It has no real practical significance to me at the moment but the release of Mark Twain’s Autobiography just makes me wonder:
Mark Twain died in 1910. All of his works are in the public domain and have been for many years. However, the “new” autobiography contains some content (a small amount) that has never before been published, though obviously it was written a century or more ago.
Would the new material, or for that matter if a cache of never-published-or-seen-before-but-authenticated-as-genuine Mark Twain novels was found in a chest in his backyard, be copyrightable, or is it automatically public domain since it’s new to publication but the author died a century ago?
Unpublished material by a known individual before Jan. 1, 1923 that is published today is treated as if it were a new work. That means author’s life + 70 years. Since Twain died in 1910, presumably nothing he wrote can be considered for copyright today.
Ah, thanks. So it IS a new work but the author’s death date is still applicable.
Something I’ve wondered about is photographs. Some websites host large digital copies of, say, Civil War or turn of the century photos, but they have a “may not be used without permission” policy.
This guy, for example, owns what may be the earliest photo of Lincoln- it’s not authenticated as Lincoln. If it did prove to be Lincoln then his ownership of the actual daguerrotype is the same as any other property, but if I downloaded a copy of that and used it for the cover of a book on Abraham Lincoln I wonder would he be able to stop me or have a good chance of claiming royalties from me since he owns the original and it’s hosted on his web page. Of course if he were terrible concerned he could blemish the picture with a PROPERTY OF LINCOLNPORTRAIT.COM or whatever band to protect it (which many web pages do with original photos) if he wanted to stop using it, but I do wonder if the digitization makes a difference.
Ooh, finally a GQ that I have personal experience with, that helps fellow dopers!
I produced a poster with a picture of Mark Twain and a quote. Well, it got distributed internationally (to Credit Unions), and we got a cease-and-desist letter from the copyright holder. I, and our Intellectual Props lawyer, both said “What copyright? It should be public domain by now!”
One thing I really like about our legal system. If someone objects, they usually send you a cease-and-desist letter instead of just fining you. And every time, I apologize profusely, stop selling the item, and everyone’s cool.
Also, to add to previous posts, Mark Twain was a fierce supporter of copyright law to protect the author/artist/musician… or oysterman :). (Take a look at his statements before Congress for a good laugh, available in a book excerpt from http://www.thecapitol.net/Publications/testifyingbeforecongress_Twain.html)
I did about 3 years of undergrad research on MT for my thesis, so I’m either an expert novice or a novice expert on him. He was an inveterate family man, and much more private than most people expect (his face is still one of the most recognized around the world, and his novels are perennial best-sellers). His statements before Congress are at once hilarious and insightful, as typical of (IMHO) the greatest humorist we’ve ever seen. Anywhere.
In his testimony, MT supports a prior argument made by Edward Everett Hale (a prominent friend) that allowing copyrights to expire on creative works is akin to the government taking over coal mines after a specified period of time and giving their production yields for free to the American people, but in the case of literature, the revenues are simply diverted to the publisher.
Twain’s driving argument in his comments are that he has more money than he needs (from his copyright revenues), and he merely wants to ensure that he can provide for his daughters upon his death. Failure to extend copyright periods would, by extension, leave his daughters comparatively destitute.
When he wrote his autobiography, with an eye to the copyright concerns, he insisted that portions not be published until certain time periods had elapsed. This would ensure that, as long as people bought the new bits of the autobiography, the integrity of the piece as a copyrighted whole would be renewed (this has worked only so well…).
I highly recommend reading his comments (they’re fairly brief). Also, some of the books that come to mind in regard to biography and research (if you’re interested) include Mr. Clemens and Mark Twain by Justin Kaplan, anything by Ann Ryan, anything by Laura Skandera-Trombley, and several others. Heck, if I had my thesis handy, I’d post the whole bibliography.
I’ll end here by saying only this - I found (and find) Twain so fascinating that I actually postponed graduate studies after completing my undergrad thesis to cleanse my palate. I’ve moved on into an unrelated career field, and find myself struggling all the time not to use Twain references in discussions with clients and colleagues.
Basically, the answer, at least in terms of copyright, is that no, he wouldn’t be able to stop you.
You are correct that his ownership of the physical object (the daguerreotype itself) allows him to restrict access to the image. If he wants to keep the picture in his filing cabinet, and never show it to anyone else, he is well within his rights to do that.
But, once he chooses to make a copy and post it on the internet, he has no authority to stop someone else making a copy and using it in any way that they see fit. Of course, as far as i can tell, the largest size of the image available on the website is about 500 x 600 pixels, which isn’t really big enough for high-quality print reproductions (e.g., the cover of a book). But if you wanted to make a copy of the image and use it on your website, or in a book, you could do so.
Physical ownership and copyright are two quite different things.
You can’t simply renew copyright like that, just because you happen to be the heirs of the original creator. That’s not how it works. There are circumstances where renewal of copyright was and is an issue, but anything written by Mark Twain, and any picture taken of Mark Twain, must have been produced before the end of 1910, making it in the public domain.
Well, except that he also says, in that very same testimony, that he thinks the proposed extension, to the life of the author plus 50 years, “will satisfy any reasonable author, because it will take care of his children.” He was arguing that the 42-year limit was too low, but he was not arguing for permanent and indefinite copyright.
And his argument about the publishers is no longer applicable, because out-of-copyright works no longer require a publisher to make them available in hard copy. as the existence of Project Gutenberg and innumerable other e-text projects demonstrate, people can now easily get access to these old works without lining the pockets of publishers. So, in fact, i would think that he would be quite happy with the current situation, because it does allow literary products to be handed over to the American people upon the expiration of copyright.
…and one of the bad things about our legal system is that anyone can send a threatening “cease and desist” letter with no legal grounds and scarecrow you into being their bitch. Mark Twain’s works are out of copyright, and it doesn’t matter what someone says in a “cease and desist” letter. You should have done some very simple research and told them to fuck off. Or ask why they haven’t sued Google Books, Amazon, Project Gutenberg, the Library of Congress, or the 1,000 other sites on the net with much deeper pockets than yourself who are freely distributing his works and images of him.
I’ve been the recipient of fraudulent “cease and desist” letters too (and IMO a lawyer who sends such a clearly fraudulent letter should be disbarred for life). In 100% of the cases I ignored them, because they were wrong.
Huh? You’re claiming here that anything posted on the Internet is public domain. That’s nonsense. If he holds a legitimate copyright, then he can sue anyone who uses it.
It’s likely the copyright isn’t legitimate (since copyright is based upon date of creation). But if it’s a copyrighted item, putting it on the Internet does not give anyone the right to make copies of it without permission.
I think he’s speaking only of this specific daguerrotype. So long as the owner keeps the physical object locked up in his vault at home, obviously he can legally prevent anyone from using that specific image. But once it is put in digital form on the web, that specific image, being out of copyright, is now public domain.
As i thought i made quite clear, i was responding specifically to Sampiro’s question about a 150+ year-old daguerreotype. That particular item is out of copyright, and physical possession of it does not change that fact. And if you copy and post any out-of-copyright image or text on the internet, there’s nothing you can do to stop others from making copies for themselves and using those copies in any manner they see fit.
He also says (in regard to his conversation with the dude from the House of Lords) that his opinion is that copyright should be “permanent” and uses the Bible as an example of permanent copyright (no time to dig through the text right now, but it’s in there).
In regard to publishers - all texts require a publisher in order to be… well, published. Publishers publish for one reason - profit. That’s the whole point of MT’s argument (and he had, himself run a publishing company; one that bankrupted him).
In regard to MT being happy about Gutenberg… I think MT would feel somewhat conflicted, but ultimately feel that the works belong to (at least) immediate progeny. Chaucer’s greatX20 grandson, perhaps not. But MT’s daughters and grandchildren, yes. He built (and lost) fortunes several times and didn’t want this to be the fate of his successors (at least as far out as his mind could reach).
Mind you, I’m not speaking in legalistic terms. My commentary here is only in regard to what MT’s thought process was (at least as my research leads me to believe). He had a great affinity for his adopted family (eg, anything that had anything to do with Livy, his wife, whom he referred to repeatedly as “my Muse”).
I wouldn’t be surprised if MT would have been most comfortable (but not entirely) with a system of depreciating copyright privileges (after 50 years, publishing profits are half family-owned, half publisher-owned, or something like that). He was both an enthusiastic, if failed businessman and an artist (who despised lawyers and legislators).
Anyway, since the OP is in reference to MT specifically, biographical analysis is an important consideration. Also, I’d caution against taking anything MT ever said or wrote as Gospel - he’s a humorist, satirist, and an extremely logical prick. He’s the kid who calls your mother fat with a smile on his face (not a personal assault - I don’t know your mother - just an Emersononian reference).
Ok… I’m done. MT gets me running my mouth. I’ll just end with a quote from him:
Right, i saw that. And, much as i love Mark Twain’s writing and respect his intellect and many of his political sensibilities, i completely disagree with his position. Permanent copyright is a shitty idea.
Also, despite his general feeling on the subject, he also made clear that he recognized that fact that limits were enshrined in the constitution, and that he would be happy enough with a lifetime plus 50 years limit.
Well, no shit, Sherlock. But what constitutes publishing is very different today than it was over 100 years ago, and the profit motive is not universal. These days, all that is required, in terms of making a work available, is scanning it and then posting it on the internet, which is exactly what Project Gutenberg does. There’s no profit for anyone there; it’s essentially a cooperative effort assisted by a whole bunch of people, including thousands of volunteers.
Now, some people might prefer not to read Tom Sawyer on their computer screens; they might, instead, want a nice book that they can take with them to the beach. In those cases, there is still a place for regular publishers, and for them to make a profit on the publication of the book. But, in such cases, the books generally sell quite cheaply (Penguin classics, etc.), and the publishers are essentially making money on the creating of the physical product rather than on creating the actual content. And any publisher can publish an out-of-copyright work, not just the original publisher.
And yet he says, right there in the testimony that you link to:
Seems to me that he wasn’t as adamant about generations beyond his own children as you suggest.
I’m not sure i agree. As i said, i’m a huge fan of Mark Twain, but neither a biographical analysis, nor an exegesis of his opinions about copyright are, in my opinion, really germane to the question of whether his works are now out of copyright, or even the question of whether they should be out of copyright. We have laws about copyright precisely so that the system is not determined by the whims and preferences of individual authors and artists.
Not under today’s law. Copyright is inherent from the moment of creation. Everything I write on my home computer is instantly copyrighted, whether or not I ever publish it.
You can also register a copyright without publishing it.
Twain’s direct line died with his only grandchild, Nina, who died without issue in the 1960s; her estate went to her stepfather, a Franco-Russian music professor whose family lived in France and had no connection to Twain. His closest relatives would be descendants of his sister Pamela or perhaps his wife Livy’s relatives. I wonder who holds the “estate of” copyright.
So I wonder if the cease and desist most likely a con or somebody who honestly thought they owned it.
Twain’s daughter Clara (Langhorne Clemens Gabrilowitsch) Samossoud was a brilliant manager of his estate and at keeping his work in print and his image before the public. She actually gave Hal Holbrook pointers on his voice and mannerisms and allowed him to use the work free of charge (it was still copyright protected when he began Mark Twain Tonight) in part because of the free publicity. Even after giving a fortune to charities during her lifetime and surviving The Great Depression she left more than $2 million in 1962 ($15 million+ in today’s money) and that was just the cash; any real estate and personal valuables would of course have increased that.
Her two complaints about Holbrook, incidentally: that he wore a white suit (which she said her father did often but never when lecturing except once when he lectured on wearing white suits) and that he smoked a cigar (which again, her father did often but not when giving lectures). This too comes into play on the copyright issue: Holbrook some years ago sued another man who was billing himself as “MARK TWAIN TONIGHT” (the name of Holbrook’s one man show) and because that name was not copyrightable and the works read from were public domain the other person’s lawyers felt Holbrook had no case. HOWEVER, the fact the other man wore a white suit and smoked a cigar were considered infringements on Holbrook’s works somehow.
Holbrook doesn’t actually have a script but has about 20 hours of Twain material memorized and picks and chooses from it at each play depending on his mood and that of the audience; he’s been performing as Mark Twain now for almost 20 years longer than Sam Clemens did.
Could be either. As Una Persson suggests in her post, there are plenty of people on the internet who either have no idea about whether copyright applies, or who know that it doesn’t, but still do their best to prevent public domain works from being distributed.
We had a guest on this very message board a while back who claimed copyright on the 100-year-old pictures that he had posted on a website, and who seemed to have no clue about the difference between physical ownership and copyright.
And this applies also, in many cases, to museum and academic databases. I know that Una has spoken before on this message board about receiving legal-type letters from museums telling her to remove out-of-copyright images from her website. Scholarly owners of material also put copyright claims in places where there is no copyright. I have access, through my university, to the full Harper’s Weekly database for the period 1857 to 1912. Here’s a copy of a page from the Harper’s Weekly of January 26, 1901:
While they might own the physical copies of that magazine, and while they might have taken the time and the effort to scan them, and while they might be able to restrict access to the image through the mechanism of a subscription-only database, the fact is that they have absolutely no authority to claim copyright over a 109-year-old image. I can take that image and do whatever i want with it.
In fact, the reason i have the image is that i was doing some contract editing work on a history book for a university press, and part of my job was to track down and make usable Photoshop files out of the images that were going to be used in the book. I took that image from Harper’s Weekly, used Photoshop to remove the copyright symbol, and it went straight into the book, with no objection from the press’s lawyers. And the lawyers for publishers tend to err on the side of caution in cases like this.
Well, that was one of the points of the Copyright Term Extension Act, passed in the late 1990s.
Disney, in this case, refers not to Walt Disney the individual, but to the Disney Corporation, and one of the provisions of the Act was to extend copyright for works of corporate authorship. The term was previously 75 years, but it was extended to Publication+95 or Creation+120, whichever is earlier. There are differences within this, depending upon when the work was first published, but basically the Act added 20 years to Mickey Mouse’s copyright. There’s a good guide here, which is slightly more detailed than the one linked earlier by Exapno Mapcase.
It was, in my opinion, a bullshit act, and should never have been passed.
