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