When an author writes a story, what is the copyright date? Is it the date the story comes out of the typewriter (or whatever tool)? Is it the date it is registered with the copyright office? Is is the date the story is first published on SOL? If the author removes it from SOL, then reposts it on SOL in some later year, is THAT the copyright date?
In the US it used to be the date it was registered. However that basically became irrelevant for any stories written after the 1976 copyright act went into effect.
The copyright notice on printed books is now frequently just a year. But even that is irrelevant to when the copyright expires.
Under the Bern Convention (an international treaty on copyright, which covers most of the world and goes back to the late 19th century) the term of copyright is the life of the author + 50 years.
For the US, for works with natural authors, the copyright term is currently life + 70 years. For works with a corporate author it's 90 years.
So for books generally, the important date for determining when the copyright expires is not when the copyright became effective, but the date of the author's death.
As soon as you write it, it's copyrighted. But I'm assuming you mean the copyright date listed with the story.
On the copyright page in my novels, I choose the year I publish the novel. So I could be writing it in 2020, but when I publish it in 2021 that's the date I use.
If I had written a long story on SOL and then decided to publish it as a novel, I would use the date I posted it on SOL, not the date I published the novel. The last thing I'd want is for someone to have copied it from SOL and have a copy before my copyright date.
If I had written a long story on SOL and then decided to publish it as a novel, I would use the date I posted it on SOL, not the date I published the novel. The last thing I'd want is for someone to have copied it from SOL and have a copy before my copyright date.
I have seen stories on SOL with a copyright date, then the story removed, then reposted with a years-later copyright date. What would be an author's motive for doing that?
What would be an author's motive for doing that?
It's not the author doing that. I've asked Lazeez about it in the past in references to stories that were posted elsewhere long before being posted to SOL.
The copyright date you see on SOL is system generated, it's the date the story or at least the first chapter of the story was posted to SOL.
I thought authors had the capability of supplying their own copyright statements. Not that I'd have a clue how to use it.
AJ
The copyright date you see on SOL is system generated, it's the date the story or at least the first chapter of the story was posted to SOL.
Correct. However, if the author is interested in doing so, it's very easy to change the date, and so is the info on the copyright owner.
It might have been done unthinkingly by accepting the submission wizard's default date.
Since I wouldn't expect there to be much benefit to the author's estate from the later date, it would probably be preferable for the earlier date to be retained so some oick who posted a stolen copy of the story on the world's biggest stolen-story fencer would have less of a defence.
AJ
It might have been done unthinkingly by accepting the submission wizard's default date.
More likely, it was probably done on older stories, before Lazeez instituted the editable copyright date feature.
Since I wouldn't expect there to be much benefit to the author's estate from the later date, it would probably be preferable for the earlier date to be retained so some oick who posted a stolen copy of the story on the world's biggest stolen-story fencer would have less of a defence.
Sorry, but copyrights are officially registered and stored by the original copyright date, so listing the date of the author's death wouldn't benefit anyone, particularly the dependents' copyright claims.
so listing the date of the author's death wouldn't benefit anyone
It's of benefit to anyone who wants to know when the copyright expires.
On that end, it's the original copyright date that's meaningless.
I have seen stories on SOL with a copyright date, then the story removed, then reposted with a years-later copyright date. What would be an author's motive for doing that?
Technically, if the story is heavily revised it needs a new copyright date. An example is the major changes made to a few of my stories due to the changed Aussie laws - the new versions have and additional date added for the copyright. This is because the original date applies to the original material but the new date applies to the new material.
Technically, if the story is heavily revised it needs a new copyright date. An example is the major changes made to a few of my stories due to the changed Aussie laws - the new versions have and additional date added for the copyright. This is because the original date applies to the original material but the new date applies to the new material.
Typically, when an author makes substantial changes to a story, they wouldn't just 'update' the original story, otherwise no one would ever pay attention to it. Instead, you'd release it under a new title, which requires a unique copyright, and then list the two separate copyright dates to document the dates of each relevant copyright claim, otherwise anyone could republish the book and then claim ownership by claiming your original copyright date. Leaving the original date off makes your legal claims a bit mirkier. Your legal claims are still valid, but if readers can't tell when you originally wrote the story, you'll likely be fighting off various claims that you 'stole' your own work!
I have seen stories on SOL with a copyright date, then the story removed, then reposted with a years-later copyright date. What would be an author's motive for doing that?
Beats me. Probably not thinking it through.
If I had written a long story on SOL and then decided to publish it as a novel, I would use the date I posted it on SOL, not the date I published the novel. The last thing I'd want is for someone to have copied it from SOL and have a copy before my copyright date.
It's also not uncommon to list multiple copyright dates. Since I publish Box Sets of my various series, I'll list the copyright for the actual box set, plus for each of the individual novels.
The same process applies for articles used in a collected work, where you'd list the copyright (i.e. publication) date of each article (usually in each separate chapter, rather than the copyright page, though that's a convention, not a requirement). So, you could easily do the same with the SOL publication, especially if you changed the story since the original SOL posting (i.e. more than the random spelling corrections).
For revisions, I'll typically list the original publication and the revision dates on one line with commas, clearly establishing when each revision took place (Note: I've never actually used this, but I was considering revisions of both my Catalyst and my Great Death series, changing the series titles too, so it made sense documenting the full copyright history).
By law, in most countries, a work is copyrighted as soon as you type it. However, most courts hold the date it's first disseminated to be the validated copyright date as that can be proven in court. I say disseminated as that's when you first show it to another person be it by handing them a manuscript to read or an electronic copy to edit etc. Most publishers put the date of the first publication as the copyright date.
If you post it to yourself in a sealed envelope with proof of the posting date, does that count as dissemination?
AJ
If you post it to yourself in a sealed envelope with proof of the posting date, does that count as dissemination?
In the US, probably not unless you send it registered mail and keep the envelope sealed until you use it in court.
This would work better as a defense tactic than for a plaintiff.
In the US, probably not unless you send it registered mail and keep the envelope sealed until you use it in court.
Yes, I assumed everyone would know the full anecdote I was talking about. I don't know of anyone who's successfully used it though.
AJ
If you post it to yourself in a sealed envelope with proof of the posting date, does that count as dissemination?
Like girls, some courts do and some courts don't.
technically it's when you type it, but there issue is then burden of proof of that date.
If you post it to yourself in a sealed envelope with proof of the posting date, does that count as dissemination?
That's a myth. It has no legal validation.
That's a myth. It has no legal validation.
It's widely propounded by writing experts. Have there been any cases where it has been rejected as proof of copyright?
AJ
It's widely propounded by writing experts. Have there been any cases where it has been rejected as proof of copyright?
A simple search found this article that states it's never been accepted in court.
songregistration.com/poor_mans_copyright1.htm
What is of more use to you is:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_deposit
quote:
United States
In the United States, any copyrighted and published work must be submitted in two copies to the United States Copyright Office at the Library of Congress. This mandatory deposit is not required to possess copyright of unpublished works, but a copyright registration can give an author enhanced remedies in case of a copyright violation. The Library of Congress does not retain all works.
Australia
In Australia, section 201 of the Copyright Act 1968 and other state acts requires that a copy of all materials published in Australia be deposited with the National Library of Australia. State laws require books and a wide range of other materials published in each state to be deposited in the applicable state library.
end quote
I lodge copies with the NLA and they have this neat system called NED where I lodge the entry electronically and it counts towards the state legal deposit as well as they share the same access system.
The reason I mention Legal Deposit is that if you use it you then have an independent government agency providing a specific date you lodged the copyright that the courts must accept. Now, if someone else claims an earlier date but didn't meet the Legal Deposit rules, well, the court will likely look at their claim with some scepticism.
A simple search found this article that states it's never been accepted in court.
songregistration.com/poor_mans_copyright1.htm
That's not actually what that article says.
Only problem is... as we've already said, NO court that we could find has ever used a postmark or receipt from an envelope as proof in a copyright case! (And, trust us, we've checked β and so have countless others!)
That could mean one of two very different things:
1. The courts have explicitly rejected it as proof in a copyright case.
2. No plaintiff has ever tried to use it as proof in a copyright case.
And note carefully what that article doesn't say. They don't say that they found a case where someone tried it and it was explicitly rejected by the court.
This makes 2 much more likely than 1. And 2 has very different implications for someone who wants to try it than 1 would.
That said, if you are in the US, registering your copyright is not all that expensive. ( https://www.copyright.gov/about/fees.html ) If you can't afford to register, you can't afford to sue someone for violating your copyright.
This is why I said it makes more sense as a defense.
If someone sues you for violating their copyright and you can prove you had the story before they published...
That said, if you are in the US, registering your copyright is not all that expensive. ( https://www.copyright.gov/about/fees.html ) If you can't afford to register, you can't afford to sue someone for violating your copyright.
To show the limits of that statement, take my own example. I've 'published' thirty-three novels. At $57 a pop, that mounts up pretty quickly, especially if an author writes short pieces, such as poems or lyric verses. In my case, I also republish and/or use box sets, where I published multiple stories under a separate copyright, so those costs only escalate from there.
While the $57 (USD) fee isn't onerous, it becomes moreso since you have no way of knowing which copyright is warranted (needing to be registered) and which isn't, leading to a real legal quandary.
As for the 'right to sue', that only protects your right to claim 'compensated' damages, not the right to take your claim to court for either clarification or disciplinary decisions. However, if you do register, then you can legally claim the entire proceeds from any copyright infringement's total revenue (i.e. if they stole your work, you could claim ALL the income they received from that work, but nothing more than that.
Again, in the case of a single poem or stanza, that would be a pretty significant lifetime overhead.
It's widely propounded by writing experts.
As many myths are. This is from site https://slate.com/technology/2014/05/poor-mans-copyright-mailing-something-to-yourself-doesnt-work.html which has a link to a U.S. Copyright site (which it quotes):
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."
Now what that says is it's not a replacement for registering your copyright with them (in the U.S.). But you own the copyright as soon as you write it. It's talking about extra copyright protection like collecting damages.
So the myth about mailing it to yourself isn't really about replacing the registration with the U.S. agency. It's about proof that it's yours. That you wrote it before the other guy. That's the myth. I read someplace that it won't hold up in court because you can't prove the envelop wasn't tampered with.
I read someplace that it won't hold up in court because you can't prove the envelop wasn't tampered with.
That would likely be a problem, but really, unless someone can come up with a court case where it was tried and went for an appellate court decision* on that specific issue the best we can say with certainty is that no one knows if it would work or not.
That the copyright act does not recognize it, would not in any way bar a court from recognizing it as evidence of which work was written first in a dispute over two similar works.
*Trial court decisions by one judge in one case are not binding on other judges or other cases.
Now what that says is it's not a replacement for registering your copyright with them (in the U.S.). But you own the copyright as soon as you write it. It's talking about extra copyright protection like collecting damages.
The keyword here is "Registered". Also, the only time this 'unofficial copyright' is used has been when authors send unpublished works to questionable publishers for consideration, as it's not unknown for them to reject it, and then turn the work over to another author who has more a more established literary history and could generate more income than a poor slob like we would be able to.
Thus, it's not intended to prove copyright, instead it's intended to prove the copyright theft by the publishers themselves, which is a while different kettle of fish!
If you post it to yourself in a sealed envelope with proof of the posting date, does that count as dissemination?
For a long time, that was the 'go to' copyright defense, especially if you didn't trust your editor/publisher, because if the publisher 'steals' you story and publishes it under a different title/author, you'd have a ready defense. However, the envelope needed to remain sealed, with a definite established legitimacy (i.e. stored in a lockbox with no access, either by the author or anyone else), though often the original would be sent to a copyright lawyer to preserve the material's authenticity.
However, those days no longer exist, as it's too easy to digitally remaster such evidence (say by simply steaming open an original envelope, or nearly by 'faking' the original stamps), so it's no longer considered 'valid' evidence anymore.
As far as copyright date, the are two separate copyrights. The Registered copyright, supplying more extensive protections, which used the original copyright registration date, and the default 'first usage' date copyright, which used the first 'publication' date (note: for online publications, like SOL, that would include the first 'post' date, as the owning site maintains their own copyright registration).
However, those days no longer exist, as it's too easy to digitally remaster such evidence (say by simply steaming open an original envelope, or nearly by 'faking' the original stamps), so it's no longer considered 'valid' evidence anymore.
Do you know of instances where such evidence has been ignored or refuted? If not, who no longer considers it valid evidence?
AJ
By law, in most countries, a work is copyrighted as soon as you type it. However, most courts hold the date it's first disseminated to be the validated copyright date as that can be proven in court.
The courts have nothing to do with that, as that how copyright was designed. The copyright office, in each country, lists the 'first use' date, not the first 'concept' date. It's more a matter of record keeping than anything else, as it makes searching and validating copyright claims much easier to use the more easily verified first publication date.
lists the 'first use' date, not the first 'concept' date
You cannot copyright a concept so it's the date the work is made available.
it's the date the work is made available
No, it's the date of creation. If the author wrote it 20 years ago and now finally decides to publish it, the copyright date precedes the publishing date by 20 years!
HM.
it's the date the work is made available
No, it's the date of creation. If the author wrote it 20 years ago and now finally decides to publish it
I didn't say publish. I said make available, like in print or digital format. What happens after the concept phase when you actually write it.
I said make available, like in print or digital format.
Isn't that what publishing is?
ETA: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/publish:
publish verb
pubΒ·βlish | ΛpΙ-blish How to pronounce publish (audio)
published; publishing; publishes
Definition of publish
transitive verb
1a : to make generally known
b : to make public announcement of
2a : to disseminate to the public
b : to produce or release for distribution specifically : print sense 2c
c : to issue the work of (an author)
I said make available, like in print or digital format.
Isn't that what publishing is?
No, you don't have to publish it. Just write it. The point was, you can't copyright a concept, an idea. You have to have something physical. If you type it on a sheet of paper on a typewriter or on a computer keyboard where it's on a hard drive or hand write it on paper, then you have something that is available and copyrighted.
Maybe I should have quoted your full statement:
I didn't say publish. I said make available, like in print or digital format.
It was not about copyright but about you stating that 'publish' is not 'make available', it is.
And if we are talking about when a copyright comes into existence, the wording used in current US Copyright law is "fixed in a tangible form". I'm not sure about the Bern convention, but I believe it is similar.
but about you stating that 'publish' is not 'make available', it is.
I think I said that it doesn't have to be published to be available, not that it's not available if it's published. As DS quoted, simply "in a tangible form."
The point was, you can't copyright a concept, an idea. You have to have something physical.
Switch is right. You can't copyright an idea, only the physical words on a page (or nowadays, the virtual words on a virtual page). The only way to protect anything more, is via trademark, which only applies to names, titles and whatever you can officially trademark (long lyrics or movie phrases used for selling physical items.
I didn't say publish. I said make available, like in print or digital format.
If it's just a manuscript (literally handwritten) or pages written using a typewriter, then buried in the attic for 20 years it's hardly available, but still already copyrighted.
HM.
The copyright office, in each country
It seems the Copyright Office is an US institution, other countries don't have anything alike.
HM.
It seems the Copyright Office is an US institution, other countries don't have anything alike.
Actually, each country does have their own version, though like Boker, they're often subcontracted out to private national companies who are responsible for reporting tax information. However, there IS no official 'Copyright Office' that you can just visit and talk to the local clerk or manager, as they're mostly online now.
Just Google 'your-country's-name ISBN' and it should specify who to contact. In most countries (at least within Europe) the ISBNs are delivered FREE to natives to help promote the country's developing authors.
The US Copyright Office does not and never has handled ISBNs.
AFIK registering copyrights (which is what the US Copyright Office does and it's all they do) is a strictly US thing.
The US Copyright Office does not and never has handled ISBNs.
I never claimed that it was (however badly I stated my position). As I noted, ISBNs are assigned in the U.S. by a private company, Boker. What I did say, was that Boker has a way to associate your text with the ISBN, even months or years BEFORE you officially publish it.
I never claimed that it was (however badly I stated my position).
From your prior comment:
@helmut_meukel
It seems the Copyright Office is an US institution, other countries don't have anything alike.
Actually, each country does have their own version
No, other countries having their own version of Boker is nothing remotely like them having their own version of the US Copyright Office which is what you were replying to.
No, other countries having their own version of Boker is nothing remotely like them having their own version of the US Copyright Office which is what you were replying to.
Sorry. The US Copyright Office handles copyright applications, it was nothing to do with assigning specific ISBN numbers. Those are two separate services with NO relation to one another.
The copyright office, in each country, lists the 'first use' date, not the first 'concept' date.
As Helmut says, the Copyright Office is a purely US invention and just another way to make people pay the government money.
To me, the best and cheapest way to have legal proof is to abide by your country's Legal Deposit requirements and lodge a copy with the relevant government agency. That way the minimum date you can prove in court is the date the agency has for lodging of the document and it saves you from being taken to court for not meeting the law on Legal Deposit.
To me, the best and cheapest way to have legal proof is to abide by your country's Legal Deposit requirements and lodge a copy with the relevant government agency.
The relevant office, at least in the U.S., IS the U.S. Copyright office, not Boker, who assigns specific ISBNs. Many countries offer free ISBNs to their citizens, but otherwise charge for each just like Boker does. As for paying for Copyright, that allows copyright holders to sue for damages, rather simply stopping a publication, which since the violators are normally overseas in a non-copyright signatory country, is often useless anyway.
But your submitting you work itself to your regulator agency is essentially the same as my suggestion, as offering the original text when assigning you ISBN entry to Boker essentially serves the same purpose, as it registers the book and completion dates. It's not official, but it supposedly makes claiming that it's yours twenty years later easier (especially if it never get published for some reason).
In the US it might be possible to deposit a copy with the Library of Congress without registering a copyright.
from - www.copyright.gov/circs/circ07d.pdf
mandatory Deposit of Copies or Phonerecords for the Library of Congress
All works under copyright protection that are published in the United States are subject to the "mandatory deposit" provision of the copyright law. It requires that two copies of the "best edition" of a copyrightable work published in the United States be sent to the Copyright Office within three months of publication.
...
The Copyright Act establishes two separate deposit requirements. Section 408 specifies the deposit requirements for registering a work with the Copyright Office.1 Section 407 specifies the requirements for depositing a work with the Copyright Office for use by the Library of Congress, commonly known as mandatory deposit requirement.
Section 407 states that the "owner of copyright or of the exclusive right of publication" in a work published in the United States must deposit the required number of complete copies or phonorecords2 in the Copyright Office within three months of the date of publication. The copyright law defines publication as the "distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership or by rental, lease, or lending." "[O]ffering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display" also constitutes publication under the copyright law.Submitting a published work for the use or disposition of the Library of Congress is not a condition of copyright protection. However, if compliance with the mandatory deposit requirement is not met within three months of publication in the United States, the Register of Copyrights may facilitate, demand, negotiate, or exempt the provision of copies. The mandatory deposit provision ensures that the Library of Congress has an opportunity to obtain copies of every copyrightable work published in the United States for its collections or for exchange with or transfer to any other library. In most cases, a copyright owner can satisfy the mandatory deposit requirement by submitting an application to register a work, provided that the owner submits two complete copies or phonorecords of the best edition. Alternatively, the owner can submit the required works to the Copyright Office without seeking a registration. For information about applying for copyright registration, see Copyright Registration
I think that says all that needs to be said about the US legal deposit requirements. Follow the URL above for more info.
I've not checked on how you do Legal Deposit in the USA or Canada or any country except Australia, as they don't concern me. However, most countries have laws about Legal Deposit and here in Australia it's a simple on-line process that's free and provides a timestamped and dated receipt of doing so which is legal evidence of you registering the story with the appropriate government agency. If you end up in court on a copyright issue where you need to show the date that's a solid bit of evidence for you. That makes the rest of the discussion about proof a null issue.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_deposit
You could also buy an ISBN and then register that for your book, I think.
The ISBN is the publishing side, not the intellectual property side. As an author, I could own the copyright and my publisher would purchase an ISBN for the book published.
I think of ISBNs as SKU numbers. Go to a catalog, find the book, and order it by its ISBN. The paperback would have a different ISBN than the hard cover for the same novel.
You could also buy an ISBN and then register that for your book, I think.
As Switch Blayde stated, the ISBN is intended for publishing purposes. Your purchase and registration of the ISBN proves the date and title of your work, but not the content.
Let's think of this scenario: a published author talks about his intended next book he will start to write after an longer vacation/holiday. Hearing this, I immediately register the intended title using an ISBN and then wait until the author has finished and published the book to claim he stole my book. I could probably get and hack a e-book so I could show the pirated and slightly changed content, but I can't prove I had it already complete back when I registered the ISBN.
HM.
I immediately register the intended title using an ISBN
I don't think you register a title to an ISBN. Don't forget, multiple books can have the same title.
You buy an ISBN and then assign it to a physical product so that someone can buy the correct book. The same book will have different ISBNs for the paperback version, the hard cover version, the epub version, the mobi version, and so on.
That's why I think of an ISBN as a SKU. A store can have the same shirt in blue, black, white, etc. In medium, small, large. Each SKU is for a specific product: medium, blue shirt has one SKU while a large, blue shirt has another. You order by the SKU to make sure you get the correct shirt. Same with books.
The ISBN is basically the catalog number. That's why books sold on KDP don't require ISBNs. Amazon uses their own ASIN to catalog their products so when a buyer adds a book to their shopping cart it's tagged with the ASIN. Bookapy must have its own cataloging system because it also doesn't require ISBNs.
The ISBN
The ICBM is either
an intercontinental ballistic missile, a missile with a minimum range of 5,500 kilometers primarily designed for nuclear weapons delivery. Similarly, conventional, chemical, and biological weapons can also be delivered with varying effectiveness, but have never been deployed on ICBMs.
Or
a statement that I see a bowel movement.
What does "I S B N" abbreviate? Is it supposed to be part of the capital of Portugal, (L) I S B (O) N?
What does "I S B N" abbreviate?
International Standard Book Number. (i.e. they literally number each published book, maintaining a distinct history of each format of any given book, as a popular book may have hundreds of separate ISBNs for the same work protected by a single copyright.
That's why I think of an ISBN as a SKU.
And don't the numbers share the same property of getting recycled?
After ten years of valiant service, a very comfortable functional garment had reached end-of-life. No problem, the item number label was still legible and I'd be happy with the same again. Except that the number was now borne by an item @joyR would be more at home with ;-)
AJ
That's why I think of an ISBN as a SKU.
And don't the numbers share the same property of getting recycled?
No! Once they run out of 10 or 13 digit ISBNs, they'd have to issue a new multiple digit number (ex: 15 or more digits), though nowadays, they'd likely switch to an alphanumeric 10 or 13 digit code instead.
And don't the numbers share the same property of getting recycled?
According to Google, two books can have the same ISBN but publishers aren't supposed to do that and it should be corrected.
AJ
According to Google, two books can have the same ISBN but publishers aren't supposed to it that and it should be corrected.
The actual requirements are that each specific physical format needs it own ISBN, so most sites (Amazon, SW, lulu, etc.) insist on a unique ISBN. However, as long as they're ALL eBooks, you can skip that requirement, as long as you only distribute the book via a single source (i.e. you can sell through Amazon of SW, but if you want to sell to other outlets, you have to 'assign' who has that right, and not grant it to multiple parties, otherwise your copyright will be compromised.
I do this routinely, though sometimes it's so much trouble, I just make a special exception rather than repeatedly making formal exception requests.
That's why I think of an ISBN as a SKU.
A SKU (Stock Keeping Unit) is store/chain dependent, everyone can generate his own numbers for his inventory system. It's better to compare an ISBN number to an European Article Number (EAN) or an Universal Product Code (UPC, mostly used in the US). The EAN code is a world wide standard with unique numbers for products like ISBN (International Standard Book Number) is a world wide standard with unique numbers for books, just differently structured.
You could also buy an ISBN and then register that for your book, I think.
Actually, an ISBN and a copyright are two separate, distinct things, and the one doesn't always apply to the other. However, at least with Boker, the official U.S. copyright firm, you can list your full document, which serves as an 'official' declaration of ownership, which would then predate your first publication date, protecting your from predatory publishing 'partners'.
I've never used it, but I'm familiar with the practice. The problem is that an ISBN only applies to a particular format, and NOT to the original work, thus it has a very limited protection.
One aspect of the Copyright Dates as shown on stories that hasn't yet been mentioned is that of anthology editions. In one of my series of stories the stories have a group of copyright dates because of their publication history which are some years apart..
1. Original story writing and publication date.
2. When I first collected several of those stories into a single book and published it.
3. When I first collected the stories in that book with others stories from other books and published it.
4. When I collected all of the stories of that series into a single anthology publication.
Because each final book was a set of different text to earlier books they got their own title, ISBN, and publication date, despite the content having appeared in earlier books.
3. When I first collected the stories in that book with others stories from other books and published it.
Often, in these cases, the information will be in a Bibliography or Footnote page, rather than on the Copyright page, just to leave room for the official copyright notice.
Often, in these cases, the information will be in a Bibliography or Footnote page, rather than on the Copyright page, just to leave room for the official copyright notice.
I've found I've room to put it on the copyright page, and have done so. Take my Clan Amir series of 45 stories as the most affected. The stories Heritage, Fighting Birth, The Dareed War, The Darmore Demon were all written between 2001 and 2007, as was most of the stories in the series. I then published them all in a book titled A Fighting Heritage in 2007 with that copyright date as I didn't keep a track of the original dates until 2007. I then did an omnibus collection of the stories in A Fighting Heritage, The Shukra War, and the U MAMA War in 2011 as The Berant U Mama Wars with the following:
This is an omnibus compilation of the previously released books
listed below, they're listed and printed in chronological order of the
events in them. They follow the major military conflicts of the country
of Berant and its royal family as they fight a foreign business group
known as U MAMA. The major attack detailed in The Day of Blood is
not included here as it's in the omnibus The Falcon, which follows the
growth and development of Gerry Mannheim. The events in The Falcon
occur between A Fighting Heritage and The Shukra Wars.
To make the compilation easier to read, some sections of duplicated
background material have been delete and some have been amended
without loss of information.
A Fighting Heritage
The Shukra War
The U MAMA War
Copyright Β© 2007, 2008, and 2011 by Ernest Edwards
All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this book or
portions thereof in any form.
At that time I had what was originally 7 books in 2 omnibus collections. In 2017 I collected all of the stories into one anthology titled Clan Amir of Berant and the current version has the following copyright page message:
This is a compilation of the books below in the chronological order of the events in them. They follow the problems of a country fighting for it's independence, plus the key parts in the lives of their warrior leaders and the lives of the country's people. Some sections of duplicated background material have been deleted or amended without the loss of content to make for easier reading, but some of the duplicated material hasn't been removed due to how the original books were written and it was felt the changes would detract from the story the material is in.
About Berant
A Fighting Heritage
Falcon Chick
Falcon Fledgling
The Day of Blood
The Falcon in Flight
The Shukra War
The U MAMA War
As well as the book titles above they have also been previously published as the two anthologies:
The Falcon
The Berant - U MAMA Wars
______________________________________
Clan Amir of Berant
Copyright Β© 2007 - 2019 by Ernest Bywater as Ernest Edwards
This shows the original and current copyright dates and the publication history.
I've found the copyright page to be big enough of handle all of that information OK.
This is the format that I use, including the necessary legal disclaimer, but this version specifically specifies both the copyright and each specific copyright date. It's not required, by any measure, but it does look nice (IMHO).
Not-Quite Human Box Set
Copyright Β© 2017 Vincent Berg. All rights reserved
ISBN: 978-1-941498-88-0
The Cuckoo's Progeny Β© 2016
Lost With Nothing to Lose Β© 2018
Building a Nest of Our Own Β© 2019
This is a work of fiction. All the characters and events portrayed in this book are fictional, and any resemblance to real people or incidents is purely coincidental. All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this book or portions thereof in any form.
Product names, brands, and other trademarks referred to within this book are the property of their respective trademark holders. Unless otherwise specified, no association between the author and any trademark holder is expressed or implied. Nor does it express any endorsement by them, or of them. Use of a term in this book should not be regarded as affecting the validity of any trademark, registered trademark, or service mark.
Copyright Date?
If you meet an attractive member of the opposite sex you can suggest going out on a date, even if their name is Copyright. That would be a Copyright Date.
