Andre Norton in the public domain?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by owly

Thanks! In Sweden it's 70 years after the authors death.

Note that the works that people have referred to are ONLY in the public domain in the US - nowhere else.

[gweeks]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Note that the works that people have referred to are ONLY in the public domain in the US - nowhere else.

Not true. Any Berne signatory that implements Rule of Shorter Term would also have them in the public domain. Canada is the only country I've checked on and it does NOT implement Rule of Shorter Term with the US, but does with most other countries.

Greg Weeks

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by gweeks

There is a lot of material period, it's just that I have a specific interest in SF.

Greg Weeks

Me, too.
And I have a specific interest in that era because that is when SF *books* became more than rarities and because a lot of the best writers of the period don't quite get their due.

[peegee]

If you don't know, Project Gutenberg has a sci-fi page where they list what 20th century sci-fi is in the PD
Science Fiction Bookshelf

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by gweeks

Not true. Any Berne signatory that implements Rule of Shorter Term would also have them in the public domain. Canada is the only country I've checked on and it does NOT implement Rule of Shorter Term with the US, but does with most other countries.

Greg Weeks

To the best of my knowledge, neither does any EU country.

[Billi]

I'm no lawyer but I think that the EU respects the Rule of Shorter Terms or, in other words, the length of copyright protection of the original state if this state is not a member of the EU. It only doesn't respect any copyright protection that exceeds the 70 years.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Billi

I'm no lawyer but I think that the EU respects the Rule of Shorter Terms or, in other words, the length of copyright protection of the original state if this state is not a member of the EU.

But not for the US, to the best of my knowledge. I may of course be wrong .

[Billi]

For Germany and the USA, there is a bilateral contract valid that dates back from 1892, but I don't know if other European states have such contracts too. At least, in the EU law from 2006 the US is not mentioned especially as being an exception.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Billi

For Germany and the USA, there is a bilateral contract valid that dates back from 1892, but I don't know if other European states have such contracts too. At least, in the EU law from 2006 the US is not mentioned especially as being an exception.

The UK does have such a deal. These Andre Norton works are not in the UK public domain.

[Billi]

Ah, I see. Then it's the same like in Germany.

[DrNefario]

The wikipedia page on the Shorter Term thing didn't seem to mention any special exclusion for the US from the UK.

That means I illegally read Agatha Christie's Mysterious Affair at Styles earlier this year. Don't tell anyone.

Edit: In fact, it does mention the bilateral treaties. Many EU countries do seem to have agreements with the US, including the UK, from 1891. Even when I try, I can't actually obey this stupid minefield of laws.

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

Edit: In fact, it does mention the bilateral treaties. Many EU countries do seem to have agreements with the US, including the UK, from 1891. Even when I try, I can't actually obey this stupid minefield of laws.

The minefield is why I think that, in certain cases, ignorance of the law ought to be an excuse.

"I didn't know that cutting off grandma's head was wrong!" Not a valid excuse.

"Huh! Page 3483, paragraph 9, subsection c says what?" Valid excuse.

There's such a blizzard of malum prohibitum that no one can know it all, much less understand it all.

Oddly enough, when legislators and law enforcement leaders run afoul of the legal code they often get away with the ignorance excuse.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Fluribus

Oddly enough, when legislators and law enforcement leaders run afoul of the legal code they often get away with the ignorance excuse.

They can usually afford top-level shysters and mouthpieces to keep them out of the hoosegow.

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

They can usually afford top-level shysters and mouthpieces to keep them out of the hoosegow.

Indeed. But it's also often that they get away with it in the media as well.

It's especially interesting to see a senator, with significant responsiblity for the complexity of the statutes, getting a free pass by claiming, "I didn't follow the law because it was too hard to figure out."

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Fluribus

Indeed. But it's also often that they get away with it in the media as well.

It's especially interesting to see a senator, with significant responsiblity for the complexity of the statutes, getting a free pass by claiming, "I didn't follow the law because it was too hard to figure out."

In the UK we have an expression that "ignorance of the law is no excuse". You can't offer as a defence in court the fact that you didn't know that what you were doing was illegal. Does this precept not apply in US law?