In a message dated 2/23/2005 10:33:50 AM Mountain Standard Time, shimmin@uiuc.edu writes: In the US, a work first published in 1970 has a 95-year term, and won't hit the public domain until 2066. In the UK, posthumous works are no different than other works today, but that has only been the case since 1988. Before 1988, posthumous works got a 50-year copyright (2021). This may have been extended to 70 years since then (2041). So who is going to complain? There is a new edition as of about 24 years ago, which includes all Pepys's XXX comments that are omitted from the earlier edition. Anne
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 03:44:51PM -0500, Gutenberg9443@aol.com wrote:
So who is going to complain? There is a new edition as of about 24 years ago, which includes all Pepys's XXX comments that are omitted from the earlier edition.
I seem to recall that Pepys diaries were written in a special shorthand. The current editions may claim copyright on their "transcriptions" of the shorthand. Anyone game for scanning in the original shorthand, and transcribing it? Jonathan -- It's not true unless it makes you laugh, but you don't understand it until it makes you weep. Eukleia: Jonathan Walther Address: 12706 99 Ave, Surrey, BC V3V2P8 (Canada) Contact: 604-684-1319 (daytime) Contact: 604-582-9308 (morning and evening) Puritan: Purity of faith, Purity of doctrine. Sola Scriptura! Patriarchy, Polygamy, Slavery === Fatherhood, Husbandry, Mastery Matriarchy, Monogamy, Prisons === Wickedness, Stupidity, Buggery
It occurred to me that if there are not too many xxx portions of the diary, then under the "fair use" doctrine one could write a "scholarly article" on the topic of "editorial squeamishness" and include the referenced passages as footnotes and publish it in a scholarly place like the PG arachive?? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan Walther" <krooger@debian.org> To: "Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion" <gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 4:35 PM Subject: Re: [gutvol-d] Pepys' birthday
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 03:44:51PM -0500, Gutenberg9443@aol.com wrote:
So who is going to complain? There is a new edition as of about 24 years ago, which includes all Pepys's XXX comments that are omitted from the earlier edition.
I seem to recall that Pepys diaries were written in a special shorthand. The current editions may claim copyright on their "transcriptions" of the shorthand.
Anyone game for scanning in the original shorthand, and transcribing it?
Jonathan
-- It's not true unless it makes you laugh, but you don't understand it until it makes you weep.
Eukleia: Jonathan Walther Address: 12706 99 Ave, Surrey, BC V3V2P8 (Canada) Contact: 604-684-1319 (daytime) Contact: 604-582-9308 (morning and evening) Puritan: Purity of faith, Purity of doctrine. Sola Scriptura!
Patriarchy, Polygamy, Slavery === Fatherhood, Husbandry, Mastery Matriarchy, Monogamy, Prisons === Wickedness, Stupidity, Buggery _______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 06:59:00 -0500, "N Wolcott" <nwolcott@dsdial.net> wrote: | It occurred to me that if there are not too many xxx portions of the diary, | then under the "fair use" doctrine one could write a "scholarly article" on | the topic of "editorial squeamishness" and include the referenced passages | as footnotes and publish it in a scholarly place like the PG arachive?? I don't understand why there should be any problems with xxx portions. Or indeed why you thought it necessary to use xxx. Nowadays absolutely anything goes, a bit of sex does not cause any problems whatsoever, in the UK at least. -- Dave F
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 06:59:00 -0500, "N Wolcott" <nwolcott@dsdial.net> wrote:
| It occurred to me that if there are not too many xxx portions of the diary, | then under the "fair use" doctrine one could write a "scholarly article" on | the topic of "editorial squeamishness" and include the referenced
| as footnotes and publish it in a scholarly place like the PG arachive??
I don't understand why there should be any problems with xxx portions. Or indeed why you thought it necessary to use xxx. Nowadays absolutely anything goes, a bit of sex does not cause any
The problem with the xxx portions is that they are only available in the copyrighted version of the diaries circa 1970. Since the Mynors-Bright versions indicate where the cuts were made, one could easily marry the additions with the original. Hence the need to use the U.S. "fair use" doctrine if it still exists. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Fawthrop" <hyphen@hyphenologist.co.uk> To: "Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion" <gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org> Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 1:26 PM Subject: Re: [gutvol-d] Pepys' birthday passages problems
whatsoever, in the UK at least.
-- Dave F
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d
participants (4)
-
Dave Fawthrop -
Gutenberg9443＠aol.com -
Jonathan Walther -
N Wolcott