General Book Uploads Posting Guidelines

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

"But this was held to be sufficient to create an original copyright work as it had required a high degree of skill and labour; it was not merely servile copying. Precisely where the borderline between the two lies is sure to be the subject of future cases."

An interesting case. I revise my opinion. In UK law it seems that you might be able to bring a case for copyright infringement with some hope of winning it. But it would be a large gamble, so you'd need to be sure the potential reward was worth the risk.

UK copyright law has in the past upheld the idea of Sweat of the Brow, (the classic example being a telephone directory) whereby skill and perseverance could result in a claim of copyright protection, even without originality, but recent rulings have gone against the idea. In November 2015 the UK's Intellectual Property Office said in a ruling on the matter:

... according to the Court of Justice of the European Union which has effect in UK law, copyright can only subsist in subject matter that is original in the sense that it is the author’s own ‘intellectual creation’.

That was in a case where someone claimed copyright having put a great deal of time and expertise into producing digital versions of public domain images. Their claim was rejected.

"Sweat of the brow" was rejected in the US by a 1991 ruling of the Supreme Court.

[Psymon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

UK copyright law has in the past upheld the idea of Sweat of the Brow, (the classic example being a telephone directory) whereby skill and perseverance could result in a claim of copyright protection, even without originality, but recent rulings have gone against the idea.

I guess that, as I think someone said here in this thread somewhere (without re-reading everything to find the exact quote), you can put your own copyright on anything you want, doesn't mean it will mean anything.

Of course, I suppose there are instances where claiming copyright on something that one clearly has no rights to would be an offense, too -- I can't just go and declare copyright on the latest movie out in the theatres, for example -- but in a case such as my own, not declaring copyright at all does potentially leave open the door for anyone to do whatever they want to. A rather notable example of that is the 1963 Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn film, Charade -- the studios had neglected to include a copyright notice anywhere in the credits, and thus the very day it was released in the theatres, it was in the public domain.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Psymon

not declaring copyright at all does potentially leave open the door for anyone to do whatever they want to. A rather notable example of that is the 1963 Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn film, Charade -- the studios had neglected to include a copyright notice anywhere in the credits, and thus the very day it was released in the theatres, it was in the public domain.

That's because the US wasn't a signatory to the Berne Copyright Convention at the time. In all Berne countries (which now include the US) copyright automatically exists as soon as a creative work comes into being.

[Psymon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's because the US wasn't a signatory to the Berne Copyright Convention at the time. In all Berne countries (which now include the US) copyright automatically exists as soon as a creative work comes into being.

Yeah, I know that, and you know that, but there's a lot of people out there who still think (through ignorance) that if there is no copyright notice, they can just take it and do whatever they want with it. If nothing else, having a copyright notice (where/how applicable) can help stave off having to waste your time with people in that category.

[pdurrant]

It seems to me that you're more concerned with attribution, rather than copyright. I certainly agree that you have the moral right to have your name attached to your editions.

[GrannyGrump]

I'm not sure if this comment is apropos, but when I add "extras" to a rehabbed public domain book, I include a statement on this order:
"The original text of this book is in the public domain in countries where copyright is "Life+70" or less [or whatever the time span since the death of the author]. Additional material [usually footnotes/annotations] and cover design are released under the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike 4.0 License."

Which, if downloaders are honorable folk, means they should only redistribute the book free of charge and attribute me for the additional material and original cover design. Doesn't mean that will happen though. There is a certain **@$%/* who scrapes the MR and other free libraries and sells the books he gathers on the Kobo site for a few dollars each. What a horse's patoot!

[Psymon]

Originally Posted by GrannyGrump

I'm not sure if this comment is apropos, but when I add "extras" to a rehabbed public domain book, I include a statement on this order:
"The original text of this book is in the public domain in countries where copyright is "Life+70" or less [or whatever the time span since the death of the author]. Additional material [usually footnotes/annotations] and cover design are released under the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike 4.0 License."

The copyright notice that I ultimately came up for this current Shakespeare book I've been working on is, I suppose, a little more restrictive. The guy over on that aforementioned copyright forum seemed to feel it served it's purpose, though.

Here's what I have now in my book:

"This ebook copyright © Ron Koster, 2016. All images — including the cover art and all other original digital artwork, as well as public domain images modified and manipulated specifically for use in this ebook — are copyright Ron Koster. The six Shakespearean plays in this book originate from public domain sources, with modifications mainly to formatting and only minor conformity in word (name) spelling. The various poems — including those accredited to Shakespeare, as well as The Ghost of Lucrece by Thomas Middleton, and the complete Loves Martyr of Robert Chester — are new digital transcriptions by Ron Koster made directly from the original 16th and 17th century sources, with a variety of textual corrections and emendations made throughout each poetic work. For any activities regulated by copyright, written permission from the copyright holder is required."

I suppose that provides more info than just a mere copyright notice, but I guess it serves its purpose in making clear what was "my" work and what is purely public domain stuff.

Which, if downloaders are honorable folk, means they should only redistribute the book free of charge and attribute me for the additional material and original cover design. Doesn't mean that will happen though. There is a certain **@$%/* who scrapes the MR and other free libraries and sells the books he gathers on the Kobo site for a few dollars each. What a horse's patoot!

Sheesh. If that person is doing this on a regular basis, why doesn't anyone go after him?

Reminds me of when I was working on my series of books on the works of Henry David Thoreau. I'd downloaded a variety of free versions from different sources, just to get ideas from how others had done things, and they were ALL basically just the ones put out by Project Gutenberg, with perhaps the most notable difference in design, etc. being the addition of a publisher's imprint -- fer cryin' out loud.

How these people can even call themselves a "publisher," when they've done virtually no work at all, is beyond me.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Psymon

Sheesh. If that person is doing this on a regular basis, why doesn't anyone go after him?

Because he's doing nothing illegal. Despicable - yes. Immoral - yes. Illegal - no.

[Psymon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because he's doing nothing illegal. Despicable - yes. Immoral - yes. Illegal - no.

As soon as I posted my last comment that hit me, too.

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by Psymon

I'd downloaded a variety of free versions from different sources, just to get ideas from how others had done things, and they were ALL basically just the ones put out by Project Gutenberg, with perhaps the most notable difference in design, etc. being the addition of a publisher's imprint -- fer cryin' out loud.

It's bad enough when you are trying to get ideas... It's awful when you want to correct or double-check possible mistakes in PG sources. You try to check other versions and virtually all have the same blatant errors, even those which are scans from recently published versions. Almost anything in Google Books published after ~2000 is useless for this.

How these people can even call themselves a "publisher," when they've done virtually no work at all, is beyond me.

They are publishers, not editors: they publish, they don't edit

[Psymon]

After aaaaaaaaall that, I just uploaded my completed book to the EPUB uploads here on these forums, if you'd like to take a peek at what all the hubbub (my hubbub) was about.

[grumbles]

I thought I would stroll through this forum before I started to post my Markham books.

In regard to publishers claiming copyright of text that is in the public Domain, I came across this notice in an Evelyn Waugh ebook I took out from the library:

All rights reserved.
This title is in the public domain in Canada and is not subject to any license or copyright.

This is Penguin Random House Canada publication.

I've been looking at work of Wilfred Owen. His poems are clearly in the public domain now but the notes and essays in the books of his work are all under copyright. Siegried Sassoon who died in 1967 will enter public domain in Canada next year but will be inaccessible to MR until 2038.

I see that the contents of the first, short book of poems has been posted. I have the later Collected Poems and the structure of some of the poems in the first book was changed for the Collected version. The Collected Poems is available from the Indian Digital collection (but two pages are missing). I'll thin about it but the notes really do add to the value of the collection.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by grumbles

I'll thin about it but the notes really do add to the value of the collection.

And the notes will have a longer copyright than the poems. Once the poems enter the public domain, you can reprint them. But not with the copyright notes.

[lumpynose]

For posting a book here is the rule always life+70?

What about something where the author died in 1977 but the books fall under

"Anything published between 1923 and 1963, with a copyright notice, for which copyright was NOT specifically renewed, is PD."

The books are on Project Gutenberg so I'm assuming that they fall under that rule.

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by lumpynose

For posting a book here is the rule always life+70?

What about something where the author died in 1977 but the books fall under

"Anything published between 1923 and 1963, with a copyright notice, for which copyright was NOT specifically renewed, is PD."

The books are on Project Gutenberg so I'm assuming that they fall under that rule.

This site does not follow the US rules which is what you are quoting. The site owner is worried about His personal liability and thus we use his rules. Check our wiki for Copyright and the page MobileRead.

Dale