LIBLICENSE-L Archives

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum

LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 24 Nov 2015 21:49:29 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (50 lines)
From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 22:58:18 -0600

Thanks for the link to the "excellent analysis," with which I agree
100% and which actually makes the same argument I was trying to make:

> But the Fonds also takes things one step farther and argues that Otto Frank's contributions to his adaptation also make him a co-author of the original work, the diaries famously written by his daughter. Can this possibly be right?
>
> Of course not. Headlines and legal machinations notwithstanding, you remain the sole author of your work regardless of whether someone else compiles it for publication.


Sandy Thatcher


> From: Kevin Smith <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 10:45:37 +0000
>
> Sorry.  I hit reply too soon and did not finish my message.
>
> The citation for the case about restoring copyright in works of
> foreign origin, which I meant to include, is Golan v. Holder from
> 2012.
>
> As for the issue of handwriting, it is really not relevant.  Suppose
> three people are writing an article together and one of them hand
> writes her sections.  That content is later combined with the
> contributions of the other two authors in to a single, unified whole.
> Under our law, the copyright in the entire work, because it was
> intentionally a single entity, would be unified, shared equally buy
> the three authors, and would reach back to encompass the content of
> the handwritten sections.  Thus one of the coauthors could elect to
> publish the whole article without the permission of the others (as
> happened in Weinstein v. University of Illinois).  The existence of a
> handwritten manuscript of part of the work would not change that.
>
> The issue, of course, in the Anne Frank case, is intent and whether a
> court should accept the claim that the Diary is a joint work.  An
> excellent analysis, which details the real reasons this claim should
> be rejected, can be found at:
>
> http://www.authorsalliance.org/2015/11/17/anne-frank-and-the-lasting-legacy-of-the-public-domain/
>
> Kevin
>
> Kevin L. Smith, M.L.S., J.D.
> Director of Copyright and Scholarly Communications
> Duke University Libraries
> Durham, NC 27708
> [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2