OK, let’s say I want to publish new version of, for the sake of argument, Fanny Hill, or Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure. I have commissioned a new scholarly essay by Prof. Frederick Thudpucker on John Cleland’s use of euphemism in describing sexual anatomy, and want to join this to the novel in a new edition.
My question is, where do I get my manuscript for Memoirs? Obviously, I can’t just sit down and have a typesetter copy the text of the Penguin Classics version, right? While the work itself is in the public domain, the Penguin Classics edition is copyrighted, with its attendant forewords and footnotes and whatever; plus, it may contain distinctive typographical errors which would indicate that I cribbed from it. So, do I get the manuscript from the Library of Congress, or some other repository, or do something else entirely?
I don’t know. Maybe you can simply scan the Penguin version, as long as you make sure to delete the forewords and footnotes and stuff.
I know that many publishers insert dummy data in their stuff as a way of protecting their copyright. For example, if they sell you a copyrighted mailing list, it will have a few nonexistent addresses in it, so that if the list shows up elsewhere, they can say “Hey! That’s mine! I want my royalties!”, and prove it too. Mapmakers do the same thing. I’ve heard one common way of putting nonexistent streets on the map, is to take an employee’s home, and place his driveway on the map, labelling it “Smith’s Way” or something. Anyone tries copying it, they’re busted.
That said, I really wonder if this logic would extend to typographical errors. Yes, if their misspelling showed up in my publication, it would prove that I used their version as my source. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that they can bust me. Their copyright covers their notes and their font style, but does it cover their errors? I don’t know.
Hijack alert!
If your interest is not in producing public domain works, but rather to receive them, please check out Project Gutenberg at http://promo.net/pg/ . They have a ton of books already in etext format available for reading or downloading for free.
Sorry, Fanny Hill is not among them. I don’t know whether that’s because they haven’t gotten to it yet, or because it is still under copyright. But they’ve got Shakepeare, Mark Twain, Melville, Flatland, and a whole lot of other stuff.
Yes, errors are copyrightable, and can legally be used to support allegations of copyright infringement.
And FWIW, there is some controversy surrounding Project Gutenberg. IIRC, there are other sources for many of the works they’ve made available, so there may be some jealousy or competitive spirit involved. But the gist is that the Gutenberg texts are all typed by volunteers–an admirable effort, I know–but are not subsequently edited in any way or checked for errors; there’s no overseeing authority of quality control. So there’s some apprehension that Gutenberg is disseminating bastardized texts.
Again, I truly believe it’s a noble project, and I’m glad they’re doing it, but IIRC the guy who started the project, whose name I don’t remember, is something of an anarchist, and insists that no overseeing editor is necessary.
Don’t mean to continue the highjack, and I suppose I’m nudging it GDward, but I just thought I’d mention it . . .
Go to a library. I often see republications that thank a particular library for use of a particularly rare book. If you don’t like that idea haunt old booksellers and antiquarian book stores until you find a copy by the original publisher (or at least an earlier one) that the copyright has expired on. Or find a book collector that has a copy he’ll let you copy for a split of the profits.
There’s all kinds of stuff that goes into a book besides the actual words. If a publisher reprints a Dickens novels but adds their own “dingbats” (those are the little nubbins that separate blocks of text wherever the author wants a space break), those dingbats may be your legal downfall if you just Xerox the pages. The set-up of the pages, too, is distinctive to each publisher. If Penguin resets type for a book, that’s THEIR font, and THEIR page 348, which may differ substantially from the page 348 of earlier editions.
Cal is right; find a hard copy that has itself gone out of copyright.
On the Proj. Gutenberg hijack, I can verify that some (if not all) of their texts contain errors. The most noticeable are obviously missing lines of text of indeterminate length (and in one case that I checked, it was 20 or more lines’ worth). Most of them seem spell-checked, though I have found correctly spelled words in the wrong place that change the meaning of a sentence or too.
I still think they’re doing an excellent service. Hopefully some people will volunteer to proofread them someday. Till then, be warned that the text might not be as closely edited as nearly any printed paper book.
The Project Gutenberg texts are godawful. Don’t use them! I recall that even the briefest glance at their Milton revealed a pile of errors.
I can think of one notable case concerning whether an editorially “corrected” text could be freshly copyrighted. Bruce Arnold’s The Scandal of Ulysses reveals how the Joyce estate’s commissioning of the Gabler’s appalling “Corrected Text” of Ulysses was prompted by the knowledge that it was to fall out of copyright in 1992. (The recent EEC extension of the period after an author’s death for protection from 50 to 70 years means that it’s back in copyright in Europe.) Arnold’s account shows that the lawyers were regularly consulted during the whole process on the delicate question of how much change was needed to make a text different enough to copyright again. It’s hardly surprising that copious (& often dubious) changes were introduced on every page.
I too have to say the the Project Gutenberg texts are not only error prone, but they won’t correct them when you point them out. They also are not an “open smile” organization, in that newbies or new volunteers get treated as badly as the typical troll over here. I definitely had no incentive whatsoever to help them out.
My understanding of the OP is you would have to find an actual printed copy of the text that was printed prior to the “public domain” date, and be cure that you only use it and refer to it in all dealings with your re-issue or derivative work.
That said, nothing’s ever commonsense about copyright, & in particular you have to tread carefully with unpublished materials (manuscripts, letters, &c). There is a huge fight going on in the academic community in the UK over whether the 19th-c. author John Clare’s unpublished poems are still copyrighted–this has large implications because the man who bought the copyright (if that’s indeed what he did) refuses to let Clare’s poetry appear in any form except what he dictates (a big unpunctuated, misspelt mess, to judge by the editions I’ve seen).
With Cleland I don’t think you’re likely to have any great trouble. One small point: I certainly would use a modern edition–as you might imagine 19th-century illegal editions of pornographic works are not exactly good textual authorities. --N
The law is simple: once a work goes into the public domain, it can’t be recopyrighted (unless there’s been a major revision*).
Take a look at the copyright page for any PD work. It’ll aways say “Introduction (or Foreward or Notes) Copyright xx by so-and-do.” Note that it specifies what’s copyrighted (Introduction or Foreword or Notes). There will also be another line saying “All other rights reserved,” but that has no legal effect.
Typoes and other errors are meaningless, since the text can’t be copyrighted. They could be used to prove the theft of a copyrighted list, but that doesn’t apply to PD works. (BTW, mapmakers don’t put deliberate errors in their maps to catch people; they merely use the accidental typoes).
So you can scan in a PD work without violating copyright.
*If someone rewrites “Fanny Hill” to fill with with dirty words (there are none in the original), that version can be copyrighted.