no copyright on this book?

[perspective]

I have with me a copy of “Society of the Spectacle.” It was written in 1967 by Guy Debord, and the translated version was published by Black & Red press in 1970. In the first few pages it clearly says,“No Copyright No Rights Reserved”

Does this mean I can publish it myself if I want to? Not that I’m picturing large profits from an old French situationist treatise, but I might want to post large sections of it on the web.

[ratatoskK]

Do you think Guy Debord would sue you?

[ianzin]

To ‘publish’ simply means ‘to make public’.

‘Copyright’ means that unauthorised copying of the intellectual property is unlawful.

If this particular work is not copyright, then you may copy it freely without authorisation. However, you cannot publish it, as it has already been published.

[RealityChuck]

Since it says “no copyright” it looks like the author decided to put it into the public domain. That is the author’s right (an no one else’s). It’d be better if it stated that clearly, but since it is in the public domain, anyone can do whatever he wants with it – publish it in another edition, make copies, create derivative works, etc.

However, I would look into the actual copyright status of the work. It’s possible the original is copyrighted in France, which would mean you couldn’t make copies (the U.S. and France both agree to support the other’s copyrights).

If you want to quote paragraphs, however, that’s fair use and you don’t have to worry

[bibliophage]

It looks like it’s already on the Web, in French and English. http://www.nothingness.org/SI/debord.html

[chula]

I’m not an expert on Situationist philosophy, but I believe they generally despised intellectual property, so it makes sense that he wouldn’t copyright his works. From the book in question:

When culture becomes nothing more than a commodity, it must also become the star commodity of the spectacular society. Clark Kerr, one of the foremost ideologues of this tendency, has calculated that the complex process of production, distribution and consumption of knowledge already gets 29% of the yearly national product in the United States; and he predicts that in the second half of this century culture will be the driving force in the development of the economy, a role played by the automobile in the first half of this century, and by railroads in the second half of the previous century.

[chula]

I was right about the Situationists:

Of particular interest is the Situationist attack on intellectual property that Debord appropriates from Ducasse. We live in a world where global capital contracts out its manufacturing, but jealously guards its trademarks, and where copyrights and patents are the emergent engines of profitability. The Situationist attack on the ownership of the sign now looks prescient. Ducasse pinched anything from Encyclopedia entries to the maxims of Pascal, “corrected” them, and made them his own. The Situationists developed a whole practice of repurposing stolen words or images - détournement - which is now a standard tactic of anti-capitalist art and protest
movements.

[perspective]

Thanks chula,
I thought it was part of their philosophy. BUT, since in the US copyright was automatically granted on publishing before 1978, was there a copyright anyway? Was that note in the beginning sufficient to negate an automatic copyright?
Guy Debord is dead now, so if there is a copyright I think it would default to surviving family members who may not share the same views about copyright as Guy.

[chula]

I’ve studied some intellectual property law, but not enough to speak authoritatively on copyright laws. Copyrights can be passed on through an estate, but I can’t imagine his descendents can claim it if it never existed in the first place. The U.S. Copyright office explains the basics of copyright law. Works published before 1978 are not automatically copyrighted. I’m not sure if there’s a possibility of there being a French copyright that would be enforceable in the United States. Considering that the Berne Convention has been around since 1886, there is certain amount of uniformity in the copyright laws of parties. Given all the evidence, I believe you can do pretty much whatever the hell you want with the book.

[Cisco]

There is such thing as “open source” software that is not copywrited and many of the books (i.e. Linux books) that are written about open source software are not copywrited. Of course this is not breaking news but just in case you didn’t know.

[perspective]

chula,
from the US copyright office

Before 1978, federal copyright was generally secured by the act of publication with notice of copyright, assuming compliance with all other relevant statutory conditions. U. S. works in the public domain on January 1, 1978, (for example, works published without satisfying all conditions for securing federal copyright under the Copyright Act of 1909) remain in the public domain under the 1976 Copyright Act.
…
Notice was required under the 1976 Copyright Act. This requirement was eliminated when the United States adhered to the Berne Convention, effective March 1, 1989. Although works published without notice before that date could have entered the public domain in the United States, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) restores copyright in certain foreign works originally published without notice.

The Copyright Office does not take a position on whether copies of works first published with notice before March 1, 1989, which are distributed on or after March 1, 1989, must bear the copyright notice.

Use of the notice may be important because it informs the public that the work is protected by copyright, identifies the copyright owner, and shows the year of first publication. Furthermore, in the event that a work is infringed, if a proper notice of copyright appears on the published copy or copies to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such a defendant’s interposition of a defense based on innocent infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory damages, except as provided in section 504©(2) of the copyright law. Innocent infringement occurs when the infringer did not realize that the work was protected.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hsc

So it looks like I could claim “innocent infringement” if push came to shove. So I wouldn’t face criminal charges, but I’m still not sure if the work is copyrighted. If it was then I may still have to comply with a “cease and desist” type of order.

[chula]

Your link is the same page (in a different location) as the one I linked above. You don’t have to worry about innocent infringement because the work was published before 1978, so even if the waiver printed in the book were not enough to put the book in the public domain, the failure to provide notice of a copyright means that there is no copyright. To put it simply, no © = no copyright (in this case).