From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 17:57:04 -0800
If Anna's father made serious "editorial" changes he should be charged
with *spoiling
the authentic work of extraordinary value*.
All admiration and veneration of this book is coming from our belief that
the book we read is original work by Anne, all what was omitted from it is
like *stolen from the public*.
The "editor" *must be fined*, and in no case awarded any "legal rights".
Ari Belenkiy
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 1:59 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From: Kevin Smith <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 12:45:53 +0000
>
> I disagree that there is no question about the contents of the diary
> rising into the public domain; that is precisely the question
> involved, as Jim points out when he notes the central issue of whether
> Otto's editing qualifies him as a joint author. The unique
> circumstance of joint authorship is that the rights are shared without
> division; the question of who contributed what or how much is not
> raised. Instead, the copyright in the whole work is divided equally
> between the joint authors, and its term is measure by the life of the
> joint author who lives longest. So if a court accepts the claim that
> Otto was a joint author, the entire work, not just his contributions
> to it, would be protected for 70 years from the date of his death.
> That would include all of the content that is also contained in any
> transcript or facsimile.
>
> I am not saying that I believe in the claim of joint authorship in
> this case -- I think it is highly doubtful -- but we should understand
> that the Foundation is not making a small claim here, nor one that
> could be so easily circumvented.
>
> Kevin
>
> Kevin L. Smith
> Director, Copyright & Scholarly Communication
> Duke University Libraries
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 20:16:59 -0600
>
> Whatever the copyright status of the work as "edited" by Otto Frank
> may be, there can be no question that the contents of the diary itself
> will fall into the public domain. After all, Frank cannot claim that
> he did the actual writing of the diary! So the only thing that the
> copyright can possibly continue protecting is the edited version.
>
> Anyone can publish a facsimile or transcript edition of the diary
> itself. And presumably the web version could use that text for what
> it wants to do.
>
> Sandy Thatcher
>
>
> > From: "Jim O'Donnell" <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 08:59:16 -0700
> >
> > Some will have seen this in the New York Times:
> >
> > Anne Frank's Diary Gains 'Co-Author' in Copyright Move
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/14/books/anne-frank-has-a-co-as-diary-g
> > ains-co-author-in-legal-move.html
> >
> > The narrow question is whether her father's editorial intervention
> > entitles him to status as co-author and thus extends copyright to 70
> > years past his death (in 1980); otherwise the work would go into the
> > public domain this year. There are other issues, not least the
> > competition between two foundations, one in Basel, one in Amsterdam,
> > the latter of which has been planning a web edition of the diary, open
> > access, to appear when the copyright expires. The father's foundation
> > in Basel that owns the copyright supports work to eradicate prejudice
> > and racism and offers medical support for holocaust survivors and
> > surviving individuals who protected Jews in Nazi times. I can find
> > only a German wikipedia article:
> > https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Frank-Fonds
> >
> > So there conflicting legal and ethical views of this. I would offer a
> > strategic question. For the years 2015-2050 (the extension based on
> > the father's date of death), what advances the beneficial effect to be
> > gotten from this near-miraculous survival of a text that has meant
> > much to many: the dedicated application of the foundation's profits
> > or the extended audience for the book? I am persuaded for the latter,
> > mainly because I worry so much about the disappearance from cultural
> > view of much of the heritage of the 20th century if we do not succeed
> > in making the books of the 40s, 50s, 60s available in networked
> > digital form. Does an author's estate do the author and his/her work
> > more good by collecting royalties or by making the work more widely
> > known and accessible? Even Anne Frank could be forgotten: what would
> > prevent that most effectively?
> >
> > Jim O'Donnell
> > ASU
>
|
