From: Kevin Smith <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 22:40:00 +0000

It may seem less surprising when you reflect that these works were
written and published under the terms of the 1909 copyright act.  In
those bygone days there was no federal copyright that vested
automatically in the author.  Unpublished works were protected by
state statutory or common law.  Federal copyright only came into
existence upon publication with notice. There was still a presumption
that the author was the person entitled to the federal right, although
the law referred to authors or "proprietors," but authors certainly
had less certain expectations that they would own a federal copyright.
 And notice and registration in the name of the publisher or employer
without the formality of copyright transfer was not uncommon. Finally,
there was no detailed definition of works made for hire, so there was
often a broader presumption that employers owned the rights, in the
sense of being the appropriate claimant upon publication.

Kevin L. Smith, J.D.
Director of Scholarly Communication
Duke University Libraries
Durham, NC 27708


> On Mar 9, 2014, at 16:49, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Richard Gottlieb <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 11:05 AM
>
> Thanks to all. I had a set of the printed work for years, but have
> lost track of them after multiple moves.
>
> Somewhat surprised that Feynman gave up the copyright. But it was a
> different time.
>
> RG
>
> *******
>
> From: Natsuko Nicholls
> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 10:36 AM
> To: [log in to unmask] ; [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Fwd: Locking down the Feynman Lectures website?
>
> Below is the response from Jim Ottaviani, the author of Feynman, to
> the discussion re. Locking down the Feynman Lectures website?
>
> I forwarded your message to Jim and I am simply relaying back Jim's
> response, since he said he does not subscribe this listserv.
>
> ----
> Jim Ottaviani says:
>
> I'm not currently a subscriber, but you can post it if you think it
> will make for (or further) an interesting conversation.
>
> His assumption is incorrect. I have the Addison Wesley editions, and
> the copyright notice on those volumes indicates that the copyright is
> Caltech's.
>
> I'd note that since he created these courses at the request of
> Caltech, and taught them there as well, it's not too surprising that
> Feynman didn't make a claim for copyright at the time. I also wouldn't
> be surprised that a similar situation -- such as Cambridge asking
> Stephen Hawking to prepare a survey course in cosmology -- in 2014
> would play out very differently than it did in the early 1960s, at
> least in terms of copyright.
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Richard Gottlieb <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 10:35:08 -0500
>
> These were originally published by Addison Wesley in the 1960's.
>
> Assume Feynman had the copyright.
>
> Feynman ended his career teaching at Caltech.  Wonder what arrangement
> allowed them to post up his content, on a free website?
>
> Richard Gottlieb