From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 12:26:52 -0600 If a work is on the public domain, you can't bring it back into copyright protection again by adding anything to it. The original diary cannot possibly be a joint work if it was written entirely in Anne Frank's handwriting. And that was independently created, not co-created with her father. Your reasoning here makes no sense. Sandy 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 > >