Academic Copyright ~ Elizabeth Townsend Gard

Copyright Duration

I've been posting a great deal about duration. Here is a list of four sites that are terrific in helping one determine copyright duration.

Laura N. Gasaway's famous chart, "When Works Pass Into the Public Domain,"
http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm - a classic, in any town.

Mary Minow's chart, http://www.librarylaw.com/DigitizationTable.htm - does it by year (super cool)

From Peter Hirtle's copyright duration chart, http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Domain.htm - does it by category and is more complex (including international) than Gasaway's. If you are unfamiliar with these kinds of charts, look at Gasaway's first, and then move to Hirtle's.

Copyright Term Cheat Sheet - Posted by Jason Schultz at Copyfight - July 16, 2004
http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/copyrightterm.pdf - This one is nice b/c it also includes int'l information.

For those new to copyright, remember. Again, anything in the public domain is free and clear to use WITHOUT ASKING PERMISSION. Anything still under copyright requires permission from the copyright holder (see posts about obtaining permissions and finding copyright holders), unless one is asserting fair use (a bit problematic, more posts to come on this).

Hemingway unpublished short story found

Alerted once again by Mary at LibraryLaw Blog: Locking up Hemingway

sad tale. interesting tale.

A recent real life example of the distinction between object and copyright and competing interests is currently occurring with a recently discovered unpublished Hemingway short story, written in 1924. The finder of a Hemingway letter and short story was Donald Stewart, the son of Donald Ogden Stewart, of who the story was about. Stewart owns the object, but the copyright remains with the Hemingway estate. The letter and short story will be auctioned through Christies, and according to Cowell’s reporting, s expected to fetch between $12,000 and $18,000. It will be up to the new owner then whether scholars will have access. The EH estate will still hold a joint copyright, along with the EH Foundation, and for now the estate is refusing to grant publication, even though the foundation had agreed to have it publication in Vanity Fair. Interestingly, it was Stewart, the owner of the newly discovered works that was trying to publish it, and the choice of Vanity Fair? That was where Hemingway had originally intended to have it published eighty years before! Now his literary execs refuse.

What is interesting about ALAN COWELL's piece is its similarity to Byatt's POSSESSION, and it also brings to the forefrot the distinction between owning the items versus holding the copyright, and competing interests. SeeThe New York Times > Books > Hemingway Bullfight Tale From 1924 Turns Up

See also Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | A load of old bull? 'New' Hemingway story may stay unpublished

More on Mark Twain Papers and the Unpublished Public Domain

I've posted about the MT papers "publishing" all of the unpublished papers to meet the deadline for copyright extension until 2048. But I think what is interesting is what they could not copyright -- the incoming letters. This means that these fell into the public domain.

So, MT died in 1910 -- dates 1835-1910 -- this means that many of the letters, particularly the older ones, would fall into the public domain. For those letter-writers who died before 1934, these letters are free and clear. For those whose death date is unknown, 120 years from creation (letters before 1884), unless one gets a certificate from the Copyright office. (see below)

From Peter Hirtle's copyright duration chart: "Unpublished works when the death date of the author is not known may still be copyrighted, but certification from
the Copyright Office that it has no record to indicate whether the person is living or died less than 70 years before is a complete defense to any action for infringement. See 17 U.S.C. § 302(e)." See http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Domain.htm; see also Laura N. Gasaway's famous chart, "When Works Pass Into the Public Domain,"
http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm; and Mary Minow's chart, http://www.librarylaw.com/DigitizationTable.htm

What this means for scholars: Let's say one can't get permission to quote from MT's correspondence. One could possibly use the incoming rather than his outgoing for quotations. It also presents an interesting way to utilize correspondence, a motivation to deal with this usually overwhelming (because of volume) source.

Some thought on the internet and society in relation to unpublished works

I’ve just completed reading a draft of a piece Peter Hirtle is working on about the Gentleman’s Agreement of 1935, which was an agreement between librarians and publishers on what was ok to copy without anyone filing infringement lawsuits. It’s a terrific piece that is very timely for issues surrounding technology today. These issues of fair use, access to materials, and competing interests do not go away, and they have been with us for a very long time. Peter’s piece reminds us of that. It also brings home the notion that a scholar, an archivist, an educator, a librarian, and of course, a publisher have very different concerns and interests, and that, as his piece shows, who shows up to the bargaining table greatly influences the direction of the negotiations. This made me think of the internet and society. So much of what is being driven today regarding copyright is centered around the needs and interests of software, hardware, and access to materials on the internet. We have to as scholars and educators also keep raising our voices and waving our hands to make sure that our needs outside of the internet space are also considered. We also have to participate in the discussions surrounding the internet so that our concerns, just as Peter’s article points out, are heard and hopefully even met! My concerns inter alia are continued access to materials with privacy to look, transparent copyright information for materials posted on the internet and those still remaining soley in archives, and a better fair use scheme that scholars can actually use and depend on, particularly when literary executors DO NOT give permission to quote from materials (this is when it is needed most.)

copyright and unpublished papers - three different approaches

I've starting getting responses on my copyright inquires from various archives around the country. I am also looking at digital collections. So far, I have found three good examples: 1) the Mark Twain papers at Berkeley, who have copyrighted everything through microfilm before the unpublished public domain deadline (except the incoming letters, which they did not publish, which is potentially very cool for scholars); 2) the Library of Congress, which has done an amazing job of giving specific copyright info for each of its collections; and 3) the NYPL, which has no copyright info on the materials I looked at (the theatrical papers collections), and when I emailed them, replied that these things were complex, and suggested internet sites to help me figure them out.

The first is proactive; the second is friendly and also since many are digitized collections, the LofC had to figure out the rights themselves (and so why not share the info, I guess); the third is traditional -- housing papers, restricting and allowing access, but not getting involved in the copyright issues and leaving it to the scholars.

One can see how the internet is benefiting scholars in this scenario (Library of Congress example). It is creating an interesting tier system of access, copyright, and the unpublished public domain. The third example is almost worse than the MT papers, because at least there one has a clear sense of the parameters. How many scholars are going to know or take the time to figure out the copyright for 1960 radio plays?

For more specific info and the links to these sites, see my posts at http://academiccopyright.typepad.com. (I am still having trouble over here)

Wired News: Saving the Artistic Orphans

Wired News: Saving the Artistic Orphans

about the Kahle case - a nice overview of the issues

News stuff scholars should know

Blogs at the Center for Internet and Society

Kahle v. Ashcroft - a very important case challenging the removal of notice, registration, and renewal requiremetss. See the most recent brief at the cite above. The Copyright Act of 1976 altered the nature of copyright dramatically, where before most works entered the public domain rather quickly, unless the copyright holder took steps (renewal, notice, etc.). Now, ALL copyrightable materials automatically are protected for life of the author + 70 years. This case is trying to fight this change.

What this means for scholars - less material available that we do not have to ask permission for if we want to quote more than a very small amount. Less material available for other public domain activities. Many works get abandoned (orphaned works) -- no copyright holder to be found, but they are still protected and therefore, people will take less risk in republishing or making available in alternative media because there is no guarantee that the copyright holder won't turn up later and claim rights, infringment, etc.

Interesting case to watch. Even more, in some respects, tha Eldred, for scholars. More closely connected to what we do on a daily basis.

The Mark Twain Papers & Project - Publications

The Mark Twain Papers & Project - Publications

Does offering microfilm set for $50,000 meet the requirements for pub.? Is this a ormal price for such a thing?

What about interlib loan? Yes, they do interlib. loan. So does that help?

What about access to qualified patrons only?

The truth is that if someone is really using these papers, they are not going to take a chance that a court would say microfilming did not constititute pub.

ok. we'll move on to other archives. next up nypl.

unpublished public domain discussion (con't)

(I can't seem to post through movable type, which is what CIS is using. So here is the post I am trying to post there.)

I've started to work on the unpublished public domain stuff on my blog, http://academiccopryight.typepad.com. Peter Hirtle has commented on this at librarylaw blog -- see LibraryLaw Blog: What was published before 2003? and I have further commented there. [This is getting rather messy, isn't it?]

Ok. Here is the jist. I'm looking at the unpub pd in terms of strategies scholars can employ in designing their projects and working with archival materials. The example of Mark Twain papers has been used a lot (and as Peter indicates in his post, from 1998, with Siva Vaidhyanathan and others, MTP were the center of that discussion - TWAIN-L archives -- October 1998 (#10))

I wrote to the MT Papers recently, and received the response that yes, they had microfilmed all of his papers in anticipation of the deadline, and so believed they now have copyright protection until the end of 2047. They were not, however, able to copyright the incoming correspondence [b/c obviously it would have been very difficult to track down all of the copyright holders of those letters]. Those, then have fallen into the public domain. How delightful, I say. A scholar could tell the tale, but instead of quoting from the copyrighted letter, use the response or inquiry of the pd letter. I think about my own work, and how interesting it would be to use the incoming correspondence rather than relying (as I usually do) on the primary correspondence of my subject. It is just another way to USE what is now freely available. And as Peter noted in his post, scholars too often do not take notice of this kind of thing, that they seem disinterested in the legal aspects of archival materials. But they shouldn't. They may find treasures they can freely use.

LibraryLaw Blog: What was published before 2003?

LibraryLaw Blog: What was published before 2003?

further discussion o the unpublished pd and my comments in response.