From Today's news.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/11/16/anne-frank-diary-now-has-co-author.html?intcmp=hplnws
The claim of an additional author (who was in fact always stated to be only an editor and compiler) has now extended the copyright even further.
Potentially of interest to editors. There is bound to be a law case relating to this.
The claim of an additional author (who was in fact always stated to be only an editor and compiler) has now extended the copyright even further.
I hope someone takes them to court on this and demands to see the wording of the original document giving the foundation the copyright.
If the original document lists the story as "The Diary of Anne Frank by Anne Frank," then adding Otto's name to the story means they have no legal right to the copyright and never had any.
If they can get away with adding his name, then they need to pay his estate half the royalties collected to date, unless they have a legal assignment of royalties or copyright from Otto.
Be interesting to see how this pans out. But no one is likely to do anything because it means nothing to them in the financial sense.
edit to add: I hope no one wants to issue any reprints or buy copies for the next 35 years as a result of this action.
Of course, it would have nothing to do with the trustees being able to draw a payment for the next 35 years, would it?
I agree though, the potential for having to pay to the estate is enormous, and I don't see how he could have legally assigned something they always claimed he wasn't party to.
I admit I missed the fact that the original copyright may be invalid, which is a very relevant point, particularly with a recent parallel in the case of Happy Birthday.