APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2005-12 > 1133537721


From: Claire Keenan Agthe <>
Subject: Re: [APG] Copy Right Advise please
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 10:35:21 -0500


Wondering why this didn't show up on the list, I see I was once again so tired I must have hit "reply" instead of "reply all." That'll teach me to send emails at 3 am! Here's the email I intended to send to the whole list, very early this morning...


Linda,

The following does not constitute legal advice.

I spent ten years in publishing, in charge of copyright issues on a
daily basis (determining fair use and public domain status, negotiating
licenses for copyrighted material, writing copyright notices, approving
copyright pages, registering and renewing copyrights, etc.) -- and then,
after graduating from law school, I ghostwrote a book on the licensing
of intellectual property -- so I consider myself an expert in the
subject. There has been some good information and some misinformation
posted in response to your query, so I'll start from the beginning.

Reading between the lines of your post, I assume all editions were
published in the United States and therefore US law applies. If the
earlier editions were published outside the US, other laws might apply.
The following discussion is predicated on US law only.

You mention a 1929 date, a 1935 date, and a 1987 (and 2005) date, but
it's not clear to me if the 1935 edition was a straight reprint of the
1929 edition, or if there was new material in the 1935 edition. If you
have a copy of the 1935 edition, you should be able to determine this by
looking at the copyright page. If there was a new copyright notice
(e.g., "Copyright 1929, 1935" or just "Copyright 1935") in the 1935
edition, it would mean there was some degree of new material (not
necessarily a lot) in that edition. If, however, the 1935 edition says
"Copyright 1929" and maybe "reprinted 1935" or "second [or tenth, etc.]
printing 1935," it would indicate that there was no new material in the
1935 edition.

Neither the 1929 nor the 1935 edition would automatically be in the
public domain; it depends on whether the copyright was renewed in its
28th year (1957 and 1963, respectively; if renewed in those years, the
copyrights would expire in 2024 and 2030, respectively). You can check
the copyright status of a work on the Library of Congress website at
http://www.copyright.gov/ -- but only for post-1986 works and documents,
so that does you no good, except for the 1987 edition (see discussion
below re that edition). There are instructions on the site re how you
can determine the copyright status yourself or request the Copyright
Office to do it for you.

If there was new material in the 1935 edition, the 1935 copyright
registration should say see what new material was covered by the 1935
copyright (e.g., just a foreword or an index, or updated text
throughout). The description of the new material is not necessarily
thorough on the new registration form, but it should give you some idea
of the amount of change between the 1929 and 1935 editions. This will
help you determine whether it is the 1929 or the 1935 edition you need
to be concerned with when it comes to the copyright renewal -- note that
the material that appears in both the 1929 edition and unchanged in the
1935 edition, is protected from 1929 on; the 1935 copyright covers only
the new (not the pre-existing) material in the 1935 edition.

I gather that the 1987 date is the Marble Valley Historical Society's
reprint of the 1929 or 1935 edition? If the 1987 edition is simply a
facsimile reprint (no new material added), the MVHS (throughout this
paragraph, I assume MVHS is the author; otherwise, substitute "the
author or his/her transferee") has no copyright claim in the reprint, so
cannot stop anyone from reprinting the book in any format, online or
otherwise. If the MVHS added a foreword, index, or possibly updated
text throughout, MVHS would have a copyright only in the new material;
anyone could reprint the pre-existing material without MVHS's
permission; MVHS would only need to give permission for the use of the
new material in the 1987 edition. Note, however, that, by 1987, there
was no requirement to register the copyright, though the practice was,
and still is, encouraged; the only exception is if you want to file a
copyright infringement suit, you must first register the copyright. I
checked the LOC site above, and found no copyright registration for the
1987 edition. (If you have a copy of the 1987 edition, you can check
the copyright page to see if there is a 1987 copyright notice, or just a
1929 or 1935 notice). If you had a copyright infringement claim and
wanted to register the copyright now, you would still need to know
exactly what had changed since the previous edition, the date (day,
month, year) work was completed on the 1987 edition, what the author's
agreement was re copyright ownership, etc. -- all information that is
required on the registration form.

So, you should look into the 1929 and 1935 registrations, and possibly
the 1957 and 1963 renewals, to determine the copyright status of the book.

As for the website you site, the 2005 copyright notice there relates to
the design and content of the website, NOT to the PDF'd image of the
book. From what I can see (I viewed only sample pages), the PDF files
do not have a claim to copyright, just a running head with the website's
name and address (though it is no longer necessary to have a written
copyright notice, so the lack of one is not important). Without having
seen either the 1929 or 1935 editions, I can only assume that the
background color art in the PDF edition (farmer sowing seeds) was not in
the original books, but was added by the creators of the site. If so,
and if they created the art, but added no new text, they would have a
copyright claim only in the art. If, however, the art is a stock image,
they would not have a claim even in the art. Only if they added some
text (e.g., foreword, index, updated text throughout) would they have a
copyright claim to the text, and then only in the new text. If any part
of the pre-existing text is still under copyright, that copyright
owner's rights would also be implicated.

It is very difficult to give you precise determinations of what layers
of copyright might still exist in the various editions without having
seen any of them except the online edition, but I hope the above
guidelines will help you determine the copyright issues for yourself.

Sincerely,

Claire Keenan Agthe
Bloodlines Genealogical Research Services
http://www.bloodlines.biz


Linda Woodward Geiger wrote:


>>Good morning,
>>
>>
>>
>>The Marble Valley Historical Society has reprint copies of Luke E. Tate's
>>History of Pickens County [1935 reprint, Spartanburg, S.C., The Reprint
>>Company, Publishers, 1987] for sale. This morning I found the entire book
>>online with the copyright of " C 2005 - ALL Rights Reserved.
>>http://www.gagenweb.org"; at
>>http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ga/county/fulton/library/pickenshistory/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>The entire book is reproduced in PDF format so it is free for the taking.
>>Has the public domain copyright of 1929 increased to cover 1935? Well, not
>>quite the entire book has been copied, the reverse side of the title page
>>was either conveniently or inadvertently overlooked.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>I'm looking for advise regarding the possible action that the Historical
>>Society might pursue.
>>
>>
>>
>>Thanks! Linda
>>
>>
>>
>>-----
>>Linda Woodward Geiger, CG, CGL
>> <http://www.woodward-geiger.com>; www.woodward-geiger.com
>> <http://www.rigsalliance.org>; www.rigsalliance.org
>

This thread: