I’ve been getting a lot of books that are 100 or so years old. Because of the price of original copies I try and buy reprints or digital copies of the books. Inevitably every book, from reprints to digital copies have a note saying “This book copyrighted 2009 to ‘History Reprinter’, no part of this book maybe reproduced in any way without permission,” or something close to that.
So when someone does do a reprint who owns the copyright, if any? I can figure that a hard copy they just throw the note in there to try and keep people from making copies of it. The digital copies are what I’m more interested in. Most of the books I’ve bought were written in the late 1800s and early 1900s. They haven’t added anything to the book, not even an introduction or translation, sometimes they take out pages or photos. Is the act of converting a book to a new form a way to get copyright or is the warning meaningless? I’ve also seen this on old newspapers where the company takes a microfilm and transfers it to CD have the same warning.
Are there any real problems with me copying large sections of said books and giving them to other people, or do those warnings hold weight?
If the books are 100 years old, they are nearly always in the public domain.
People who publish the older books usually include an introduction and copyright that. The wording is such that the unwary might think the entire book is copyrighted. Similarly, “All rights reserved” or “No part of this book may be reproduced without permission” are meaningless.
Once the book is public domain, it’s always public domain.
The layout of the book, the art of the cover (it might look like simple lettering, but it’s carefully placed, so it’s art). etc, is subject to copyright.
As far as I understand it, this is the case. A good example of this is the reproduction of musical scores. Even though the original music may have been composed hundreds of years ago, most of the currently available printed scores are not in the public domain. Same thing applies to recordings of performances of that music. Some part of the copyright lies with the performers and you can’t just copy and redistribute a recording without their approval.
Like many other aspects of copyright law, there is something of a dearth of black-letter law (as Jack McCoy of Law and Order would say) on the matter. I don’t believe that Title 17 specifically addresses this issue, and there aren’t any controlling court cases.
The most relevant case might be Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corporation, decided in the Southern District of New York, in 1999. While this decision related to the reproduction of out-of-copyright artworks, rather than texts, it seems that the court’s reasoning in this case would, and should, apply to a simple reproduction of an out-of-copyright text.
The court found, essentially, that new copyright does not adhere to a simple copy of an out-of-copyright work. Just taking an old work and making a copy of it does not allow you to claim copyright in the new version. In the court’s opinion:
Now, i’ve been informed by some of the esteemed lawyers on this board (e.g., Gfactor) that Bridgeman v. Corel is not a controlling case, because of the court in which it was decided. That is, if a similar case is brought before a different court in the future, that court will be under no obligation to treat Bridgeman v. Corel as a binding precedent.
However, based on my rather limited reading on the subject, many copyright lawyers argue that the main reason that other such cases have not come before the courts since Bridgeman is that most people believe that the decision in Bridgeman was the right one, and would not be overturned. Note, however, that the judge was pretty scathing of what he saw as the incompetence of the plaintiff’s lawyer in this case.
I know nothing about music scores, as such, but it seems to me that if the modern printed scores were nothing more than direct copies of earlier, out-of-copyright scores, then they should not be subject to new copyright.
If, however, the creating of the new score is not simply “slavish copying,” but actually involved new interpretation or some sort of “spark of originality,” then this would be a different story.
What, exactly, is involved in turning an old piece of music into a new reproduction of that musical score?
IANA(Copyright)L, but there are two ways to copy a book; a facsimile or exact copy, like a scan, which preserves the exact format (typography, page layout, etc), and presenting the same text in a newly formatted form, like a re-typeset book.
In the case of a book under copyright, both types of copying are controlled. In the case of an out-of-copyright book, as I understand it, the format in which a copy is made matters. If the new copy is an exact facsimile, then the work contains no new copyrightable content and you can make a facsimile of the facsimile and sell it. If the work is reformatted, you can use the raw text as much as you like, but the format is theirs and you cannot legally make a facsimile of it.
In the case of classical music scores, things such as notation of time signatures have changed substantially since the 1700s. Scores sold today are not direct copies of the original manuscript; they require some level of reinterpretation to bring them into line with modern notation, and are thus copyrightable. In the case of other scores, they may be new “arrangements” of the score (eg, for different instruments than originally called for), which are likewise copyrightable.
With books on tape remember the PERFORMANCE is copyrighted.
For instance, Olivia Newton-John recored Greensleeves. Anyone can record Greensleeves it’s an old traditional song. But HER performance of Greensleeves is still copyrighted. So you can’t just distribute or sell her version of Greensleeves.
You could take the same words and sing them into a microphone and sell it, but you can’t use Olivia’s version without paying.
Another example is TV shows. Some shows have a few episodes that fell into public domain, 'cause the copyright was never renewed. For example on the Dick Van Dyke Show the episode where Richie gets baby ducks is in public domain. Anyone can air that episode BUT…
You have to be careful. Why? Because the theme (music) from the Dick Van Dyke Show is still copyrighted and NOT in the public domain. Got that that particular episode is in public domain but not the opening theme.
So in order to show it, you’d have to remove the music from the opening theme, or replace it with new music you just made up.
Another example is WKRP in Cincinnati the music used in the show, was only licensed for so many performances. Therefore to put the show on DVD they’d have to relicense all the music. This was a pain in the neck, trying to work out who owns what, that they replaced much of the original background music.
Remember with copyright, you can assign it too, so often finding out who owns what isn’t easy. Often the only way you can really do it is to use the material and see who sues you.
With books on tape, you usually find something like “This book was copyright 1992 with this original performace copyright 2001 all rights reserved.”
Make sure you’re not confusing, the copyright of the words with the copyright of the performance.
As I’ve posted before, I’ve done some research in this area (it was prompted by the actions of one of our fine, upstanding, salt-of-the-earth SDMB members who tried to sic a museum on me for committing “copyright infringement” with my online art gallery)…anyhow - to add to what you’ve said, I have been personally informed by two legal experts in the field, both who work for museums, that most museums and libraries fully believe that Bridgeman would be upheld, and they personally told me that the “general consensus” is to continue to put scarecrow text on web pages claiming copyright on slavish copies of 500 year-old works but without any means or methods to enforce the claim.
The OP might mail “History Reprinter” and ask them under what basis they make their claim of copyright and say that “no part of this book maybe reproduced in any way without permission.” Given my very long experience with people like this, they will likely claim:
That their “sweat of brow effort” is indeed copyrighted, and their lawyer is too busy to send their detailed citations to pirates and thieves.
That the DMCA allows them to make the claim.
That “the Patriot Act” allows them to make the claim.
That the “Berne Convention” allows them to make the claim.
That “their lawyer told them” and that’s that.
Each page is its own public domain work, and the book is a “discrete collection” of public domain works (the pages), therefore the collection is protected. I guess by that logic each brushstroke on a painting is a public domain work, thus the painting is a collection of public domain works.
Since a book or painting really is 2-D, in fact no 2-D item actually exists in our universe, it’s actually 3-D and thus not covered by Bridgeman.
(No shit, I’ve actually heard people claim (6) and (7).)
No reply (this happens about 50% of the time IME).
If you try to call their bluff by asking them who they paid royalties to when they made their copy of something like Othello, or who it was who gave them permission for slapping an art book down on a scanner to copy Boucher’s Jupiter and Callisto, they typically will give you one of the following answers:
That’s a trade secret or confidential.
Sorry, we don’t talk to pirates (or words to that effect).
No reply. (again, this happens about 50% of the time)
Further in support of mhendo, there has been no US case which I know of since Bridgeman where a person has lost where they have made a slavish copy of a 2-dimensional public domain work.
I create three versions of the work - the first is a simple scan of the book, in PDF form. No new copyright attached. The second is the PDF with the text OCR’d and annotations made. That has a copyright notice for the OCR with annotations. The third is the web version, which is just the OCR’d text and annotations, with a link to the non-copyright PDF version. The web version also asserts copyright. For an example, see http://www.tmk.com/books/eastriver
I’ve found an online example for a book written in 1896 at Harvard with a copyright notice at the top that says “This material is owned, held, or licensed by the President and Fellows of Harvard College. It is being provided solely for the purpose of teaching or individual research. Any other use, including commercial reuse, mounting on other systems, or other forms of redistribution requires permission of the appropriate office of Harvard University.”
That’s pretty much what all the books say. Hell one of the CDs that has a book has a 13 digit ISBN on it. I’m going to have to read through the thread above.
From what I can see of your link it is a textbook definition of a slavish copy of a 2-D work. No originality nor creative content has been added. Format change alone does not create copyright (in the United States, thus far, but just give Mary Bono and her ilk a chance…)
Fortunately, not all universities are like that. For example, the digitized Stokes Iconography is freely available from Columbia University. I believe this is the largest single digitization ever done (in 6 volumes, it runs 5,657 pages total). The linked web site offers it in both a web version and as an unrestricted downloadable PDF, with hidden OCR behind the text, so it is fully searchable in a PDF reader.
[Note - if anyone wants to read this, volumes 5 and 6 have been processed, but don’t show up in the main page - just click on one of the links for volumes 1-4 and then change the obvious part of the URL to get to 5 or 6.]
You know, I have wondered about this. Suppose I guy a piano score. Imagine (contrary to fact) that I can play the piano and have a recording piano. I play the piece from the sheet music and the piano produces a copy of the score. It has to be legal since it contains none of the added value from the sheet. In fact, it also lacks any composer’s markings, but you could add those by hand.