To discover whether or not a book is under copyright?
Hire a specialist to look into it. Seriously. Things that were published in the US before 1923 and not subsequently republished are about the only sure bets - if you only need US rights.
Hire a specialist to look into it. Seriously.
It is seriously easy to assert a copyright. In the U.S. you have to affix a properly formatted copyright notice. There is no registration. This means there is no central registry. This can really make it difficult. When you find material floating around the web it is possible that someone has removed the legitimate copyright notice.
Your best bet is if the author has posted the material on the web without a copyright notice. Some folks have adopted licenses which confer the right to copy for the general public under certain conditions; e.g., that the license be conveyed with the material and that proper attribution remains. This is even better. Many licenses require that the material not be modified. A lot of open software is distributed under this type of licensing, but I have also seen original written documents treated in this manner.
It is seriously easy to assert a copyright.
A common technique is to mail yourself a copy of your work so that you have the postmark as evidence of date.
It is seriously easy to assert a copyright. A common technique is to mail yourself a copy of your work so that you have the postmark as evidence of date.
How can you prove from the postmark on the envelope that it was your work that was inside that envelope when you mailed it? [:P]
I did find a couple of helpful websites for figuring this out, though they certainly won't help in all cases:
http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm (a summary of the rules, for the U.S.)
http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/renewals.html (a FAQ on how to tell whether a copyright was renewed, with some links for where to search)
http://collections.stanford.edu/copyrightrenewals (searchable copyright renewal database; but only covers copyright renewals filed between 1950 and 1992 for books published in the US between 1923 and 1963)
Bottom line: there will still be lots of cases that can only be determined by an expensive manual copyright search or by going to the Copyright Office in the Library of Congress yourself and doing it in person.
It is seriously easy to assert a copyright. A common technique is to mail yourself a copy of your work so that you have the postmark as evidence of date. How can you prove from the postmark on the envelope that it was your work that was inside that envelope when you mailed it? I did find a couple of helpful websites for figuring this out, though they certainly won't help in all cases: http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm (a summary of the rules, for the U.S.) http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/renewals.html (a FAQ on how to tell whether a copyright was renewed, with some links for where to search) http://collections.stanford.edu/copyrightrenewals (searchable copyright renewal database; but only covers copyright renewals filed between 1950 and 1992 for books published in the US between 1923 and 1963) Bottom line: there will still be lots of cases that can only be determined by an expensive manual copyright search or by going to the Copyright Office in the Library of Congress yourself and doing it in person.
How can you prove from the postmark on the envelope that it was your work that was inside that envelope when you mailed it?
If the mailed material remains unopened.
edit:At least until a court proceeding.
All you can do is prove that your postmark is earlier than the person you are accusing of trying to steal you work. A friend's cousin, a NW Native American artist, had some of his cedar box tops copied. The thief used as his defense that it was a traditional design. Unfortunately for the thief, he had also copied the mistake that the real artist had made. He swore everything he designed thereafter would carry some distinguishing "error"? Put another way, you don't have to have absolute proof, you just need to be a step ahead of the thief.[:D]
You are absolutely correct. It is left unopened until attorneys handling an infringement case determine it is time to open it.
All you can do is prove that your postmark is earlier than the person you are accusing of trying to steal you work.
Yeah, but the point I was making was how do you prove you hadn't mailed some other object to yourself with that postmark?
Aha! Alan explained it. That's the part I wasn't thinking of. I was imagining a torn open envelope with the early postmark on it, but what would that prove? Duh!
http://www.copyright.gov/ is the first place to look for copyright info - they have a searchable database
That's fine for recent records. But for any records prior to January 1, 1978, they send you here:
https://archive.org/details/copyrightrecords
which is not a search engine but is merely an archive of volumes of copyright records, by year. The ones that have been digitized so far. You have to open each one, year by year, and do a search in it. No thanks.
I was looking the other day to see if the copyrights on the translations of Kierkegaard's works that I had posted as PB's in the Files forum had been renewed, and got no hits when searching in the copyright.gov database. So that meant if they were renewed they were done before 1978. I searched the Stanford copyright renewals database (a search engine that takes the tedium out of the archive search, at least for the years 1950-1978, and they're adding more years bit by bit), where I found them. Alas, that meant I had to take down those PB's.
You have to open each one, year by year, and do a search in it. No thanks.
They offer to do the search for a fee - used to be $200. I don't know what it is now. However, if you have a copy of what you are checking the copyright on, most of the time there are only 2-3 years you need to verify. Often Worldcat will narrow it quite effectively. But if a work is an anthology of any sort, or you are looking for the copyright on something that is likely to appear in anthologies, you're right ... it's a real bear ... back to my original advice. Hire a specialist.
If the publisher is still in business you can always write them. But as Logos has shown occasionally e.gwith the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Ott) even a company that deals with copyrights all the time on an international basis makes mistakes.
What is even more fun, however, is proving that someone has invented references and quotes - something I've run into twice - once in a book in common use as a textbook. Oops. [8-|]
From reading the responses, I think the answer is "no," Michael. [:P]
Unfortunately for the thief, he had also copied the mistake that the real artist had made.
Book publishers would sometimes embed errors during typesetting in order to provide an easy means of detection.
Unfortunately for the thief, he had also copied the mistake that the real artist had made. Book publishers would sometimes embed errors during typesetting in order to provide an easy means of detection.
This is probably one reason why Logos can't fix typos that are in the original source without the copyright owner's permission.
Interesting. I didn't know that.
Book publishers would sometimes embed errors during typesetting in order to provide an easy means of detection. Interesting. I didn't know that.
The New Oxford American Dictionary contained the word "esquivalience" (with a fake definition) to catch people redistributing the dictionary's definitions without permission; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_entry
It's also assumed that many map databases include fake data to catch copyright violators: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap_street
It's also assumed that many map databases include fake data to catch copyright violators ...
The non-town of Agloe, NY was just made famous by Google because they wiped it from their maps:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/29/nyregion/in-search-of-agloe-ny-a-town-on-the-border-of-fiction-and-reality.html?_r=0
The New Oxford American Dictionary contained the word "esquivalience" (with a fake definition) to catch people redistributing the dictionary's definitions without permission; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_entry It's also assumed that many map databases include fake data to catch copyright violators: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap_street
Fascinating. All of this reminds me of the fictional professor at my alma mater, Josiah S. Carberry, professor of psycho-ceramics. He was "born" on a bulletin board in 1929 when someone posted a false notice for a Carberry lecture on "Archaic Greek Architectural Revetments in Connection with Ionian Philology," which of course he never showed up to give. But all kinds of fictional details about his life and family have arisen in the years since then. Alumni send post cards to the college from their travels all over the world purporting to be from him, and quite a lore has risen up about him. Every Friday the 13th and Leap Day (Feb 29) is celebrated as Josiah Carberry Day. Often lectures are scheduled where Carberry fails to show up, and cracked pots are placed at the library entrances for donations to the Josiah Carberry Fund, which Carberry set up for the purchase of books "of which I might or might not approve."
It has nothing to do with copyright though. Josiah Carberry is absolutely and uniquely unrepeatable.
True story:
A friend of mine got fed up with one of his friends always copying his research for their university school essays.
My friend made up a quote from Prof. Hertz van Rental - and his friend soaked it up and put it in his essay! [:D]
Did anyone attend Hudson University?
So it seems that there is no simple way to check whether or not a book is under copyright, excepting the obvious ones.
And the problem is complicated by a few publishers who often claim copyrights that they do not legitimately own. There should be some evidence of copyright that one could show to prove legitimate claim to a work. And also it is complicated by those stealing and publishing legitimately copyrighted material for profit. It both cases, it amounts to stealing.
Copyright is also an area of the law evolving to keep up with technology, and failing. This is especially true in the area of personal use, as opposed to use for profit.
