- gutvol-d - lists.pglaf.org

Perl help needed
by John Hagerson 14 Jan '05

14 Jan '05

I have no experience at all with perl and I need to parse some information from the PG catalog.rdf file. If someone is willing to assist me, I would appreciate it. Thank you. John Hagerson

3 3

Re: [gutvol-d] Bibliographic data
by Wallace J.McLean 13 Jan '05

13 Jan '05

----- Original Message ----- >From "D. Starner" <shalesller(a)writeme.com> Date Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:41:44 -0800 To "Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion" <gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org> Subject Re: [gutvol-d] Bibliographic data "Wallace J.McLean" writes: >> The benefit, of course, is that once the death date of an author is >> conclusively determined, then, barring wrinkles like collaborators, >> translators, co-authors, illustrators, and posthumous publication, all >> of that author's works are, by definition, cleared. >The catch is, you don't get to bar wrinkles like that. You have to deal >with them. By the same rule of thumb, any book printed before 1923 is, >by definition, cleared. Go US! And they are dealwithable on the basis of intrinsic evidence, intrinsic to the book. I'll take a post-1923 public domain any day, thank you very much. I'm currently working on the oeuvres of an author who died in 1939, so that the text, at least, of all his books, are public domain in Canada. (Some of the illustrations are by an illustrator who died in the 1970s; the illustrations aren't clearable, but can be excised.) However, about half of his works are post-1923 imprints. Boo, U.S. >> However, since third parties must also >> rely on the term of copyright rules to determine what they, as third >> parties, are entitled to do with a work, it would be unfair to the >> public if they (we) were estopped from using an ancient work simply >> because no one knew who the author was, to calculate the term, to >> decide whether the work is public domain or not. >In other words, there has to be special exceptions in the law because >it's messier than just printed by date. The US "just printed by date" rule won't be around forever: assuming no further changes in the US law, you'll have to start dealing with many of the same questions starting in 2019... and you'll STILL have a smaller public domain to play with. > There is a grand total of one book that I've looked into and not been able > to definitely pin down a publication date, and that was cleared anyway. You've been extremely lucky. In my personal library, I'd say 5 to 10 percent of my historical collection has indeterminate publication dates. > I can walk the shelves of my library and check to see whether most books > are in the public domain just by opening the cover. I can't do that with > a life+years system; in that case, I have to remember when they died. And you still have to do that for every single book; you can't batch- clear. > A American imprint without a date is in the public domain so long as you > can prove it was printed before 1989. Go US! I'm not certain that's a correct statement of the law. Are you? >> I'm assuming, for the sake of argument, that it is. Translators? New >> editions? Typographical arrangements? I'm blind to them for the purpose >> of this analysis. Do they have an impact on what PG or anyone else can >> do with those works? Yes. Do I care? Not for the purpose of this little >> thought-experiment, no. >Then you're stacking the deck. Anyone can win if they do that. Not at all. I'm just making my life easier. Why are you being a prick? >>> Honestly, just confirming the death dates for most authors tells you that >>> all of thier works are in the public domain in the US. The exception, >>> works published after their death or still unpublished >> Or works published after 1922. >No, most authors died before 1923 and hence anything published after 1922 is >in the public domain. Oh? Tell that to the PG clearance team. > It's easier just to skip the whole thing altogether. If you're doing > this for PG, the question shouldn't be what's easier, it should be > what's useful to PG, which is US copyright law and publication dates. I'm doing it for me. Someone else can do it for PG under US law. Are you volunteering? Thanks.

2 1

Re: [gutvol-d] Canadian and American copyrights
by Wallace J.McLean 13 Jan '05

13 Jan '05

Wallace J.McLean writes: >> The benefit, of course, is that once the death date of an author is >> conclusively determined, then, barring wrinkles like collaborators, >> translators, co-authors, illustrators, and posthumous publication, all >> of that author's works are, by definition, cleared. >And what about the myriad series that were basically contracted by the >publisher, and each one was "authored" by the publisher's chosen pen >name? Is that considered anonymously authored? No, that's considered pseudonymously authored! If the true identity of the author is not, has not been, and cannot reasonably be known, then the publication+50 rule kicks in. This was recently confirmed under Canadian law in a decision by the Copyright Board. If there's authority for the statement that John Smith was the true author of "Johnny and the Skyship" by "Charles Vander Pelt", published in 1939, then the life span of John Smith determines the duration of the copyright. If John Smith died in or before 1954, the work is public domain in Canada; if he died after 1954, it is still under copyright. If, on the other hand, there is no authority anywhere for the true identity of the author of "Johnny and the Skyship" by "Charles Vander Pelt", published in 1939, then the work is public domain under Canadian law, and has been since January 1, 1990. The work is NOT public domain in the US or any life+70 country that also has publication+70 for pseud/anon works.

1 0

Anonymous/pseudonymous term
by Wallace J.McLean 13 Jan '05

13 Jan '05

----- Original Message ----- >From "D. Starner" <shalesller(a)writeme.com> Date Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:02:06 -0800 To "Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion" <gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org> Subject Re: [gutvol-d] Canadian and American copyrights >So copyright law in Canada is designed to screw the little guys? Huh? >It's highly unfair to give one author life+50 because she's well known and >give another publication+50 because he's not and "there's [some] chance >[his name] is a pseudonym". If the name is DEFINITELY a pseudonym (or the work is anonymous), and the true identity of the author does not, in the meantime, become known, then publication+50 is the rule. Publication+[regular term] is a common rule, around the world, for anonymous or pseudonymous works. Since the regular term of copyright is keyed to the life of the author in Berne countries, if the author wants to give his/her heirs the benefit of the posthumous term of copyright, then they can do so by taking credit for their work. However, since third parties must also rely on the term of copyright rules to determine what they, as third parties, are entitled to do with a work, it would be unfair to the public if they (we) were estopped from using an ancient work simply because no one knew who the author was, to calculate the term, to decide whether the work is public domain or not. >Anyway, I have a hard time believing that >the Paul French novels are going to be in the public-domain in Canada in >a decade because Isaac Asimov used a pseudonym when writing them. If Isaac Asimov is known to be the true author of works under the pseudonym "Paul French", then the regular term applies: the work is no longer pseudonymous. What's really unfair is the idiotic 95-year term under the US code for anonymous or pseudonymous works.

2 1

Re: [gutvol-d] Canadian and American copyrights
by Wallace J.McLean 13 Jan '05

13 Jan '05

> That's a good question. It brings up the issue of what kind of > copyright clearance is appropriate or neccessary for texts heading > into a PG of Canada collection. Or any PG of [COUNTRY WITH LIFE+} collection, for that matter. The benefit, of course, is that once the death date of an author is conclusively determined, then, barring wrinkles like collaborators, translators, co-authors, illustrators, and posthumous publication, all of that author's works are, by definition, cleared.

2 1

Re: [gutvol-d] Bibliographic data
by D. Starner 13 Jan '05

13 Jan '05

"Wallace J.McLean" writes: > The benefit, of course, is that once the death date of an author is > conclusively determined, then, barring wrinkles like collaborators, > translators, co-authors, illustrators, and posthumous publication, all > of that author's works are, by definition, cleared. The catch is, you don't get to bar wrinkles like that. You have to deal with them. By the same rule of thumb, any book printed before 1923 is, by definition, cleared. Go US! > However, since third parties must also > rely on the term of copyright rules to determine what they, as third > parties, are entitled to do with a work, it would be unfair to the > public if they (we) were estopped from using an ancient work simply > because no one knew who the author was, to calculate the term, to > decide whether the work is public domain or not. In other words, there has to be special exceptions in the law because it's messier than just printed by date. > > I found "Oklahoma, and other poems" in my library. It took 30 seconds to > > verify that it was in the public domain in the US. It took 20 minutes of > > searching by library staff to find out that he died in 1951. > Either way, it's easier to look up <1001 -- probably around 750 -- > author's death dates (and not get some) than it is to look up 1001 -- > no less -- publication dates (and not get some of them, either). There is a grand total of one book that I've looked into and not been able to definitely pin down a publication date, and that was cleared anyway. I can walk the shelves of my library and check to see whether most books are in the public domain just by opening the cover. I can't do that with a life+years system; in that case, I have to remember when they died. > > You complain that a book you have doesn't have a publication date. In my > > experience, that's a rarity > > Not in mine, unfortunately. It's very common with 19th-century English > and American imprints, and extremely common with continental ones > before WWII. A American imprint without a date is in the public domain so long as you can prove it was printed before 1989. Go US! > > It's not that simple. > I'm assuming, for the sake of argument, that it is. Translators? New > editions? Typographical arrangements? I'm blind to them for the purpose > of this analysis. Do they have an impact on what PG or anyone else can > do with those works? Yes. Do I care? Not for the purpose of this little > thought-experiment, no. Then you're stacking the deck. Anyone can win if they do that. > > Honestly, just confirming the death dates for most authors tells you that > > all of thier works are in the public domain in the US. The exception, > > works published after their death or still unpublished > Or works published after 1922. No, most authors died before 1923 and hence anything published after 1922 is in the public domain. > And I don't care to look up TWO data > points on many books; I'd rather just look up one data point, and > recycle as many of those lookups as I can. It's easier just to skip the whole thing altogether. If you're doing this for PG, the question shouldn't be what's easier, it should be what's useful to PG, which is US copyright law and publication dates. -- ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

1 0

re: [gutvol-d] Top 1000 collection list and suggestion
by D. Starner 13 Jan '05

13 Jan '05

> The US law is anything but messy. [...] > With the US law, you just take the printed publication date and > add 95 years. Everything before 1923 is in the public domain, which is a little better. The base of US law is simple; everything printed before 1923 or 95 years old is in the public domain. But there are a lot of books in the public domain due to quirks and various rules that are hard to check. There's six or seven different rules you have to apply (for instance, a book published outside the US that was not registered or not renewed in the US that was out of copyright in the home nation in 1998 or whenever the copyright nation signed a copyright agreement (if later), then it's in the public domain.) In that sense, it's very messy. -- ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

4 3

Re: [gutvol-d] Canadian and American copyrights
by Wallace J.McLean 13 Jan '05

13 Jan '05

>What does this mean for Project Gutenberg Canada? How much research is needed before >they could conclude that the identity of an author is not commonly known? Most "known" pseudonyms are either catalogued in the national union catalogue, or available through dead-tree reference sources. If searches of those two sources fail, then a letter of inquiry to one of the literary copyright collectives would probably suffice to act as a cover-your-ass. If these three lines of attack did not uncover the true identity of the author of an anonymous/pseudonymous work, then a court would probably conclude that the anon/psued term, not the life+ term, would apply, or was reasonably relied on by a third party re-using that work. This is a section, along with its predecessors, I have flagged to see if there's been any judicial comment on since the 1924 act was passed.

1 0

Bibliographic data
by Wallace J.McLean 13 Jan '05

13 Jan '05

----- Original Message ----- >From "D. Starner" <shalesller(a)writeme.com> Date Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:54:15 -0800 To gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org Subject [gutvol-d] Re: gutvol-d Digest, Vol 6, Issue 27 >> What would you rather do: >> >> look up the publication dates for 1001 books and the death dates of the >> author(s) for a large subset thereof? >I don't have to look up death dates. This is as much a complaint that >it's different rather than it's messier. The US law *IS* messier. I have to work in both. I'll take life+ any day. >> look up just the death dates for < 1001 authors? >I found "Oklahoma, and other poems" in my library. It took 30 seconds to >verify that it was in the public domain in the US. It took 20 minutes of >searching by library staff to find out that he died in 1951. Either way, it's easier to look up <1001 -- probably around 750 -- author's death dates (and not get some) than it is to look up 1001 -- no less -- publication dates (and not get some of them, either). >You complain that a book you have doesn't have a publication date. In my >experience, that's a rarity Not in mine, unfortunately. It's very common with 19th-century English and American imprints, and extremely common with continental ones before WWII. >, and I still fail to find to understand why >European publishers do that. If you don't have a publication date, how >do you know that it's not a modern edition, and hence has typographical >copyright in the EU, or even new editorial content? I don't. And I don't care. I'm just going by the title of the original and considering the copyright in the original for the purposes of this experiment. I barely have time to do this experiment with the variables I've been given and the variables I've set for myself; buggered if I'll add more to the mix. >How do you prove that >to the satisfaction of PG, who might have to prove it in court someday? What does this have to do with PG proving anything in court? This is about the narrow question of considering the impact of life+50 vs. life+70 term on the list as it has been provided to us by a third party. >> There are more books than authors. Just by confirming the death dates >> for CS Lewis, Charles Dickens, Hans Christian Anderson, Verdi, etc., >> gives me the public domain date for multiple books at a go. >It's not that simple. I'm assuming, for the sake of argument, that it is. Translators? New editions? Typographical arrangements? I'm blind to them for the purpose of this analysis. Do they have an impact on what PG or anyone else can do with those works? Yes. Do I care? Not for the purpose of this little thought-experiment, no. >Just because Baudelaire died before 1935, doesn't >mean the translator for Les Fleurs du Mal died before 1935, I am only considering copyright in the original, pre-humous, untranslated edition of any of the works on the list. >Honestly, just confirming the death dates for most authors tells you that >all of thier works are in the public domain in the US. The exception, >works published after their death or still unpublished Or works published after 1922. And I don't care to look up TWO data points on many books; I'd rather just look up one data point, and recycle as many of those lookups as I can. You are welcome to do the same analysis of that list of 1001 under US law. But I'm not going to.

1 0

Re: [gutvol-d] Canadian and American copyrights
by D. Starner 12 Jan '05

12 Jan '05

Robert Shimmin writes: > Exactly. A pseudonymous work is only pub+50 while the author's actual identity is not publicly > known: > > 6.1 Except as provided in section 6.2, where the identity of the author of a work is unknown, > copyright in the work shall subsist for whichever of the following terms ends earlier: > > (a) a term consisting of the remainder of the calendar year of the first publication of the work > and a period of fifty years following the end of that calendar year, and > > (b) a term consisting of the remainder of the calendar year of the making of the work and a period > of seventy-five years following the end of that calendar year, > > but where, during that term, the author's identity becomes commonly known, the term provided in > section 6 applies. What does this mean for Project Gutenberg Canada? How much research is needed before they could conclude that the identity of an author is not commonly known? -- ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

2 1