For a fun read, go to:
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35560003#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa
Hint: "The Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia as well as Wikisource, said its action was "an unfortunate example of the overreach of the US' current copyright law".
Briefly, plan to come back in 2042 if you'd like to read an online copy of the original published version of Anne Frank's diary.
Anne Frank wrote it, therefore, she owned the copyright. Her father modified what she wrote without her permission. Doesn't that mean he violated Anne's copyright?
Doesn't that mean he violated Anne's copyright?
Depends on what country's laws you go by.
Anne Frank wrote it, therefore, she owned the copyright. Her father modified what she wrote without her permission. Doesn't that mean he violated Anne's copyright?
Actually her father was listed as an editor on the original publication of the diaries. The reason the copyright got extended is that he came back later and claimed that he was actually a co-author on what was originally published.
The reason the copyright got extended is that he came back later and claimed that he was actually a co-author on what was originally published.
Damn, you can claim anything when the original copyright holder is dead and never left any instructions.
Damn, you can claim anything when the original copyright holder is dead and never left any instructions.
His name is on the original published version of the diaries as an editor, so he does have some connection to it.
That said I haven't read the book and I don't know enough about the details of his claims to judge the merits one way or the other.
His name is on the original published version of the diaries as an editor, so he does have some connection to it.
My understanding, from decades ago, was that he served as editor mainly to censure the things that embarrassed the family. There still are angry diatribes, but I imagine he cut the really juicy stuff. Thus I don't see him as a co-author as much as someone limiting and diminishing the story.
That said, she was still a young child when she wrote it, so it may have needed work. But still, if you hire an editor, you don't give them writing credits. An editor only assumes author status if they intend to take the story over for themselves and claim all the profit for themselves (instead of trying to get the story out to the maximum number of readers).
My understanding, from decades ago, was that he served as editor mainly to censure the things that embarrassed the family. There still are angry diatribes, but I imagine he cut the really juicy stuff. Thus I don't see him as a co-author as much as someone limiting and diminishing the story.
You'll probably have to dig into the court documents to see exactly what he claims to have done that makes him a co-author rather than just the editor he was listed as when it was first published. I am presuming that because the court accepted that he was a co-author that he had more than just an unsupported assertion.
C'mon, guys! Read the damned article ... it explains all of the various editions, versions, edits, translations ... and the tangle of various national copyright laws involved.
Or shall we just sit here scratching our butts and making wild-assed guesses off the top of our stupid heads?
Sheesh!
Actually, the only point I personally give a damn about is that fact that copyright in the US is, for all practical purposes, eternity and a day! (Yeh, I know what it reads, but a good lawyer [read: Disney Corp] can get that copyright extended for another century.)
Damned little will ever be hitting the public domain in the United States, which means that private corporate interests will have a lock on our cultural heritage. It bugs the hell out of me. I don't know about you guys, but I'm old enough to remember the gift of literature and libraries and public domain that enriched us while growing up.
Damned little will ever be hitting the public domain in the United States, which means that private corporate interests will have a lock on our cultural heritage.
Just another way to control us. "Control the reading material - control the mind."
Damned little will ever be hitting the public domain in the United States,
Except, by law, anything produced by anyone while an employee of the US Government or a government agency is immediately in the Public Domain unless it has a National Security Level assigned or covered by other legislation like the privacy laws.
Damned little will ever be hitting the public domain in the United States, which means that private corporate interests will have a lock on our cultural heritage. It bugs the hell out of me. I don't know about you guys, but I'm old enough to remember the gift of literature and libraries and public domain that enriched us while growing up.
It's called rent-seeking (and not just with copyright), and there's a lot of it going around these days. Much better than innovation, which is risky.
bb
