Re: Dracula

On 17, July 1998, Rob Kasunic <rkasunic[_at_]kasunic.com> wrote:
>
> Michael Scarpitti <mscarpit[_at_]asnt.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 15, July 1998, Dan L. Burk <burkdanl[_at_]shu.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 07/14/98, Michael Scarpitti <mscarpit[_at_]asnt.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have heard that Universal Studios has trademarked or copyrighted
> > > > the word "Dracula". How can they do that?
> > >
> > > By accruing identification with the term in the minds of the public,
> > > most likely, registering it. The trademarking, that is. Copyright is
> > > pretty much out of the question.
> > >
> > > > I have seen editions printed recently of Dracula that carry a
> > > > copyright notice, even though they are without notes or any new
> > > > editorial material. The book came out in 1897. Is it possible
> > > > to copyright this?
> > >
> > > Depends on what you mean by "this." The text of the story, no -- that
> > > fell into the public domain a long time ago. There may be a "thin"
> > > copyright in original aspects of the formatting in a particular
> > > edition.
> >
> > Please explain "thin".
>
> A "thin" copyright refers to the scope of protection. All copyrights
> are not created equal -- the scope of protection for certain works is
> broader than others. Generally, for example, fictional or imaginative
> works are afforded broader protection than are factual works. As was
> discussed in the Feist opinion, compilations of factual material may
> be copyrightable, but the scope of protection is thin, since the facts
> are not protected by the copyright, only the original selection,
> coordination, and arrangement of those facts. The same is sometimes
> true of derivative works: while the new material may meet the minimal
> requirement of originality, the derivative copyright does not affect
> or enlarge the scope of the underlying work. It may be copyrightable,
> but the scope of protection may be thin.
>
> In the Dracula situation, there may be a thin copyright for some
> original selection, arrangement, or adaptation of the public domain
> work, but the copyright would likely not cover much. Certainly,
> anyone would be free to copy the original public domain work.

This weekend I looked at Half Price Books. They have three recent (1980's & 90's) editions of Dracula, one from the German publisher Koenneman. All of them carried copyright notices. Two of the editions (not the Koenneman) contained the same brief (recently authored) introduction. What possible grounds could they have for placing copyright notice on the PD material, especially Koenneman? I believe the Modern Library edition is issued without such a notice.

Michael A Scarpitti
Assistant Editor
Materials Evaluation
1711 Arlingate Lane
PO Box 28518
Columbus, Ohio 43228-0518
800 222-2768 Ext 207
614 274-6003 Ext 207
Fax 614 274-6899
<mscarpit[_at_]asnt.org> Received on Mon Jul 20 1998 - 15:16:39 GMT