Forum: Story Discussion and Feedback

Doesn't that have implications about how long the stories have before their copyright runs out?

Irrelevant divergence - a quiz question: Who lives at 9 Bywater Street?

AJ

Doesn't that have implications about how long the stories have before their copyright runs out?

Not in most countries. Under the Berne convention, which most countries use, you won the copyright from creation until you die, then your heirs own it until 50 years, and later 75 years after your death. I think the USA is the only country that tied the route of a set number of years for copyright to match patents and trademarks. But they now go with 75 years after death, except for those covered under the old copyright laws before it was changed.

BTW Which Bywater street, there are several around the world.

Not quite. It's a flat 95 years for corporate authors and for normal authors, copyrights were extended to life + 95 years in the mid to late 1990s (I don't remember the exact year the copyright extension act was passed).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries%27_copyright_length

Shows most countries around the world are life +50 or life +70 years

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States

shows since 1992 it's been life + 70 years except for work for hire - that's where you get paid to write it for another (say writing a work manual) then the company gets 120 years from creation or 95 years from first publication - whichever is shorter.

In the US anything before 1923 is now clearly public domain, stuff since then is mixed until 1992.

In the US if you write a screenplay you have copyright unless you sell the full rights and it's life + 70. If the studio pays you a weekly wage to write an adaptation the studio owns the full rights to the adaptation for the corporate life span, then they own the filmed version under a different copyright.

9 Bywater street - George Smiley

Correct :)

AJ

Alec Guiness the best Smiley

No objections from this quarter.

AJ

Filing for copyright does not alter the origination date whatsoever.

In that case, what do you list as the original copyright date? According to Bowker, you list "the first publication date", not the day you first conceived or wrote selected portions.

In that case, what do you list as the original copyright date? According to Bowker, you list "the first publication date", not the day you first conceived or wrote selected portions.

OK, here is where history is important. Under the Berne Convention the copyright applies as soon as you create it, so when I start writing a story that's when the copyright is started. However, under the original US law the copyright was set as the date of first publication. Which is why so many people think you must publish to have copyright - at one time that was true under US law. However, I believe the 1992 change to the US copyright laws brought it in line with the rest of the world as date of creation.

Mind you, if there is a court case over who first created what, evidence of external copies will win the day. Thus the US copyright registration process and publication dates in academic magazines etc. being important in the USA. That's more a proof issue than a copyright issue.

No, it was the 1976 copyright act that made that change.

My first copyright was obtained in 1978, after filling out applications and some back and forth with a bureaucrat in DC, but finally I got "permission" to state copyright on my publication (and a copy of my work on file with the Library of Congress)

Which is the 'legal' definition, and does it vary based upon when you FILE for a specific copyright?

In the United States, unpublished 'Works of Authorship' are copyrighted according to Section 104, see below, of Circular 92, Copyright Law of the United States and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code, December 2016.

Sections 102 defines the categories/mediums that make up 'Works of Authorship' and literary works is one of the categories.

Section 103 indicates only lawfully used content can be copyrighted and only the content produced by the author can be copyrighted.

§ 104 · Subject matter of copyright: National origin29

(a) Unpublished Works.—The works specified by sections 102 and 103, while unpublished, are subject to protection under this title without regard to the nationality or domicile of the author.

(b) Published Works.—The works specified

https://www.copyright.gov/title17/title17.pdf

So I guess I need to backdate my copyright information

I'm not sure that would be a good idea.

Paragraph 104 of Title 17 stated that a work is - "... while unpublished, are subject to protection under this title ..."

A work may receive protection, but does that mean the work is copyrighted.

I personally wouldn't depend on an unpublished work being copyrighted until a) it is published, or b) until a copyright application is filed; whichever comes first.

I have a subsidiary question.

I've seen some works with multiple copyright statements. I believe VB is constantly updating his stories as readers report typos etc, so I expect the versions on SOL to be slightly different from those available eg on Amazon. Should the stories have different or multiple copyright dates because of those differences?

AJ

I've seen some works with multiple copyright statements. I believe VB is constantly updating his stories as readers report typos etc, so I expect the versions on SOL to be slightly different from those available eg on Amazon. Should the stories have different or multiple copyright dates because of those differences?

The essential question is, should the copyright date (even though it is optional, list the creation date or the 'publication' date. In either case, the copyright date is NOT the publication date of a particular book, otherwise I'd have a different copyright for each time I published the same book to a different source (Amazon, Smashwords, Createspace, lulu, etc.). Instead, the publication work for a particular story was either it's original creation OR it's first 'publication' (whether that publication was on SOL or as a published book).

Despite the never-ending debate, I still don't feel confident that anyone has an answer on this. However, once again, I have the feeling that no one here really knows, and I should instead ask the 'professional' publishers/published authors/editors/book designers at LinkedIn, since they have more direct expertise in this matter, rather than vague 'hunches' based on the last thing they read (while it works for Presidents (NOT!)), I don't think it has any legal standing).

I have the feeling that no one here really knows

But that doesn't stop us mansplaining it to each other ;)

AJ

the copyright date is NOT the publication date of a particular book,

Based on the publication date being the milestone for a copyright, the copyright begins the FIRST time the book is published.

first publication date isn't the milestone for a copyright.

I agree. But it is the easiest date to prove for legal purposes. For an in-process work, changing the content by addition, deletion, or editing creates a new version of the story and that version's copyright date would be the date the file is saved to CW's hard disk.

We typically aren't concerned with retaining copies of in-process files. Therefore, proving the content of a file once it is modified and saved using the same filename is impossible if a copy of the original content was not saved. Thus the early versions of CW's story be it 1 word in a chapter file or 100,000 words in multiple files is of no practical use. It is the final version of the files that make up the story that count for most practical purposes.

Not necessarily. One tactic for proof of creation date that has been used in the past is to mail yourself a copy of the final manuscript and keep the sealed envelope. The date on the post mark would be very solid proof of date in a court of law. If you want even stronger proof, mail it to your self via certified mail.

I was told that won't stand up in court. I forget why. Maybe because you can mail yourself an empty envelop and then put your manuscript in it. But I don't remember why. It came up in a discussion on wattpad.

The mail it to yourself scheme is actually mentioned on the copyright offices website.

Hmm, from Slate: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/history_of_innovation/2014/05/poor_man_s_copyright_mailing_something_to_yourself_doesn_t_work.html

It's a nice idea, but the problem with the poor man's copyright is that it doesn't work. The humorless federal copyright office explains on its website, "The practice of sending a copy of your own work to yourself is sometimes called a 'poor man's copyright.' There is no provision in the copyright law regarding any such type of protection, and it is not a substitute for registration."

ETA: from Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/legal/postmark.asp

CLAIM: You can effectively establish U.S. copyright protection of your work by mailing a copy of it to yourself, then retaining the sealed, postmarked envelope as proof of the date of your authorship.

STATUS: NOT IN THE U.S., BUT IT MIGHT BE OF SOME ASSISTANCE IN BRITAIN.

ETA2: from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_man%27s_copyright

In countries with no central copyright registration authority, it can be difficult for an author to prove when their work was created. The United Kingdom Patent Office says this:

"... a copy could be deposited with a bank or solicitor. Alternatively, a creator could send himself or herself a copy by special delivery post (which gives a clear date stamp on the envelope), leaving the envelope unopened on its return. A number of private companies operate unofficial registers, but it would be sensible to check carefully what you will be paying for before choosing this route.

It is important to note, that this does not prove that a work is original or created by you..."

Note the last sentence. And then it continues with:

There is no provision in US copyright law regarding any such type of protection. Poor man's copyright is therefore not a substitute for registration.

I was told that won't stand up in court. I forget why. Maybe because you can mail yourself an empty envelop and then put your manuscript in it. But I don't remember why. It came up in a discussion on wattpad.

One argument you hear all the time is that someone could 'steam' it open. They key here, is that you either afix a wax seal, or something which reveals whether it was ever opened. It can be done, but it's generally no longer considered viable.

I must say, I don't keep a history of every single change I've ever made to my stories, but I can identify WHEN I created each version by examining the file folder and looking for the earliest file (typically the story notes), which marks when I started working on the concept).

While that's not proof a court may recognize, the fact I publish quickly clearly establishes that I published before anyone else did, as this protection carries over to anyone posting to SOL too.

I was told that won't stand up in court. I forget why. Maybe because you can mail yourself an empty envelop and then put your manuscript in it. But I don't remember why. It came up in a discussion on wattpad.

How about taking the manuscript to a notary who'll give their seal and date it?

Should the stories have different or multiple copyright dates because of those differences?

I remember reading something about the copyright of "The Diary of Anne Frank." Someone said the copyright expired. Someone else said it didn't because her father edited it years after she died so that's when the copyright started. I don't remember the specifics or the resolution (if there was one).

I remember reading something about the copyright of "The Diary of Anne Frank." Someone said the copyright expired. Someone else said it didn't because her father edited it years after she died so that's when the copyright started. I don't remember the specifics or the resolution (if there was one).

There's always been a LOT of controversy over Anne Frank's diary, as her father NEVER allowed anyone to examine it. It's lot been suggested that her father invented the majority of it, trying to capitalize of his daughter's fame for his own enrichment, and the fact he never let ANYONE look at it strongly suggests that's exactly what happened. (He claims that all he did was proofread and correct spelling and punctuation.)

In either case, I'm not sure I'd use it as an example of copyright done correctly! At the time, there was a huge demand for the story, the government (U.S.) no doubt had a role in shoving it's approval through to cement constructive (to them) opinions about our role in the war.

However, when published, it was edited down, and translated. Perhaps there's controversy there I've not heard of.

Yes, there was a major controversy over the edited and published version because the copyright based on when she wrote the diary and it was first published was up many people wanted to put it into the public domain, which the original published version subsequently was. However, the later edited and expanded versions with material from the diary not in the original version isn't in the public domain.

However, when published, it was edited down, and translated. Perhaps there's controversy there I've not heard of.

The controversy was never over whether she wrote the original, it was over HOW MUCH of the completed work was actually hers, and how much was her father's creation entirely. Although the Dutch group examined it, they've consistently refused to allow anyone else access to it (obviously for fear they'll attack it's legitimacy, which is exactly what the controversy is about in the first place).

Her father also chopped out (literally) any portions in the original that referenced boyfriends, periods or anything remotely referencing her 'growing up', which many feminists have attacked over the years, as it essentially turns her voice into a mere puppet of her father's outdated idealized view of his daughter.

Her father also chopped out (literally) any portions in the original that referenced boyfriends, periods

When I was in junior high school, we read "The Diary of Anne Frank." I remember people were asked to read sections out loud to the class. And I remember the embarrassment when they read the section about her first period.

So it was in the book I read.

It's lot been suggested that her father invented the majority of it, trying to capitalize of his daughter's fame for his own enrichment,

Most of the earnings goes to the foundation he set up to remember Anne Frank's legacy. That money goes to children around the world.

Most of the earnings goes to the foundation he set up to remember Anne Frank's legacy. That money goes to children around the world.

"Capitialize" doesn't mean "ONLY" financial, it simply means they want to gain something from it for themselves. Gaining attention, notoriety or a better view (of yourself and your daughter) in history is a clear motive in this case (i.e. in wanting to portray her as an 'innocent' young girl, not 'corrupted' by her budding womanhood).

Should the stories have different or multiple copyright dates because of those differences?

I am not a lawyer, so all I can give you is my opinion. The copyright applies to the work. Minor changes to the work such as edits to correct typos and grammatical errors would not invalidate the copyright. The copyright would continue to protect the work as long as the changes did not substantially change the work.

A work may receive protection, but does that mean the work is copyrighted.

I personally wouldn't depend on an unpublished work being copyrighted until a) it is published, or b) until a copyright application is filed; whichever comes first.

SOL ate my original response, so here it is, slightly out of chronological sequence:

Grrr! That was my original position, which everyone else convinced me to abandon by quoting chapter and verse of the various copyright acts without separating the protections from the listing of a copyright.

You don't list a copyright because it's legally necessary to protect your work, but because it reminds readers that it IS legally protected, and they can't simply repost it on their own.

While I appreciate you supporting my original claim, seeing as how I've changed my position, it's a day late and a dollar short, as the saying goes. But, see my subsequent/earlier note, I have a feeling no one here really knows what the accepted publishing conventions are for listing copyrights.

As I said, I'm not a lawyer, but based on Title 17 here is my opinion:

We are talking about 2 things: copyright protection and the copyright date. As addressed below, it appears that the copyright date indicates when the copyright protection begins.

Extracted from Title 17:
§ 302 · Duration of copyright: Works created on or after January 1, 19784
(a) In General.—Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978, subsists from its creation and, except as provided by the following subsections, endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author's death.

For your issue CW, the key is in the phrase "subsists from its creation". According to the definitions contained in Title 17:

A work is "created" when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time; where a work is prepared over a period of time, the portion of it that has been fixed at any particular time constitutes the work as of that time, and where the work has been prepared in different versions, each version constitutes a separate work.

Personally, I would consider the above to mean:

1. If you are in the process of writing a new story, then the copyright protection begins with you typing the first word and saving it to your hard disk. That version of the story would have the file "Save Date" as the Copyright Date.

2. As you add new content, the copyright protection updates to cover the new material. Each addition to your story would be considered a new version. It is not clear to me if the earlier version would be considered a version since by adding to its file and saving the changes to the same file, the original version no longer exists. Technically, each of those new versions would have a separate copyright date, but practically, your main concern is protecting the final version.

3. The final version would be the version you first publish, so for practical purposes, the copyright date of the story would be either the publication date, or the date when the last edit was made. Generally, the date would not be critical, except for a few legal actions involving copyright violations of two people claiming to have written the exact same story, essentially word-for-word. An impossibility that would raise other issues (i.e., one of the two stole their story from the other).

4. Subsequent publications of the story with no edits or changes would not affect the story's copyright date for the story is not a new version.

5. Updating a story and republishing it would result in a new copyright. However, the new copyright would have no effect on the copyright of the original version.

I don't know if that helps, but that is the way I see the issue.

1. If you are in the process of writing a new story, then the copyright protection begins with you typing the first word and saving it to your hard disk. That version of the story would have the file "Save Date" as the Copyright Date.

2. As you add new content, the copyright protection updates to cover the new material. Each addition to your story would be considered a new version. It is not clear to me if the earlier version would be considered a version since by adding to its file and saving the changes to the same file, the original version no longer exists. Technically, each of those new versions would have a separate copyright date, but practically, your main concern is protecting the final version.

In other words, every single different book, produced via a different source, would have a completely different copyright date, as opposed to the 'first creation' date. Those two statements completely invalidate each other. Either the work is protected from it's first creation, or each work is copyrighted separately at the time of publication.

Those two statements completely invalidate each other. Either the work is protected from it's first creation, or each work is copyrighted separately at the time of publication.

The work is protected from its first creation. However - Let me give you an example:

1. You get the idea for a story and start typing on May 25, 2017. When you save what you typed to a file on your hard disk, you have placed the story content in what Title 17 calls a "tangible medium of expression" (i.e. a file on your hard disk), and that portion of the story is copyrighted and the copyright date would be May 25, 2017.

2. The next day you open the file and add to it. The updated file is still copyrighted, but you changed it so its new copyright date would be May 26, 2017.

Note: This is going to the extreme, but if you were to save each days updates to a new filename without changing the prior days file, you would have multiple versions of the story file each of which would be copyrighted with its filesave date as the copyright date.

3. You finish the story on June 24, 2017 and save it to your hard disk; it is complete with all edits included. Its copyright date is June 24, 2017, which is what you placed on the Copyright page.

4. Let's say you publish the story on July 5, 2017. The copyright date of June 24, 2017 does not change because the content has not changed. Of course if you wished, you could modify the file by putting July 5, 2017 on the document as its copyright date.

5. It is now March 5, 2019. You decide to make a number of modifications to the story and release it as a revised version.

6. You finish the revised version of the story on May 15, 2019 and save it to your hard disk; it is complete with all edits included. Its copyright date is May 15, 2019, which is what you placed on the Copyright page.

7. You publish the revised version a couple of days later.

8. You now have 2 versions of the story. The original version with a June 24, 2017 copyright date and the revised story with a May 15, 2019 copyright date. Creating the revised story does not affect the original story or its copyright date.

At least that is what I get out of reading Title 17.

REP, a number of problems with your interpretation. While that thinking might work with 'traditionally published' works (where the book is printed once, and the copies sold for years, and reprints are churned out without any changes, but in the modern age of independent publishers and POD books, it gets tossed on it's ear.

According to you, each time I correct a type, I'd need to reissue my book, changing the copyright date and issuing an entirely new ISBN (not a cheap option for a one or two word change).

Contrast this with what copyright does. It protects a story based on when it was written, not when the last change was printed in book form. Thus you want to establish when the copyright protection starts from, not when 'every other version loses their copyright protection on'.

For me, and from my discussion with publishers, professional authors, book designers and editors, you list the published date (which on SOL is the first posting date), simply because that's how traditionally published books listed it (it's more form over function, more usage than protection), which is why I insist on using the publication date, regardless of when I last updated the story, or how many different versions (and different ISBNs) I use for the same story. Each version of the book uses the EXACT SAME copyright date, which is the 'first publication' date.

You can argue that the copyright date should be when the story was first created, but the copyright protection predates that, taking into account when you wrote each individual chapter (i.e. did you write the story before someone else using the same text segments). Thus the copyright date really has NO effect on the legal protections that copyright protection affords.

All that said, that's why you really don't need to specify a copyright date at all. However, when you do, it's typically to list when the story was first published, so readers can identify where the story fits in with your overall work (i.e. was it a crude early attempt, or an example of your latest works).

According to you, each time I correct a type, I'd need to reissue my book, changing the copyright date and issuing an entirely new ISBN (not a cheap option for a one or two word change).

Nor sure how it works in the USA, but for the most of the world the copyright date is when you first create the material. Thus when I started writing my current story that's with the final proof editor it has a copyright of 2016, but because it was finished and editorial changes since then it has an Edition date of October 2017. This has been a common practice in the print industry for over 100 years. Some minor changes (often to fix typesetting errors, and the book is released as a 2nd edition or a revised edition etc. The edition date doesn't affect the copyright date.

I provided you with an example of my interpretation of Title 17. What happens in the real world doesn't always match up to Title 17.

Your comment is about what you do as a result of the court decisions relating to Title 17. We all know the courts don't get it right all of the time. A court hears a case which is defined by the circumstances and evidence presented by the lawyers, and then the court considers the law in reaching a judgment. If the lawyers did a poor job in presenting evidence and connecting it to the circumstances and the law, then the court's hands are tied and a court will have to return a judgment based on the lawyers' legal skills, not the law.

According to my understanding of Title 17, if you change an existing story by changing the content of the electronic file(s) that contain the story's content, then you have created a new version of the story and that results in the modified story having a different copyright date from the prior version of the story. In practical terms that means if you open an existing story file, modify its content in any manner, and save the modified content using the same filename, you created a new version of the story. Since saving the modified content using the same filename destroyed the prior version, its copyright protection and date become a moot point. It is the copyright protection and date of the updated file that is important to you.

When you create a new version of a story, it has copyright protection and the prior version does NOT lose its copyright protect as long as the prior version is still set in a medium defined by Title 17. The day you set a new version of a story in a medium defined by Title 17 is the version's legal copyright date per Title 17.

You can tell us about what you do and about how you view your actions. That doesn't mean what you do is correct per Title 17. It doesn't mean that what publishers do is correct, either. One of the things you fail to mention, is that according to Title 17 different versions of a story each have different copyright dates and all versions have copyright protection. You can place the copyright date of the original version on the modified version of the story, but per Title 17 the original version's copyright date is NOT the legal copyright date of the new version.

According to Title 17, the date a version is published is NOT the copyright date. You and others typically use the publication date as the copyright date, but Title 17 defines the legal copyright date as the creation date and it is not the publication date. Your placing a different date on your publication does not mean what you place on what you publish is the legal copyright date.

Then there is the issue of in-process versions of a story versus the final version of the story. If you retain copies of your in-process story files, each file's content has copyright protection and each file's content can have a different copyright date (i.e. its file save date). Normally only the most recent version of a file gets published. That is why publication date is not the story's legal copyright date.

When you create a new version of a story, it has copyright protection and the prior version does NOT lose its copyright protect as long as the prior version is still set in a medium defined by Title 17. The day you set a new version of a story in a medium defined by Title 17 is the version's legal copyright date per Title 17.

I just can't picture a world where each typo correction requires the publication of an all new edition with a separate copyright date. That just doesn't make sense (and I believe there's a specific limit on the amount of changes before it's considered a 'new edition').

All you're arguments are just convincing me that listing copyrights mean nothing at all—which was my point—since I'm listing it principally so readers can figure out when each book was written in my literary canon.

In short, there are conventions for listing a copyright date, but there are NO legal requirements concerning what date you list!

This is because technically, the copyright in the revised edition only covers the revisions.

I would disagree in that Title 17 indicates the copyright protection is for the entire revised edition and the copyright date is the date the revised edition was fixed in a tangible medium.

Elements of Style by Strunk is now in the public domain. A revised version, Elements of Style by Strunk and White is still under copyright.

AJ

If the revised edition is relatively minor changes to the original and the person creating the revised edition was the original creator or had the right to create the revised edition, I would say No.

My reasoning is the revised edition is based on and contains the same basic content as the original version with perhaps a few edits or minor rewrites for clarity and perhaps a new scene or two. The copyright on the revised edition covers all of the edition's content and is still active, so anyone using the original version as a basis for their work of art would be violating the copyright protection granted to the creator of the content of the revised edition.

My reasoning is the revised edition is based on and contains the same basic content as the original version with perhaps a few edits or minor rewrites for clarity and perhaps a new scene or two. The copyright on the revised edition covers all of the edition's content and is still active, so anyone using the original version as a basis for their work of art would be violating the copyright protection granted to the creator of the content of the revised edition.

With copyrights only expiring 75 years after the death of the author, it's meaningless to record updates to a novel every week for an entire year. What's more, as was mentioned earlier, if you're going to list any copyright date, you'd list the earliest date. Also, copyrights are specified by year, no month-day-year-second and millisecond.

We're making this a hell of a lot more complicated than it actually is.

(By the way, I'm using your post to respond to DS.)

Also, copyrights are specified by year, no month-day-year-second and millisecond.

Year only may be the proper way. I have seen month and year and I have a vague recollection of seeing month day year.

So what do you think happens in this scenario:

There is a significant time gap between the original edition and the revised edition. The original copyright has expired but the copyright on the revised edition has not.

Copyright expiration is based on the death of the author, not the original copyright date.

In short, there are conventions for listing a copyright date, but there are NO legal requirements concerning what date you list!

I keep stating that I am commenting on my understanding of what Title 17 defines as the current US Copyright law. I have also stated that there is a difference between what the law defines, and what authors and the publishing industry do.

Assume for the moment that you are updating a story that is on your hard disk as a single file - an electronic file is an approved medium per Title 17. The update is done over a period of two weeks. The first thing you do every day is open the most recent version of the file and save it using a new filename. By the end of you update period, you would have about 14 story files on your hard disk. According to Title 17, each of those files is a different version of the story with different copyright dates and all 14 files are protected by copyright law.

In the real world, you wouldn't 'publish' all 14 of the Title 17 versions you created because your goal was to create a final updated story file. When you decide to publish, you would only publish the most recent version of the story file. If you finalized the story on March 10 and know you won't publish it until March 15, you can put March 15 on your copyright page before you save the file. The published copy will indicate March 15 as the copyright date. The Title 17 copyright date is March 10; the date you 'created' the published version of the story and placed it in an approved medium.

I agree in that I am not aware of any legal requirements concerning what date you place on a story as its copyright date. Personally, I would use the earliest possible date if I were publishing commercially, especially for a new story.

I would suggest that for a box set, each book should keep it's own copyright notice and date, but if you want to put a copyright notice on the box, it would be the year you release the box set, but that copyright would only really cover the box design itself.

I still like listing the linked copyrights, even if not necessary, simply to provide a handy listing of books and dates, simply to provide a reason for readers to check the page (to figure out when each book was 'released').

CW,

Strictly speaking a boxed set can only relate to printed books because you have a group of related books in a special box and sold as a group set.

Regardless of if you do a print book or e-book the copyright date goes from when you first create the story, so Great Death as you stated earlier would be copyrighted from 2010.

Now, with e-books you can sell the e-books as a group deal (but they aren't really a boxed set) and each book would have its own copyright date from when it was created. You can also put it all together as an anthology or a collection in a single book. Then the each story would have it's own copyright date, but the new book created as the collection or the anthology would be seen to have a copyright date of its own if there is anything in it different to the original works.

Take example of a Catalyst Anthology - just put all the books together in one e-pub as if you stuck each on the end of the one before it and each has it's own copyright date for the story. However, if you also include extra stuff like notes not in the story or a timeline, then the Catalyst Anthology will be seen as a new work with a new copyright date of 2017 while each book in it would also have their original copyright dates. Mind you, under the law, the actual date given isn't going to matter much unless you get challenged on who wrote it when. This is because the copyright date countdown for an individual's works starts on the date of their death, not when it was created.

Much older USA works, say pre 1992 will have different concerns due to the previous US laws, and those where you write something for hire will have a different date due to being corporate copyright and not individual copyright.

such as a copyright dispute on copying between two authors one claiming the second author copied his work.

But the articles said stuff like:

It is important to note, that this does not prove that a work is original or created by you..."

But the articles said stuff like:

Again, I only suggested it as a means of proving when it was created, noting else.

The key in these instances, isn't fighting other authors trying to appropriate your work, but with publishing houses trying to steal your idea and hand it to other authors, who they feel 'have the technical ability but can't write a decent story to save their lives'.

For those instances, when you NEED to submit to a publisher, but know better than to trust them, it's problematic. A decent solution for that (at least for independent publishers), is when you file for an ISBN, you can list your ORIGINAL text, which they promote as a way of 'protecting your work' is a conflict ever arises. However, I have no clue how they protect the text (i.e. who has access to it), or whether you might face a problem where the various 'was this term paper copied' software packages might report that YOU didn't write it, because they found it online on ISBN.

The situation where you are most likely to need to prove when you wrote something (prior to publication) is not fighting another author trying to appropriate your work, but rather fighting another author who is claiming you appropriated his work.

In most cases, those fights are over specific passages, usually when the same 'did this student copy his homework' software catches similarities. In that case, you can't prove when you wrote the particular phrase, all you can do is show you developed the book independently, and it's all about the specific wording of each instance.

You can't copyright a story idea, no matter how much you might want to. But, if you beat someone to the punch by publishing a similar story before they do, there's not much they can do about it other than bitch and moan.

Generally, if someone claims you 'stole' a particular phrasing, your safest solution is to substitute different phrasing, proving you don't NEED to rely on their single phrase, as you're perfectly capable of writing your own words. The problem only arises when 30% of your book is the exact same 'phrasing' as their books is.

Somebody with the poster name 'Malathay' has just posted 60 posts in alt.binaries.e-book with a few hundred XXX stories from all over the web, including Nick Scipios Summer Camp series and stories under the Dorsai name.

He says he has collected them from various sites and as far as he knows they are free to be posted there as they are not for his financial gain.
EDIT - he has acknowledged the original authors names

This needs to be posted, on a separate thread, in the "Author's Forum" so each individual author can track the current status of the efforts to correct the postings. For those posting to SOL alone, it may not matter, as long as their names are attached, but as many (like me) also publish them commerically, I don't appreciate anyone passing them out for free.

I choose when to post my stories for free, which doesn't grant the downloaders universal reposting protections!

Open Source and Creative Commons licenses have been referred to as copyleft.

And plagiarism is copywrong.

Unless you are plagiarizing clothing designs, then it's copythong.

Unless you plagiarize the wrong design, then it's copywrongthong. If it's men's wear, it would be copywrongdongthong.

We can do this all day.

You're violating Rowling's copyright. She owns the characters and the world she built as well as the books she wrote.

Didn't Anne Frank's father violate her copyright by editing her diary without her permission?

AJ

Didn't Anne Frank's father violate her copyright by editing her diary without her permission?

No, she died as a juvenile, so her parents inherited everything she had and the rights to it.

Surely the clock for the expiry of the copyright of her version starting ticking when she died. Any changes the father made resulted in a new version and a new copyright but shouldn't have affected the copyright on her original.

AJ

Surely the clock for the expiry of the copyright of her version starting ticking when she died. Any changes the father made resulted in a new version and a new copyright but shouldn't have affected the copyright on her original.

My understanding from researching the copyright fight over the diary it wasn't published before her death, but selected parts were posted soon after her death. The copyright on the original edition has expired, but since there's a lot more in the diary than was in that edition a later edition with commentary by her father and more of the diary was published.

Thus the copyright on the original edition is expired while the copyright on the two later editions with more of the diary entries listed and commentary are still under copyright and are copyrighted to the person who did the commentary - one by her father, but not sure who did the commentary on the latest edition.

Here's a really good article on copyright and public domain:

I continually troll the internet for 'reference material', include quotes, photos and other details. However, when I do, I'm well aware of what I'm allowed to use, for my private use, and that I'm not allowed to either share or make a profit off of it. On the other hand, it is virtually impossible to get anyone—even professional authors trying to promote their works on photo sharing sites—to respond about inquires about using their works. That's why I like giving out my contact info whenever I release stories.

It is virtually impossible to get anyone—even professional authors trying to promote their works on photo sharing sites—to respond about inquires about using their works.

Tell me about it. I wanted to use the 1st six lines of Lionel Richie's song "Endless Love" in my novel. I somehow tracked down the copyright owner of the lyrics (different than the song itself for recording). It was Alfred Publishing.

I had to complete a form on their site. A lot of it was N/A or unknown because I didn't have the information (like how many copies of the book would be sold). I never heard from them. So I took the lines out of my novel. Screw them. It wasn't needed anyway.

Tell me about it. I wanted to use the 1st six lines of Lionel Richie's song "Endless Love" in my novel. I somehow tracked down the copyright owner of the lyrics (different than the song itself for recording). It was Alfred Publishing.

Typically, you're restricted to the number of lines (stanza's in a song) as a percentage of the total. Six lines may be pushing the limit (depending on how long the total song is). Trimming how much you quote may get you under the limit, though.

But, of course, the RIAA has been particularly problematic, stretching the limits of what's not allowed by extensive litigation and political contributions.

I wanted to use the 1st six lines of Lionel Richie's song "Endless Love" in my novel.

My WIP was previously at AFF. Their site rules were that any lyrics had to be credited, whether as a footnote or in the story itself.

I open with a quote from Demon Hunter, with the name of the band directly underneath. In the story lyrics are mentioned, along with mention of the artist's name, by Kansas, Moody Blues, Boston, The Knack, Billy Joel (perhaps some other) You're allowed to guess when the story is set.

For example, here the first reference to a Kansas song in Chapter 2

As I stood Hannah extended her hand and replied, "Okay - help me up?"

It felt soft, warm and slightly moist to my touch. I wanted so much to keep holding her hand the whole way home, our fingers laced together as we strolled down the street - but after she got to her feet I looked down as I let her hand go, letting mine dangle at my side, just inches away.

The Wall. Again. The lyrics from the Kansas song began taunting me as they echoed inside my head.

It rises now before me,

A dark and silent barrier between,

All I am, and all that I would ever want be

It's just a travesty

It didn't matter how easily Hannah and I talked about stuff or shared a laugh, I was once again at that wall where I'd have to ask, the point at which I would have to confess, 'I want you as more…'

That was a setup to the final chapter, where his girlfriend brings it up in discussion.

When we got in the car Jenny asked, "What did you think?"

"It was good."

"Anything in particular."

"Well, when he said about sitting among people who have found it to be just that simple."

"Do you know the Kansas song 'The Wall'?"

I nodded. "Yeah, I like that one."

"Do you remember what the wall is?"

"Yeah, it's the, um...the dark and silent barrier. The symbol and the sum of all I am."

"You see? All the fear, the anger, or whatever's holding you back – it doesn't own you."

"What do you mean?"

"All the things you've done, everything that's happened to you – let them go. Start again."

"But..."

She squeezed my hand. "No buts. If you're seeking the riches, you must tear down the wall. Give it up. You're not too weak."

"But..."

"There. Is. No. Loss."

*Important note on music copyrights, not always, but often, the lyrics and music for a song are under separate copyrights.

That's what I found.

Credited or not, unless it falls under fair use,

In most countries copyright Fair Use allows you up to 10% of a work or chapter for any purpose, but you should attributed it properly.

For songs and other music there's usually three copyrights involved:

1. Lyrics - to the writer;

2. Music - to the composer;

3. The performance recording - to the performer or the company who made the record.

So when you quote lyrics from a song you should be attributing the lyricist, and not the band who performed it. In Playball I list Ned Miller who wrote the words, because it's the words I use when I quote whole verses. However, in other stories I only quote a few lines, so that comes under Fair Use and I don't have to attribute it properly - Star Performance is a good example of that.

So when you quote lyrics from a song you should be attributing the lyricist, and not the band who performed it.

I believe that in the vast majority of cases the general public knows the band but not the lyricist, unless they make a habit of reading the liner notes. In my cases the character mentions a song, the artist, and a bit of the lyrics in places where they relate to the story.

I have a scene that's a teenage beer party. Back in the late 70's, it was mandatory to at least once play Billy Joel's Piano Man, and everyone would link arms in a circle, swaying back and forth while belting out the lyrics. I also mention that when the song by The Knack was on, everyone would stop what they were doing to shout out "My Sharona" when the lyrics go to that point. It's accurately setting the scene, and other than perhaps Bernie Taupin, damn few people knew any lyricist's names.

I believe that in the vast majority of cases the general public knows the band but not the lyricist,

A search engine on the word 'lyrics' and the song title will soon find you a website with the lyrics and ti will have the name of the lyricist on it.

Having the name of the lyricist is the legal requirement for the written words, having the name of the band is a requirement for when playing an audio version of the song they recorded.

You can get away with saying "The radio played Billy Joel's version of Piano Man," and you're OK. However, the moment you quote more than a few lines of the song you need to name the lyricist. In Playball I quoted whole verses at different points, so I named the lyricist, while in Star performance I only had a one or two lines of a verse I could got away with naming the song title only. The more of the song you quote, the higher the requirement to do it right the legal way.

In what jurisdictions?

Want to be sure in your area, go ask a local lawyer.

The generally accepted fair use rules for most countries are in the Berne Convention as 10% of a work or 10% of a chapter of the work. The US courts usually accept that as a basic starting point and then let people argue, unless the local laws state otherwise.

Want to be sure in your area, go ask a local lawyer.

Much as we talk a lot here about Lazeez's implementation of the age rules, my story was previously at AFF where they were a stickler for attribution. My story was not posted until I had properly put in the name of the artist to the editor's satisfaction.

Local law has squat to do with it.

Local law has everything to do with it - if you live in the USA, as some here do, then the local law on copyright is the US Federal Law on it. But, if you live in Inner Outer Mongolia then the local laws there won't have anything to do with any US Federal law.

Fair Use, Fair Dealing, Approved Usage - there are a dozen terms used, but Fair Use is the one most people understand.

So Ernest is right by calling any US law as local.

When you exclude regions other than the US, as was done in prior comments, then the definition of 'local law' does not include US Federal law.

EB was correct in that US Law (i.e., Federal Law) takes precedence over 'Local Law'. While US Law applies to all levels of government below the National Level, the laws are not part of the laws passed by the lower levels of government.

In other words, 'Local Laws', such as a set of laws passed by a State, are a set of legal code that is separate from, but subordinate to, the laws passed by the US Government.

EB was correct in that US Law (i.e., Federal Law) takes precedence over 'Local Law'.

Any law that applies to you in your area is a local law - but you can also have Local Laws that are made by Local Legislative forces at any level.

The problem of late is some people are trying very hard to over specify what things means.

you will only sow confusion when trying to communicate with a US audience.

The only one introducing confusion is yourself. I said local laws to mean the laws in your local area and you automatically claim it as Local Laws as made by Local Authorities using capital letters I didn't use. and If you want to claim the words local laws means anything beyond what is applied in your area as against my area then you should be restricting it to the city or county laws and not the state laws.

Any law that applies to you in your area is a local law - but you can also have Local Laws that are made by Local Legislative forces at any level.

I agree with DS.

Local law, state law, federal law - all refer to who created the law. We are subject to all, but with supremacy lower laws must be consistent with higher ones.

Any law that applies to you in your area is a local law

International Copyright Laws and US Federal Laws apply to me, but I would NOT call them Local Laws because they affect more than my local area.

In McIntyre v. Clarkson, 254 N.C. 510 (N.C. 1961), the court held that, "the phrase local law means, primarily at least, a law that in fact, if not in form, is confined within territorial limits other than that of the whole state, or applies to any political subdivision or subdivisions of the state less than the whole, or to the property and persons of a limited portion of the state, or to a comparatively small portion of the state, or is directed to a specific locality or spot, as distinguished from a law which operates generally throughout the state."

https://definitions.uslegal.com/l/local-law/

International Copyright Laws and US Federal Laws apply to me, but I would NOT call them Local Laws because they affect more than my local area.

again, I say, not the capital status of the first letter of each word, then take a microsecond to think about what that means.

Why would professional authors be trying to promote their works on photo sharing sites?

An author I know uses one of those sites (Pintarest?) to post photos that are inspired by one of their books - such as photos of actors they think could play the parts, or of landscapes and setting featured in the book, or even of things such as wardrobe if it's a period piece.

Pinterest (we were both off a letter)

I'm not positive if that was the site this particular author was using, but the aim was to post photos that would help drive interest in the written word.

It's Pintrest (www.pinterest.com) and strictly speaking, Pintrest is not a photo sharing site, it's more a social media site like facebook.

I was specifically thinking of Flickr and 500 (the actual name is 500 followed by the infinity symbol).

An author I know uses one of those sites (Pintarest?) to post photos that are inspired by one of their books - such as photos of actors they think could play the parts, or of landscapes and setting featured in the book, or even of things such as wardrobe if it's a period piece.

That's a little more difficult, as you (the author) have no rights over the photos you gleamed from the internet. Most won't sue over pictures already readily available on the internet, but you're risking potential lawsuits by ignoring the law entirely.

On the other hand, like with most fanfiction, the key is not making a profit from the usage and a willingness to take it down as soon as a complaint is filed. Few will go beyond those initial measures.

the key is not making a profit from the usage and a willingness to take it down as soon as a complaint is filed. Few will go beyond those initial measures.

I remember reading about one that did. Someone used an image on her blog. She got sued and had to pay.

Why would professional authors be trying to promote their works on photo sharing sites?

It's a powerful media platform. They typically alternate picture quotes (literary quotes imposed on various photo backgrounds), cover photos and random dictionary quotes of off-beat words. They key is, they keep the material fresh enough so readers/fans keep checking in, and the activity causes many to check out the books in question. Those viewers may not purchase your book, but it at least boosts your search ratings, which make your books appear more popular than they actually are on their own.

I've actually been considering it (mainly since I have such a large collection of books, book covers, literary quotes and other material. But once again, those who engage in this type of promotion end up working on their platforms, rather than writing. It's the death knell of many promising authors (like blog posts).

There is an author who does this on his site with photographs of nude or partially clad young women (all over 18) and he now posts a chapter in the 4th book of his main story about twice a year. He indicates in a blog entry that patreon has changed his output and he writes more than he posts, but we on SOL see new chapters infrequently.

Yet he has time to post a new 'nude picture of the day', each and every day for several years, but writing new chapters simply doesn't rate as 'important enough' for a so-called author to warrant the time. That's partially why I gave up on following him, because I followed his many picture posts (they're quite funny), but they don't make him a better author, and never will (especially if he never writes again)!

I spell the last name Shagrin.

Ah, I wasn't sure if it was Richards hag rin or Richards ha grin (as in funny smile) or Richard sha grin (as in arab royalty smile).

Or a phonetic spelling of chagrin ;)

AJ

Seems like a company to avoid - they can sell all your family photos, novels you write .....etc. to whomever they wish at any time

Correct, and you can't stop them, even after your account is terminated. Amazon has had terms like that for years, and so do a lot of other groups - most of them changed their terms to read like that after being acquired by Amazon.

2. "You hereby grant ******** a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, nonexclusive licence to use the materials you submit ......" elsewhere it is stated that "materials" are "such as comments, pictures, videos, and podcasts (including associated metadata and artwork)

We've debated this endlessly before. Those generic clauses are intended to cover the use on the site only, not the ownership and copyright of the original photos. That prevents their having to delete the photos from everyone who copies it from the site after it's posted. They've generally never attempted to claim the ownership of photographs ownership claims.

However, Ernest is a strict "if it's in a contract, they can do whatever the fuck they want with it" fanatic, so base your own decision on each of our perspectives on this question.

However, Ernest is a strict "if it's in a contract, they can do whatever the fuck they want with it" fanatic, so base your own decision on each of our perspectives on this question.

CW,

A few points to keep in mind.

1. No one puts something in a contract unless they see a need to have it there, even if it's just to cover some obscure legal issue.

2. If it's in the contract they can use it and you have no recourse against them.

3. Not everyone in the industry has these clauses in their contract, so why do they feel they need it?

4. Existing laws on retail sales means they don't have to recall things sold after you cancel the account. What the clause means is they can continue to sell the items after you cancel the account and you can't stop them.

5. If you were correct about your claim it doesn't cover any other usage, you need to ask a lawyer about it. Perpetual means forever, and royalty-free means they don't have to pay you. That alone is enough to tell you not to use them.

However, if you're happy to give someone the permanent right to use and sell your stuff without paying you, feel free to use them, just don't complain when they shaft you.

it is simply that the stuff goes through one of their programmes

Some years ago a certain company came up with a piece of fancy software to help you create documents for publication for use on their fancy systems, however, just using the software meant you agreed to give them total control over whatever you create in their software. Not a nice idea.

Some years ago a certain company came up with a piece of fancy software to help you create documents for publication for use on their fancy systems, however, just using the software meant you agreed to give them total control over whatever you create in their software. Not a nice idea.

The company, Apple, created such outrage over that initial offering (and their subsequent 'removal' of books and music users had legitimately purchased, that they recanted and changed their policy (though I believe the original wording remains largely intact).

The point is, if they expect to continue selling products, they can't afford the draconian actions you're suggesting. That said, I continually have issues with Apple 'erasing' my purchases from their system anytime I lose my internet connection. But that's more of a 'systems usage' design failure, rather than a 'malicious intent' failure.

Also, the 'fancy software' they came up with was never intended for use for fiction, but was intended for 'multimedia works' (i.e. children's electronic books which had virtual 'pop-up' video displays). They weren't trying to restrict the use of the text in those displays, as much as they didn't want their 'content creators' taking the software ideas and transferring them to other devices (an effort which has largely failed, mostly because Apple's 'Author' program NEVER caught on)!

The point is, if they expect to continue selling products, they can't afford the draconian actions you're suggesting.

CW,

If they felt that was true they'd reword the section to remove the draconian aspect. The telling part is they have, in the past, stated they wouldn't misuse the wording while they keep it there. If they have no intention of misusing it, why keep it at all. What they really mean by having it is - we want to really use this, but aren't yet sure we can get away with it, but hang around, we will use it in the future when wet hink we can get away with it.

Ernest clearly has a very cynical view of the world.

Nah, just a shit load of experience with contract law where I saw a lot of what look like idiot clauses actually being applied in the contract performance - people stick them in for a reason.

One that comes to mind is the famous band who had a term about coloured sweets in their contracts, along with a lot of stuff about the stage set up and safety. They had the sweets in there because it gave them a quick check on if the contractor had really read the contract and acted on it, which saved them time checking all aspects of the stage and safety set ups. They felt if they got the sweets right they would likely have the rest right. - A weird clause that had a reason that wasn't obvious to all.

However, just because it wasn't put there for malicious reasons, doesn't mean that a subsequent change in corporate leadership won't end up using it for malicious ends, particularly if a company ends up in bankruptcy.

That is the real problem with a lot of the funky clauses in EULAs and web site terms of services.

That's always a problem. But at this point, there's little chance of Amazon going bankrupt any time soon!

However, I think he's absolutely correct in this, if they didn't at least consider someday make use of the clause, they wouldn't have it in the contract.

I've mentioned before, the wording for the clause also covers their 'borrowing' of books. Amazon has a history of keeping books (both print and electronic) in their warehouses, so they can 'ship if immediately' whenever anyone orders it, without paying authors. The payment occurs when the order is made, instead of when Amazon produces their own internal copies without notifying the author. Thus their 'we can continue selling' covers these 'internal borrowed copies', rather than their plans to sell discontinued books.

I tend to be very cynical too, but I also put more weight on a person's/company's actions than I do on their words.

In this case, I prefer their actions (borrowing books in order to sell more of my books), so I simply choose to not worry about other alternative fears.

to keep the customer on the straight and narrow. ... a charge to cover our resultant expenses. de facto the courts would consider that a fine

All contracts written by a business are to define what the business will do and what the customer must do.

I don't know about the law in England, but in the US there is a major difference between a charge for providing additional services (service charge) and a fine (a punitive action).

There is a narrow line between the two.

We may be thinking of two different things for to me it is not a narrow line.

In the US, a business can charge a monthly fee for the accounting costs incurred in maintaining the customer's account, which is called a service charge. The fee can be a flat rate charge, a percentage of the balance owed, or a combination of both. When interest is charged on the outstanding balance, it is to reimburse the business for their capital being tied-up and these details are spelled-out in the contract. That is different from the business taking-out a loan, and then charging the customer with the loan's interest.

In the US, a business can define in the contract that the customer will be liable for legal costs incurred by the business if they have to take the customer to court. However, they cannot directly charge the customer for those costs. The court will order the customer to pay the outstanding balance, legal costs, and interest if appropriate.