Re: JRRT's LotR PD? (thread generalized to many other books)

From: Charles E. Keller <keller[_at_]Ra.MsState.Edu>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 10:34:38 -0600 (CST)

On Tue, 27 Feb 1996, Wayne G. Hammond wrote:
>

[snip]
>
> Mr. Keller's post raises a number of issues. I am not a lawyer and so
> cannot comment on them in a professional capacity, but as the author
> of the standard bibliography and publishing history of Tolkien's works,
> I am perhaps more familiar than most with the Ace Books affair.

[snip *only* for brevity, this added post is rather long already]

Thank you for a well informed detailed response to my queries!

Also, thank you for providing the full address of the person to contact for permissions. I (and several others) have had too many "unpleasant" experiences in *trying* to get permission for Internet distribution of recent works. I leave it to others to get the permission and relay that information to me.

Anyway, lest you, this group, others, or even Christopher himself! think i started this thread to oppose Tolkien, or that i otherwise have something against the Tolkien Estate-- I assure you that IS NOT the case!! I personally own authorized (print) copies of LotR!

I will now broaden the picture to include many other less well-known works to "prove" this statement.

Below i will continue the "thread" of works (such as *Ace* LotR) that delve into the shady areas that are apparent exceptions to the generally accepted rules. For those who endure this post to the end, i will cite yet another example published by the A.M.A.!

I respectfully ask that if any "fact" i state herein is wrong or otherwise incorrect, that members of this list correct it ASAP.

There is a giant "iceberg" of which LotR is merely a part of the "tip"! This "iceberg" is called:

"Works that *may* or may *not* be PD based on laws other than the 75 year `rule of thumb.'"

The "tip" of the "iceberg" are the works that might be controversial to take advantage of. These include LotR, and the movie "Its a Wonderful Life" (both of which regained their copyrights through means i don't yet *fully* understand, or even care to understand....)

The next layer of the "iceberg" is the "base". This is composed of the greatest bulk of works. Examples of these by category:

1.) Non-U.S. works distributed in the U.S. without a copyright notice. My understanding is that GATT removed this "manufacturing clause" from the 1909 copyright Act recently. I think people would be amazed at the shear number of works found in U.S. University Libraries that the U.K. printed without any copyright notice in them!!! Scores of people obediently and literally following Terry Carroll's FAQ(V. 1.1.3 for U.S. law?) may be digitizing these works even as you read this. <g>

2.) U.S. works that did not renew their copyright between the years 1921 through 1963. BTW, if anyone would like to *volunteer* to look ANY of these works up in the _Catalog of Copyright Entries_ so that they may be "reprinted" in the digital public domain archives i would be happy to hear from you!

3.) U.S. works that were printed prior to March 1, 1988, but for reasons beyond my comprehension, chose not to include a copyright notice in the work (ANYWHERE in the work, some versos are even BLANK!) 4.) Miscellaneous, (see Terry Carroll's FAQ for a list of these).

Expanding on category 3 above, there are MANY works that fit in this group. Authors i can cite off the tip of my tongue include, Horatio Alger, Oliver Optic, Miss Mulock, Bertrand Russell, Damon Runyon, Alexandre Dumas, Emile Zola, etc........ I have *NO* idea why these (pre-'89) *U.S.* *printed* works do *not* have copyright notices in them!! [BTW, the names of the translators are also not in these editions as well!]

This most well known organization printed the following work with a totally blank verso! No (c) statement anywhere (that i could *find* anyway).

[title]
Nostrums and Quackery: Articles on the Nostrum Evil, Quackery and Allied Matters Affecting the Public Health; Reprinted With or Without Modifications, from The Journal of the American Medical Association

[editor]
Prepared, Compiled or Edited by Arthur J. Cramp, M.D.

Director of the Propaganda Department and Bureau of Investigation of the Journal of the American Medical Association VOLUME II
PRESS OF AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
FIVE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-FIVE NORTH DEARBORN STREET CHICAGO, 1921 The verso of this work (i have physically inspected *three* *different* copies) is totally BLANK.

My questions are:

1.) is this work PD or copyrighted?
2.) why might they have published this work without (c) notice?
3.) what are some possible reasons that so many works printed in

the U.S. would have blank versos (prior to 1989!)

Thanks--
Charles Keller <keller[_at_]ra.msstate.edu> Received on Tue Mar 05 1996 - 16:38:57 GMT