This topic has been covered previously on the list (exhaustively!!). I would suggest Jon look up the archives. Before this starts another mamoth thread (We know what happened last time!)
with best intentions Anthony > Eugene, > > I think we actually agree, I may have mis-stated my comment. In this case > the oringinal publisher (1901) is long out of business, the publisher of > the > reprint (1971) has been bought out - and the new owner of the copyright > has > no interest in reprinting (I contacted them). The publisher of the > facsimile > (Lyon & Healy Harps) seems to have done the same thing I did - that is to > copy an existing book (although they didn't respond when I emailed them > for > info). This is not a "rare and ancient" book, the 1971 reprint is > available > in many libraries (my Monmouth County Library was able to get it from one > two counties away). > > The question of public domain, in this case, I think is moot. I'm sure the > original copyright still stands, and is in the hands of the publisher of > the > reprint. The Lyon & Healy facsimiles may be illegal, for all I know - or > they may be a direct agreement to not seek redress. The publisher of the > reprint had no direct knowledge of them, as they didn't suggest them as a > source - they only suggested the used book market. > > I believe that there is a difference under US law between a facsimile of > an > original (even if in public domain) and a copying of the "text". The first > would purport to be "original", and the second merely a new version. But > that is up to the legal scholars. > > In my case there was no source to gain the text, other than repeatedly > renewing it from the library, except by paying for similar copies made by > Lyon & Healy (who don't run a publishing business, they make harps). And > to > the best of my knowledge they do the music book publishing on the side as > a > service to their main business. At least I think so, and I did write them. > > So I was speaking of a very specific circumstance, and agree with you as > to > the small publisher with "copyrightable material. I would have been quite > happy to pay a reasonable price for someone else's work in copying that > book, or even an exhorbitant price if the book were available only by > going > to Ulan Bator to copy the original. But in this case the alternate vendor > didn't have the copyright either. > > Best, Jon > >> I don't entirely agree with this last statement. What happens if you >> are > a >> small publisher of copyrightable material and have no intent to >> "monopolize," but just want to make a living while providing something >> interesting to as wide an audience as possible? If your copyrighted >> material is wantonly, widely copied and your investment in production > fails >> miserably, will you undertake such a venture again? I wouldn't. One to >> a >> few of the selfish win in such a case while many lose. In any event, >> this >> isn't entirely relevant, because as I understand things, facsimiles of >> public domain material are not protected by copyright in the US. >> Copying >> new introductory text, new cover art, lists for interpretation of >> errata, >> etc. (which would be protected) would constitute theft and be >> understandably illegal. >> >> Best, >> Eugene >> >> >> >> >> > > > > ______________________________________________________ maltaNET broadBAND Internet starting from Lm 10.39. Check out http://www.maltanet.net
