Quote:
Originally Posted by Jovvi
However, Catladys position seems to be that no other than the copyright holder can make any changes, even if the changes is made clear...
I could possibly have understood this position if it was only the acual author of the story that could make the changes, however with the copyright laws beeing what they are I think this argument falls... Say that someone (a grandchild or other heir) holds the copyright some 60 years after the author died and then publish a new "improved" version? They would then not even have to declare any changes were done and that would be ok? What is to say they have any better knowlege of the original authors wishes than anyone else?
|
Catlady's position is:
The author and/or the copyright holder are the owners of the material. They can do whatever they want. I don't have to like it, and I don't, beyond the fixing of typos or egregious errors from one printing to the next.
Of course the copyright holder can change the material after the author's death. I think it's stupid, but again, it's their call, not mine. Now, presumably, when there's a reissue of an older work, whatever the publisher perceives as added value is going to be touted to increase sales, so I expect there'd be some indication of change ("new and improved!").
Once a book is in public domain, it should be considered a historical artifact. It is what it is. If someone wants to annotate it, or add a glossary, or include commentary, great--all that can be useful to a modern reader. But the basic text should be left alone.