Nancy Drew still in copyright?

[doreenjoy]

I believe the originals were "work for hire" meaning the authors received no royalties and assigned all rights, including copyright, to the publisher.

[GA Russell]

About ten years ago a small US publisher obtained the rights to reprint the original three or four Hardy Boys and Nancy Drews, and sold them as hardbacks for fifteen dollars each.

[doreenjoy]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

About ten years ago a small US publisher obtained the rights to reprint the original three or four Hardy Boys and Nancy Drews, and sold them as hardbacks for fifteen dollars each.

I remember that. But that could have been done by licensing harback publication rights from the company that owns the copyright. I believe all the Nancy Drew books are still under copyright. I'm much less familiar with the history of the Hardy Boys series.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

About ten years ago a small US publisher obtained the rights to reprint the original three or four Hardy Boys and Nancy Drews, and sold them as hardbacks for fifteen dollars each.

Applewood books - they reprinted nice hardbacks of about the first dozen Hardy Boys books. I have them.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by doreenjoy

I remember that. But that could have been done by licensing harback publication rights from the company that owns the copyright. I believe all the Nancy Drew books are still under copyright. I'm much less familiar with the history of the Hardy Boys series.

To the best of my knowledge, all the HB and ND books - both the originals and the 1950s rewrites - are still under copyright protection pretty much everywhere.

[zipzip]

Originally Posted by BookCat

Not sure if the earlier versions even exist.

Maybe someone knows?
(How would Nancy solve this?)

The first 21 volumes of the earlier versions were reprinted by Applewood books in the 1990s. They do say the copyright is owned by Simon & Schuster and was renewed by Simon & Schuster. In addition, Nancy Drew is a registered trademark of Simon & Schuster.

I don't see how a completely rewritten book, by a different author, can be considered a "renewal," but even if the original editions were technically out of copyright, it would be difficult to publish them since the title character's name is a registered trademark.

[Abecedary]

I can't offer any insight into the mystery of the Nancy Drew copyright, but seeing this thread did remind me of this Tuscadero song from my younger days.

[Mods, feel free to delete the link if you think it's necessary. But the song is from a 7" single that's been out of print for 15 years, and I seriously doubt anyone from the band or label that put it out would have any issues with it being posted here.]

[sminarovich]

As far as I know ND / HB and later the Bobbsey Twins (although I believe at the beginning their was an author names Lee) are not only still under copyright but because they are still be written although totally revamped under the original names of the characters the older titles can not be released.

[evenstr]

On an completely copyright-unrelated note:

I find it interesting that the first couple of books were completely rewritten. I inherited my grandmother's old Nancy Drew books (the ones from the 30s), those were the ones I grew up with. I didn't even know they were rewritten. I wonder how many people do know...

[MarciaCat]

Originally Posted by evenstr

On an completely copyright-unrelated note:

I find it interesting that the first couple of books were completely rewritten. I inherited my grandmother's old Nancy Drew books (the ones from the 30s), those were the ones I grew up with. I didn't even know they were rewritten. I wonder how many people do know...

I know about it; I still have one of my Mom's Nancy Drew books from the 30's-40's and it was totally different from the same title of the 1960's which I'm sure is different than the 21st century title!

[evenstr]

Originally Posted by MarciaCat

I know about it; I still have one of my Mom's Nancy Drew books from the 30's-40's and it was totally different from the same title of the 1960's which I'm sure is different than the 21st century title!

I knew they were releasing new books with different titles...there's even a graphic novel now. It's the fact that they kept the same title and just rewrote the story that surprised me so much.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by zipzip

Here's the thing: Starting in 1959, the Nancy Drew and Hardy Boys books were rewritten. Not just edited, actually rewritten, by different ghost writers than the originals. The U.S. Copyright Office's website shows no earlier date than 1959 for the first in the Nancy Drew series, "The Secret of the Old Clock," or the first Hardy Boys book, "The Tower Treasure." However, these are new works by a different author, retaining only the plot and characters of the 1930 edition. Both say, "New Matter: revision."

So the question is, are these pre-1959 versions of the books out of copyright?

I believe if the early versions didn't have their copyrights renewed, they're now in the public domain. So if anyone has the original books, those could be re-printed or converted to ebook versions.

Before attempting to take on Simon & Schuster's lawyers, someone should check the exact copyright dates of the originals, and confirm that they weren't renewed 28 years later.

Interesting legal puzzle--I suspect that copyright on "revision" has never been challenged before, at least as far as someone attempting to republish the unrevised version on the grounds that it's so substantially different that the revision copyright was basically an attempt to copyright two works at once: the original and the new one.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by BookCat

Wikipedia have an extensive article about the ghostwriting. Apparently, they all were from the beginning. Later, as zip says, they were rewritten in accordance with changing culture. Not sure if the earlier versions even exist.

Maybe someone knows?
(How would Nancy solve this?)

Yes, all of those books were written as work for hire projects. There was no one author who would have held the copyright. I learned that there was no "Carolyn Keene" (purported author of the Nancy Drew series) back when I was still in elementary school (started reading the Nancy Drew series in about 1956, and still have my entire collection .... which only went to about 32 books into the series before I sort of grew out of it).

Yep, found out about the truth of Carolyn Keene about the same time as I discovered the down and dirty on Santa and the Easter Bunny. Those were rough years.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I believe if the early versions didn't have their copyrights renewed, they're now in the public domain. So if anyone has the original books, those could be re-printed or converted to ebook versions.

Before attempting to take on Simon & Schuster's lawyers, someone should check the exact copyright dates of the originals, and confirm that they weren't renewed 28 years later.

Interesting legal puzzle--I suspect that copyright on "revision" has never been challenged before, at least as far as someone attempting to republish the unrevised version on the grounds that it's so substantially different that the revision copyright was basically an attempt to copyright two works at once: the original and the new one.

This is beyond my scope to properly answer, as I am not a lawyer. However, the logic tree is as follows.

1. It's pretty clear that these were "works for hire".

2. Works for hire have their own copyright rules. (I don't know what they are, but they are different).

3. You would have to look up the rules at the time they were written (which should be the 1909 copyright rules, I think).

4 See if the originals were renewed (if necessary). If not, get a good lawyer, 'cause you're gonna get sued anyway. (Feel free to counter-sue for damages).

6 Change all the Trademarked names to completely different names, like Belinda Horsestraddle.

7 If you've got that far, still on track as public domain, then you can release them as public domain works, preferable with a preface explaining why you consider them in the public domain, with the whole logic chain.

Finally, if you do this, you're on your own. I accept no responsibility for the results.

You see, Doc Savage was not rewritten, and the paperback would count as renewals if done on the necessary time basis, if required. That's why Conde Nast had no problem in Court....

[Greg Anos]

Y'all got my curiosity up. I'm starting to research. I was already wrong on one point. The 1909 act, as in force between 1928 and 1939, did not have a separate rule for works for hire, according to the copy of the law on the Copyright Office Website. I will dive in further, for the periods up to the late 1950's....


Here's more from 1909 -

6. Copyright on compilations of works in public domain or of copyrighted works; subsisting copyrights not affected. — Compilations or abridgments, adaptations, arrangements, dramatizations, translations, or other versions of works in the public domain, or of copyrighted works when produced with the consent of the proprietor of the copyright in such works, or works republished with new matter, shall be regarded as new works subject to copyright under the provisions of this title but the publication of any such new works shall not affect the force or validity of any subsisting copyright upon the matter employed or any part thereof, or be construed to imply an exclusive right to such use of the original works, or to secure or extend copyright in such original works.

23. Duration; renewal. — The copyright secured by this title shall endure for twenty-eight years from the date of first publication, whether the copyrighted work bears the author’s true name or is published anonymously or under an assumed name: Provided, That in the case of any posthumous work or of any periodical, cyclopedic, or other composite work upon which the copyright was originally secured by the proprietor thereof, or of any work copyrighted by a corporate body (otherwise than as assignee or licensee of the individual author) or by an employer for whom such work is made for hire, the proprietor of such copyright shall be entitled to a renewal and extension of the copyright in such work for the further term of twenty-eight years when application for such renewal and extension shall have been made to the copyright office and duly registered therein within one year prior to the expiration of the original term of copyright : And provided further, That in the case of any other copyrighted work, including a contribution by an individual author to a periodical or to a cyclopedic or other composite work when such contribution has been separately registered, the author of such work, if still living, or the widow, widower, or children of the author, if the author be not living, or if such author, widow, widower, or children be not living, then the author’s executors, or in the absence of a will, his next of kin shall be entitled to a renewal and extension of the copyright in such work for a further term of twenty-eight years when application for such renewal and extension shall have been made to the copyright office and duly registered therein within one year prior to the expiration of the original term of copyright: And provided further, That in default of the registration of such application for renewal and extension, the copyright in any work shall determine at the expiration of twenty-eight years from first publication.

This verbage of the law was unchanged from 1928 to July 29, 1947

Next set of verbage....

§ 7. COPYRIGHT ON COMPILATIONS OF WORKS IN PUBLIC DOMAIN OR OF COPYRIGHTED WORKS; SUBSISTING COPYRIGHTS NOT AFFECTED.— Compilations or abridgments, adaptations, arrangements, dramatizations, translations, or other versions of works in the public domain or of copyrighted works when produced with, the consent of the proprietor of the copyright in such works, or works republished with new matter, shall be regarded as new works subject to copyright under the provisions of this title; but the publication of any such new works shall not affect the force or validity of any subsisting copyright upon the matter employed or any part thereof, or be construed to imply an exclusive right to such use of the original works, or to secure or extend copyright in such original works.

§ 24. DURATION; RENEWAL AND EXTENSION.—The copyright secured by this title shall endure for twenty-eight years from the date of first publication, whether the copyrighted work bears the author’s true name or is published anonymously or under an assumed name: Provided, That in the case of any posthumous work or of any periodical, cyclopedic, or other composite work upon which the copyright was originally secured by the proprietor thereof, or of any work copyrighted by a corporate body (otherwise than as assignee or licensee of the individual author) or by an employer for whom such work is made for hire, the proprietor of such copyright shall be entitled to a renewal and extension of the copyright in such work for the further term of twenty-eight years when application for such renewal and extension shall have been made to the copyright office and duly registered therein within one year prior to the expiration of the original term of copyright: And provided further, That in the case of any other copyrighted work, including a contribution by an individual author to a periodical or to a cyclopedic or other composite work, the author of such work, if still living, or the widow, widower, or children of the author if the author be not living, or if such author, widow, widower, or children be not living, then the author’s executors, or in the absence of a will, his next of kin shall be entitled to a renewal and extension of the copyright in such work for a further term of twenty-eight years when application for such renewal and extension shall have been made to the copyright, office and duly registered therein within one year prior to the expiration of the original term of copyright: And provided further, That in default of the registration of such application for renewal and extension, the copyright in any work shall determine at the expiration of twenty-eight years from first publication.


This verbage held true from the period July 30, 1947 through September 18, 1962. (I stopped looking then...)