Re: Re: Odd (and misleading) copyright statement

It is absolutely misleading, and based on the fact that it is very difficult to compare the "original" edition" and the new one, unless they are obvious such as notes, comments, separate additions of variations. Publishers, in doing so try to "recreate" a false ownership in public view. However, unless there are such highly visible additions, I doubt very much that the publisher will sue even another publisher if the work is republished as the original was written. There are many cases of re-publishing at low cost when an old author "reborn" in public eyes through anykind of events (film, event to celebrate death or birth).
It is very much like "false coypright" and should be clearly forbidden. Alain

2006/8/29, Angela Mott <angmott[_at_]uflib.ufl.edu>:
>
> I've noticed this in several books that I've had to examine for
> copyright statements. I think it IS misleading and quite likely
> deliberately so.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> Angela Mott
> Copyright Permissions Coordinator
> George A. Smathers Libraries at the University of Florida
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property
> [mailto:CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org] On Behalf Of Brewer, Michael
> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 3:56 PM
> To: CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property
> Subject: [CNI-(C)] Odd (and misleading) copyright statement
>
> All,
>
> I was reading my 6 year old a copy of Wizard of Oz last night and
> noticed that there is a copyright notice in the front of the book
> (published, if I remember correctly in 1999). The story was first
> published, I think, in 1899 or something like that. The copyright
> statement (and I do not have it in front of me, so it could be slightly
> different) said something like "new material copyright 1999" and then
> went on to say, in the usual language, that no part of this book may be
> copied...... without the consent of .... etc." There was no indication
> what part of the text was "new", or whether or not it had been abridged,
> or changed in any way. My question is, isn't this terribly misleading?
> The implication is that nothing in the book can be used without the
> consent of the copyright holder (to whatever new material there might
> be, but not to the majority of the text, or even perhaps the entire text
> - the new material could be just illustrations, or notes). Is this a
> common practice? Is it, then, up to the user to determine what is new
> (if anything) and what is not by doing a comparative textual analysis?
>
> I'd be interested in your thoughts.
>
> mb
>
> Michael Brewer
>
>
>
> #############################################################
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
> the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>.
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org>
> To postpone your subscription, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org>
> To resume mail list message delivery from postpone mode, E-mail to <
> CNI-COPYRIGHT-feed[_at_]cni.org>
> Send administrative queries to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org>
>
> Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at <
> https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>.
>
>

-- 
Alain Minodier
tel:33 (0)6 12 29 37 97