From: Peggy E Hoon <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 15:02:58 +0000 I agree with Sandy; furthermore, the definition of a joint work, at least in the U.S. Copyright Act - ["A ³joint work² is a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.²] requires intent on the part of each alleged author that their contributions are to become part of a single work. Where is there any evidence that young Anne Frank intended that her father co-write her diary? I think you would be hard pressed to find a 14 or 15 year old girl who would let her parents even read her diary, much less co-author entries. Peggy Hoon On 11/16/15, 6:00 PM, "LibLicense-L Discussion Forum on behalf of LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote: >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-gain >>s-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