Public Domain Day 2016 in the UK: A Special Day

[murg]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You seem to want to turn the legal system on its head. Nobody has to provide evidence that they aren't committing a crime; if you think that they are, it's your responsibility to provide evidence to support your accusation. Where is your evidence?

Sorry, I wasn't aware that this was a court of law.

[meeera]

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?

I don't want to see a precedent of editors succeeding in claiming co-authorship and co-ownership of copyrights. Apart from the issue of extending an already extremely long term of copyright, how about the issue of editors in the future potentially taking revenue away from authors' families? It's a giant nest of worms.

[murg]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

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.

Sounds like a particular bad novel: a bunch of seemingly unconnected people are murdered, and our erstwhile detective, who of course is battling his/her own set of demons, is drawn into the investigation against his/her will. Of course, he/she discovers, completely by accident, that the murder victims were all junior editors twenty years ago...

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's a little bit of a red herring. Editing is generally done as a "work for hire", ie you employ an editor to do the job for you for a fixed fee. "Work for hire" does not grant any copyright rights to the editor.

I would note, though, that there are many example of editors claiming rights as co-author. Eric Flint has edited many books published by Baen in which he is listed as co-author due to his creative input as editor. It depends on the terms of the specific contract under which the editor is employed.

The author needs to be aware of the contractual terms under which his or her book is being edited. Any "creative" input to a book has the potential to grant copyright rights.

Except that the foundation is claiming that the editor is now the co-author, and in the EU copyright lasts under death plus 70 years. That includes employee authors, BTW.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_f...hire_amendment

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Except that the foundation is claiming that the editor is now the co-author, and in the EU copyright lasts under death plus 70 years. That includes employee authors, BTW.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_f...hire_amendment

Nobody is suggesting that Otto Frank's contribution to the book was "work for hire". He was presumably Anne's "literary executor" in the same way that Christopher Tolkien was for J.R.R.

It's ultimately for a court to decide, should it go that far, whether or not Mr Frank's contributions to the book were sufficiently creative to attract copyright protection.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by meeera

I don't want to see a precedent of editors succeeding in claiming co-authorship and co-ownership of copyrights. Apart from the issue of extending an already extremely long term of copyright, how about the issue of editors in the future potentially taking revenue away from authors' families? It's a giant nest of worms.

Which is precisely why I said in a previous post that any author who employs a "creative editor", such as a story development editor, needs to be very clear what the contractual terms are under which the work is being done, because otherwise there is a possibility that the kind of "can of worms" that you refer to could crop up years down the road.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Which is precisely why I said in a previous post that any author who employs a "creative editor", such as a story development editor, needs to be very clear what the contractual terms are under which the work is being done, because otherwise there is a possibility that the kind of "can of worms" that you refer to could crop up years down the road.

In this particular case, the author had no input. . .

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

In this particular case, the author had no input. . .

Your evidence of this is.... ?

[Fbone]

I'm surprised more authors/publishers don't do this. Simply add a child or grandchild as co-author to extend the copyright.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Fbone

I'm surprised more authors/publishers don't do this. Simply add a child or grandchild as co-author to extend the copyright.

Well, it wouldn't automatically extend the copyright. Only the material that had been added by the child or grandchild would have the extended copyright. Once the copyright had expired on the original edition, anyone would be free to re-publish that. In just the same way that if you buy, let's say, a "Penguin Classics" edition of Dickens, only the modern introduction and notes are protected by copyright; the actual text of the book can be freely copied.

The issue in this specific case is that the claim is being made that Mr Frank had creative input in the original published edition, so there is no earlier edition to compare it to. Whether or not that claim is valid would be something that a court would have to decide.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The issue in this specific case is that the claim is being made that Mr Frank had creative input in the original published edition, so there is no earlier edition to compare it to. Whether or not that claim is valid would be something that a court would have to decide.

But for many years they have claimed that Anne was the sole author, and that the published diary really was Anne's words.

And since the original manuscripts have been compared to published versions, it seems clear that that is what they are. I don't see that this claim has any merit whatsoever.

[Fbone]

Yes, but creative input doesn't leave a trail. An author can say my spouse/child read my draft and suggested several changes or contributed to the draft in a meaningful way.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

But for many years they have claimed that Anne was the sole author, and that the published diary really was Anne's words.

And since the original manuscripts have been compared to published versions, it seems clear that that is what they are. I don't see that this claim has any merit whatsoever.

It'll be interesting to see what the outcome of this is. Will anyone try to publish the Dutch original once the life+70 copyright has expired, and will the Foundation mount a legal challenge to it? Time will tell.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Fbone

Yes, but creative input doesn't leave a trail. An author can say my spouse/child read my draft and suggested several changes or contributed to the draft in a meaningful way.

You'd need to be able to present proof of your claim if it were to have any merit. Eg, changes suggested by a story development editor would be in writing, so there'd be a paper trail.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

In this particular case, the author had no input. . .

Originally Posted by HarryT

Your evidence of this is.... ?

Err... we are talking about Anne Frank right?