough revenue to make trying to stop it worth the trouble and expense."

Ultimately, I think this is an issue if someone thinks there is sufficient money involved to make it an issue. For the vast majority of PD here but not there titles, that will not be the case.
______
Dennis

If I may respectfully correct, the P.D. in Australia Doc Savages are still there. Just popped over and checked....

The issue is still very much unsettled. I wish some group like EFF would be willing to litigate it in, say Canada. There is no case law anywhere that I know of concerning extra-territorial rights for copyright....

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

If I may respectfully correct, the P.D. in Australia Doc Savages are still there. Just popped over and checked....

The issue is still very much unsettled. I wish some group like EFF would be willing to litigate it in, say Canada. There is no case law anywhere that I know of concerning extra-territorial rights for copyright....

They must have gone back up, because I was the reason they were taken down.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

If I may respectfully correct, the P.D. in Australia Doc Savages are still there. Just popped over and checked....

They are recent additions, as they are PD in Oz as far as the site administrator knows. The stuff they were carrying before was removed.

(It happened a couple of years back, and I believe the sender of the cautionary note was one of the MR folks, trying to protect the site.)

The issue is still very much unsettled. I wish some group like EFF would be willing to litigate it in, say Canada. There is no case law anywhere that I know of concerning extra-territorial rights for copyright....

It would be nice to have clear cut precedents established.

But as mentioned, I think this is a case of follow the money. It will be an issue insofar as someone thinks they can actually sell the stuff for enough to make trying to enforce the rights worth the while. For the majority of PD here but not there material, I doubt anyone really cares.
______
Dennis

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Hmmm - I'm not at all sure that's right. Fictionwise can know what they can legally sell; they can't be expected to know what is or what is not in the public domain in every other country in the world; that's entirely unreasonable - surely it has to be the buyer's responsibility?

They are distributing it so they only have to know what holds in their country. Why should the status in the customers country matter?

And why should it be the buyers responsibility according to your argument? It is practically impossible for the buyer to check that the seller have the right to distribute something.

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

PG US has a lot of Wodehouse stuff up because it's now PD in the US. I haven't heard of the Wodehouse estate trying to make PG impose download restrictions on places where it isn't PD. What would the benefit be?

The benefit? People in other countries would buy the books instead of downloading them for free from PG, which would bring benefits to the publisher/estate.

But anyway, there is a difference between PG and Fictionwise (and others), which is often a key difference for the law: Fictionwise makes profit from selling, PG does not.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Jellby

The benefit? People in other countries would buy the books instead of downloading them for free from PG, which would bring benefits to the publisher/estate.

They would?

Wodehouse wrote in English, and his works were gentle satires on upper class English life and mores. His principal audience will be in English speaking countries, and even then he'll be a niche item.

I don't see the potential lost revenue from folks downloading an electronic version vs buying a pbook to be enough to make any legal action against PG versions worth the bother.

But anyway, there is a difference between PG and Fictionwise (and others), which is often a key difference for the law: Fictionwise makes profit from selling, PG does not.

PG doesn't sell, so no, they don't. Fictionwise does, but how much are we talking about on a PD here but not there title?

Again, I call money the determining factor. People will clamor to enforce rights in direct proportion to how much they think the rights are worth. For the vast majority of stuff PD here but not there, the answer to "How much are the rights worth?" will be "nothing".
______
Dennis

[tompe]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Again, I call money the determining factor. People will clamor to enforce rights in direct proportion to how much they think the rights are worth. For the vast majority of stuff PD here but not there, the answer to "How much are the rights worth?" will be "nothing".
______
Dennis

Not all people will. We have famous example were survivors did not want to see the book in print and tries to stop it. They were not motivated by money.

Since Wodehouse is still reprinted I would suspect the books sell a lot. Most book reading people I know own a lot of Wodehouse books.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by tompe

Not all people will. We have famous example were survivors did not want to see the book in print and tries to stop it. They were not motivated by money.

Yes, but they're an edge case. In most cases, follow the money.

Since Wodehouse is still reprinted I would suspect the books sell a lot. Most book reading people I know own a lot of Wodehouse books.

There are lots of things in the public domain that get printed and sold, and I know a chap who makes a nice living, thank you, making POD editions of stuff from PG. There are still enough people who want a paper copy to justify a publisher producing one, with the added incentive that is is PD, and they can just do so without worrying about negotiating with an author or agent and paying a fee.

But meanwhile, if the Wodehouse estate has an objection to the PG electronic versions, I'm unaware of it.

Sooner or later, a book enters the public domain, and once it has, the wishes of the estate cease to matter. There are no longer rights for it to hold. The current issue is the steadily lengthening period before works do enter the public domain.
______
Dennis

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

If I'm a rights holder, my concern isn't the law, it's revenue. Copyright law is relevant insofar as it allows me to defend my rights and (hopefully) generate revenue. So my actions will be pragmatic, based on what I feel I stand to gain or avoid losing. PG US has a lot of Wodehouse stuff up because it's now PD in the US. I haven't heard of the Wodehouse estate trying to make PG impose download restrictions on places where it isn't PD. What would the benefit be?

But this, if you recall, Dennis, was precisely the reason that Amazon pulled George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four". It had been uploaded via the Mobipocket "eBookBase" system by a publisher for whom it was in the public domain, and found its way to Amazon, which it shouldn't have done. The book is still in copyright in the US, and has a US rights-holder, who (not unreasonably) objected to this violation of their rights (they were selling the "legit" US edition in the Kindle store), leading to Amazon pulling the edition that wasn't legal to sell in the US.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But this, if you recall, Dennis, was precisely the reason that Amazon pulled George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four". It had been uploaded via the Mobipocket "eBookBase" system by a publisher for whom it was in the public domain, and found its way to Amazon, which it shouldn't have done. The book is still in copyright in the US, and has a US rights-holder, who (not unreasonably) objected to this violation of their rights (they were selling the "legit" US edition in the Kindle store), leading to Amazon pulling the edition that wasn't legal to sell in the US.

Yes, but how does that disagree with anything I've said?

There was a US rights holder where it isn't PD selling an electronic edition, who understandably squawked about the illegal-over-here PD version. For them, it was money.

But note that Amazon did not vet the PD version when it was uploaded and say "Oops, can't offer that!" They simply removed it when they got a complaint.

That's what everyone will do. Witness MR's boilerplate about reporting rights violations all over the eBook Uploads area. It probably isn't possible to check the worldwide rights status of every offering if you are Amazon, Fictionwise, or the like. All you can do is make clear you do not intentionally offer stuff in rights violation, provide a simple means for reporting them, and take the offenders down when reported.

Respecting publishing territories is a different matter. a publisher can tell Amazon "We have the rights to offer the book in the following countries..." and Amazon can use geo-location based on the IP address of the user to determine whether they can buy that edition. (Yes, there are ways around this with proxies, but the majority of users won't know how to do that.)

The laws governing intellectual property rights tend to be set up to require you as the rights holder to defend them. It's largely on you to look for and take action about rights violations, with the corollary that if you don't defend your rights, you may lose them.

For example, some years back some fans wrote to SF/fantasy writer Katherine Kurtz. They wanted her permission publish a magazine of fan fiction set in her Deryni universe, which they would then sell. Kurtz sad "no". They did it anyway. Katherine had to sue, or risk losing rights to her own creations. She sued, won, and the fans were out large amounts of money for legal fees, court costs, and ads in the relevant trade papers admitting that Katherine had the rights and they had violated them.

Because the rights holder must police them, money is a factor. It may be a simple matter of a take down request, assuming you can easily prove you are the rights holder. It may require hiring a lawyer and filing suit. It takes time, and probably costs money, so it's more likely to be done if the rights holder sees money involved.

So Fictionwise isn't going to try to check the rights status of every book they offer. How could they? They'll offer the book, and apologize and take it down if someone documents that it is a rights violation, and the usual reason someone will do that is over money.
______
Dennis

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Yes, but how does that disagree with anything I've said?

Apologies if I misunderstood you. I had thought that you were saying that it was unlikely that anyone would take any action against people selling a book that was in the public domain in the "wrong" country; I was using the example of "Nineteen Eighty-Four" as an example of where a rights-holder had done precisely that. But I totally accept your point that it's about revenue, not copyright law as such.