

Is Mark Twain's 100-year-old+ autobiography covered by copyright? - grellas
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101022/01035811534/is-mark-twain-s-new-autobiography-covered-by-copyright.shtml

======
CoreDumpling
It might also be worth noting that works published prior to 1923 are in the
public domain only in the United States. In Europe, the "life + 70" rule makes
no such exemption.

Given this situation, the famous _Prelude in C♯ minor_ by Sergei Rachmaninoff
(1873-1943) dates from 1892 and technically is still copyrighted in Europe
until 2013. At the same time, there is a public domain recording made in 1919
(by the composer himself!) that is available on Wikipedia, where it is
presumably legitimate under US copyright law [1].

Meanwhile, various machinations by parties without the best of intentions,
coupled with a special case in French law to extend copyright because of the
world wars, make it such that _Boléro_ (1928) by Maurice Ravel (1875-1937)
still won't enter the public domain until 2015, with royalties sucked up by a
"management agency" while the composer's own home falls into disrepair [2].

On the other hand, it looks like Ottorino Respighi's _Ancient Airs and Dances
No. 3_ (1932) would be public domain in Europe while not in the US because of
the automatic copyright.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sergei_Rachmaninoff_perfor...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sergei_Rachmaninoff_performs_Rachmaninoff%27s_Prelude_in_C_sharp_minor,_Op._3.ogg)

[2]
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2001/apr/25/arts.highere...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2001/apr/25/arts.highereducation)

EDIT: Argh, it took me a half dozen tries to get the first URL right.
Apostrophes seem to get dropped from URLs HN comments, rather than encoded
with %27.

------
starkness
Ultimately it depends upon whether parts of the autobiography were published
after 1923. Those parts that were not published after 1923 would be in the
public domain. And those that were published after 1980 would be as well (he
died in 1910 + 70).

That said, publishers slap copyright notices all the time on works in the
public domain. They cover things like the foreward, introduction, cover, etc.

See this complex chart if you'd like, uh, more clarity:
<http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm>

But this is once again one of those "copyright law is a mess" scenarios.

------
drallison
It's complicated. The unpublished work is certainly in the public domain
insofar as copyright is concerned. If the work was edited for publication,
those changes might be copyright. The final book is a compendium of materials
including the autobiography, front materials, and so forth. The ancillary
materials may have a different copyright than the body of the book. If there
is only one copy of the unpublished work, even if copyright does not apply,
other property rights may. Nothing is ever easy about copyrights.

What can be copyrighted is frequently confused. In particular (Section 102
USC17):

102(a). Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in
original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now
known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or
otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or
device. Works of authorship include ...

102(b). In no case does copyright protection for an original work of
authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of
operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which
it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

On top of this expression/idea dichotomy there is a large body of case law
which further explains what is meant.

~~~
starkness
Copyrightability isn't really what's at issue here, as this is all written
text, which is clearly a form of copyrightable expression.

There is the issue, though, of a copyright on a compilation of public domain
works, or on the edits on top of a public domain work that create a derivative
work. These copyrights don't subsist in the PD works themselves, though.

------
splat
I've wondered about things like this. I once bought a print from the Getty
Museum of a painting by Gerrit Dou (done in the late 1650s), and the Getty had
a copyright notice on the back. Obviously anyone can reproduce the original,
but is the Getty trying to claim that no one can make reproductions of their
reproduction?

~~~
starkness
There is actually a debate as to whether photographs of paintings in the
public domain can be copyrighted. The current consensus in the US appears to
be no. See:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp).

If it was a print of the painting, it would depend upon whether a court would
construe that it had sufficient originality to be a derivative work. But that
wouldn't stop Getty from trying to assert copyright.

------
danbmil99
Artists should start negotiating for contracts that explicitly contribute
their work to public domain after XX years. Shouldn't be that tough for major
directors and musicians, after all the CEO's they negotiate with run public
companies with quarterly spreadsheets. They will be willing to sell out the
20+ year upside for a point or two on the deal.

Artists gotta start thinking about their legacy.

------
joubert
Interesting bits about prior publication. Apparently this new edition will see
more than 50% of the content published for the first time.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Twains_Autobiography>

------
EGreg
It is unfortunate that copyright and patent protections exist in the form they
do today. Not only is the span of copyright a complete joke (if things
continue as they do now, nothing published after 1940 will ever enter the
public domain) but the span of many (if not the majority) of patents is
completely unreasonable given the pace of today's innovation.

Example: software patents. For an industry that moves so quickly, the patent
protection, which was once supposed to foster innovation by giving the
inventor time to bring his invention to market without worrying about it being
stolen, is now used mostly to stifle innovation by patent trolls who do not
bring anything to market themselves, but just sit in wait so they can sue
someone who does.

The marketplace brings about authentic business models that may thrive within
it when they make sense, but not forever. People have to move on and old
industries must give way to new ones through the action of the market. Just as
the luddites futilely tried to hold back progress during the industrial
revolution, just as the printed newspapers are fighting to survive in a world
increasingly dominated by democratized internet news, so too must the
industries -- that once depended on copyright protection -- reinvent
themselves. The record companies and publishers of the world must realize that
with the new technology, the cost of publishing has gone down to pennies. And
therefore, affording copyright protection or any other protection is something
that may not be in the best interest of society anymore. Is this done to
promote the creation of magnificent works of art (which otherwise presumably
no one would undertake) or is it done to cater to the lobbying of a select few
(e.g. Disney lobbying Congress to keep extending the copyright protection)?
Why don't we draft an alternative proposal that fits the current times and let
the people decide?

I have nothing against government protections that make sense. But it seems to
me that these days, such long-lived copyrights and patents are doing more harm
than good.

~~~
kiba
_I have nothing against government protections that make sense. But it seems
to me that these days, such long-lived copyrights and patents are doing more
harm than good._

The issues that you and everyone talk about, exists since almost the beginning
of the Age of Enlightenment. Do you really think you're going to get away with
historical ignorance and change the world for better? Surely, you could do
better than your predecessors in this debate, no matter what sides of the same
coin you are on.

You have fallen into Thomas Jefferson meme and is stuck there until you have
forced yourself to look at radical ideas.

Why do you think and assume that patent and copyright _make sense_?

Have you look at the bygone era of 19th century American literacy market wheb
American writers are starving due to the piracy of massive British literature?
Even more surprising is that some British writers have earned more money than
they would have gained in royalty for a number of years.

What about James Watt? Isn't he a hero of the industrial revolution? Nope. He
is simply one of those steam engine inventor amongst many. He slowed down the
industrial revolution with his patents and wasted his massive intellectual
energy dealing with lawyers and lawsuits against his opponents.

Can we move beyond the tired cliched arguments of enlightenment era
rationalization?

