Copyright question: died with no heirs

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

No, not at all. The state becomes the new owner and can do with it what he wants, just as any rights holder could. The free state of Bavaria famously owns the rights to Hitler's My Struggle, e.g., and does not allow any new editions.

You and I are the state.

[gweeks]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I'm not sure the gov't in the US can take possession of IP; its publications are automatically in the public domain. And I find it fascinating that googling turns up *nothing*, as if this were an obscure situation that's never come up in any legal setting.

The U.S. government generally doesn't get involved. It's the state government that handles it. Yes the state governments can hold copyrights. It generally makes it impossible to republish for years.

Greg Weeks

[Crossroad Press]

I believe you'll find, upon further research, that in the US (in any case) It's not so much the "rights" as the copyright that is in question. If a work goes out of copyright, and no one is the heir to the estate, then (according to the silly life plus 70 years thing) - or so lawyers have told me - no one can publish the work. It has no copyright, and there is no one with a valid claim to establish a new copyright - though, of course, if you could find an office in the "state" who was willing to give it a shot, precedent might be set. I doubt the state would do that for free, though, and what is most likely is that some really high price, or percentage would be set by a government office with no idea the actual worth - or lack thereof - and the project would die.

[QuantumIguana]

There's no new copyright, the clock starts ticking when the author dies. There is always, in principal, an heir. Everyone has relatives, even if they are distant. The person with a claim to the estate may not even be aware that they have a claim. So the book can sit in limbo with no one legally able to copy it because it is impossible to obtain permission. Physical property probablt isn't going to be allowed to sit abandoned for decade after decade.

[Elfwreck]

Thanks, all. This has been helpful; I've sorted out what areas of the law to research and started figuring out which state offices to pester with questions. (Not that I expect useful answers, but I'm happy to have various state commissioners disturbed over the tangled mess that is orphan works copyright law. The only way the laws will get fixed is if enough people are aware how broken they are.)

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Crossroad Press

I believe you'll find, upon further research, that in the US (in any case) It's not so much the "rights" as the copyright that is in question. If a work goes out of copyright, and no one is the heir to the estate, then (according to the silly life plus 70 years thing) - or so lawyers have told me - no one can publish the work. It has no copyright, and there is no one with a valid claim to establish a new copyright - though, of course, if you could find an office in the "state" who was willing to give it a shot, precedent might be set. I doubt the state would do that for free, though, and what is most likely is that some really high price, or percentage would be set by a government office with no idea the actual worth - or lack thereof - and the project would die.

I don't understand your post.
If a work goes out of copyright, it is in the public domain, and anyone can publish a copy. No, they don't get a new copyright, why should they?
If you are still inside life+70 of the writer, then the work hasn't gone out of copyright.

[GA Russell]

It's not clear to me what catastrophe would happen in the real world if you just went ahead and published the work.

If the book is a money maker, you could lose everything if an heir is discovered and he sues for royalties owed.

But if no heir is discovered, who would stop you?

And if the right is owned by the state, is anyone aware of a case in which the state demanded the publication be halted and subsequently refused to allow the publication of the work? I guess it's possible, but I would be interested to learn of such a case.

I suspect that in the real world this would be a case of, "It's easier to ask forgiveness than permission."

The scenario in this thread, and we saw this a couple of years ago in another thread about orphaned works, is the idea that no one claims to own the copyright, but the world will end if you go ahead and publish and then a rights holder comes forward later. I believe that in that case you would have to pay damages in the amount of the royalties you have earned to that point. As long as you don't spend the money, I don't see a problem.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by plib

It goes to Disney!

LOL

[plib]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Well, the advantages of putting a lifesaving drug in the public domain are much greater than the advantage of putting LOTR in the public domain.

So your argument is that copyright should only be extended for something that has no benefit to the public?

It has the makings of a good process. If I like something and find it of benefit I can copy it, if I don't - you can keep it as long as you like.

Gets my vote. It makes as much sense as the current system, more in fact.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

It's not clear to me what catastrophe would happen in the real world if you just went ahead and published the work.

If the book is a money maker, you could lose everything if an heir is discovered and he sues for royalties owed.

But if no heir is discovered, who would stop you?

We're considering this. We're also looking into what documentation exists, because there may be a letter or something granting publication rights in something less than formal contract language.

The scenario in this thread, and we saw this a couple of years ago in another thread about orphaned works, is the idea that no one claims to own the copyright, but the world will end if you go ahead and publish and then a rights holder comes forward later. I believe that in that case you would have to pay damages in the amount of the royalties you have earned to that point. As long as you don't spend the money, I don't see a problem.

We may go ahead and do that. (We'd spend the money. But we'd be aware that, In Case Of Lawsuit, we might have to give it all back and then some.)

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by plib

So your argument is that copyright should only be extended for something that has no benefit to the public?

It has the makings of a good process. If I like something and find it of benefit I can copy it, if I don't - you can keep it as long as you like.

Gets my vote. It makes as much sense as the current system, more in fact.

No, that's not my argument at all. I didn't make an argument. Don't put words in my mouth. It's dishonest.

The question was why life-saving drugs were protected for a shorter time than copyrighted works. I suggested a possible reason. That was the extent of my contribution.

If you want to make the argument listed above, feel free. But don't pretend that it's my argument.

[plib]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

No, that's not my argument at all. I didn't make an argument. Don't put words in my mouth. It's dishonest.

The question was why life-saving drugs were protected for a shorter time than copyrighted works. I suggested a possible reason. That was the extent of my contribution.

If you want to make the argument listed above, feel free. But don't pretend that it's my argument.

OK. I took it as the presentation of an argument, you made it as an observation. From the context it could be taken either way. If you don't claim the argument then I'm happy not to assign it to you.

Which means, I guess, that I still don't have an explanation as to why the Mouse is worth more protection than Lipitor or heart valve replacements.

[LuvReadin]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

[*]They are not, exactly, unpublished works; they are drafts of works that were later published in various places. However, the drafts were changed rather a lot for publication, and she knows there'd be interest in the earlier versions.[/LIST]

This may make the issue more complicated. Even if the drafts were changed almost beyond recognition, the likelihood is that the copyright was granted jointly to the publisher (this is nearly always a condition of publication, unless the author is sufficiently well-known to be able to insist on their own terms). Thus, the publisher is likely to be joint holder of that copyright along with the author's heirs, and in most cases, the best place to start looking is generally with the publisher. It will almost certainly need to grant permission (assuming it still exists, and wishes to do so), and may have a record of who the copyright was to have been passed onto in the event of the author's death.

[Elfwreck]

I believe the published works were short works, published under serialization rights rather than permanent reprint rights. (We're looking into exact details.)

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

You and I are the state.

Not true. The state is formed of people, but is not the people. There's a difference. The US is a republic, which means the people grant power to the offices, and they govern us. That which the government owns in a republic, is not considered public domain, unless specified otherwise. A true democracy is more in line with what you say, however, show me an example of a true democracy. I believe you'll find it doesn't exist.