Public Domain Day 2016 in the UK: A Special Day

[HarryT]

No problem. Thanks for the correction.

[doubleshuffle]

It's embarrassing. I read her diary as a teenager, somehow got it wrong and never changed my assumption. I think the thing I missed was that the Franks had been among the clever people who understood the signs of the times and left Germany in 1933 already, when Anne was still a small child.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by HarryT

One of the most notable authors whose work will enter the public domain in 2016 in life+70 countries will be Anne Frank, but only of course in its original language (Dutch?). Translations are subject to their own copyright term.

Apparently, the Swiss foundation that owns the copyright to Anne Frank's diary is claiming that her father, in his function as editor, was effectively Anne's co-author. This would extend the copyright on the diary until 2051, since Otto Frank died in 1980.

Article in today's NY Times.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by issybird

Apparently, the Swiss foundation that owns the copyright to Anne Frank's diary is claiming that her father, in his function as editor, was effectively Anne's co-author. This would extend the copyright on the diary until 2051, since Otto Frank died in 1980.

Article in today's NY Times.

A reasonable argument if the editing involved a substantial amount of re-writing. The whole area of the copyright claims of editors is a legal minefield.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

A reasonable argument if the editing involved a substantial amount of re-writing. The whole area of the copyright claims of editors is a legal minefield.

Didn't Otto Frank submit it for publishing after Anne's death?

[HarryT]

I believe so, yes, but that doesn't affect copyright.

[pdurrant]

It sounds like a very cynical attempt to continue a stream of income, after having insisted for the past 68 years that the diaries were entirely Anne's words.

A cursory examination of the evidence suggests that the published (Dutch) versions are a true transcript, edited only by selection of passages and minor copy editing as would be normal for any publication. I can't see a claim for Otto Frank's joint authorship succeeding.

[Freeshadow]

The case of Janusz Korczak is an even fishier milking of an Nazi victim's copyright my dear friend. There it is the government getting the money.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by issybird

Apparently, the Swiss foundation that owns the copyright to Anne Frank's diary is claiming that her father, in his function as editor, was effectively Anne's co-author. This would extend the copyright on the diary until 2051, since Otto Frank died in 1980.

Article in today's NY Times.

I hope it gets turned down since it won't be anyone in the Frank family benefitting.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

I hope it gets turned down since it won't be anyone in the Frank family benefitting.

You are aware that the Anne Frank Foundation is a not-for-profit organisation? All the money it makes goes to hundreds of different charities. Do you really want to see that stop just so that a few people can get a free book?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You are aware that the Anne Frank Foundation is a not-for-profit organisation? All the money it makes goes to hundreds of different charities. Do you really want to see that stop just so that a few people can get a free book?

Yes.

Harry, the ends do not justify the means. If the rule of law means anything, it means that it ought to be followed.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Yes.

Harry, the ends do not justify the means. If the rule of law means anything, it means that it ought to be followed.

Of course, but that wasn't my question. Cinisajoy said that she hoped that they would lose their claim to the copyright, and I find that hope a little curious given the charitable work the foundation does. Of course the rule of law must be followed, but the legal situation seems to be unclear here.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You are aware that the Anne Frank Foundation is a not-for-profit organisation? All the money it makes goes to hundreds of different charities. Do you really want to see that stop just so that a few people can get a free book?

The article I read said the foundation does not disclose where the money actually goes.
Now if the foundation was being transparent with the funds, I would support the charity but as it stands it seems like the foundation heads might be lining their own pockets.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Of course, but that wasn't my question. Cinisajoy said that she hoped that they would lose their claim to the copyright, and I find that hope a little curious given the charitable work the foundation does. Of course the rule of law must be followed, but the legal situation seems to be unclear here.

You made a mistake here, Harry: you took the statements at face value. How do you know for a fact that they're actually doing charitable work with most of the funds and not paying their salaries?

I too hope that the foundation loses; their victory would seriously screw up copyright law, and create thousands upon thousands of orphan works.

And almost as importantly, the copyright already expired - 20 years ago, in fact - in Canada, NZ, Australia, and a lot of other countries. So this squabble was over before it began.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

You made a mistake here, Harry: you took the statements at face value. How do you know for a fact that they're actually doing charitable work with most of the funds and not paying their salaries?

I prefer to have evidence before throwing accusations around. Where is your evidence that the foundation is making inappropriate use of its funds?