Quote:
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.