4 ms·

This looks fantastic, but how on earth can it be listed here as public domain? The original novels are still very much in copyright, so I would think that a rad

by Steuard 14y ago

This looks fantastic, but how on earth can it be listed here as public domain? The original novels are still very much in copyright, so I would think that a radio adaptation would be, too. (Even if the publisher licensed the rights to the BBC, it's hard for me to imagine that allowing a public domain recording.)

jlgreco 14y ago
The books are still very much copyrighted, but I am not so sure that means much. The content may be the same but the book and the radio series are still entirely separate entities in copyright law. That is why you can copyright a recording of a presentation of Beethoven's 9th. I assume archive.org has done their homework here, but IANAL.
- rprasad 14y ago
  The books are still very much copyrighted, but I am not so sure that means much. That means everything. The audio recordings are a derivative work, so the audio"ness" of it is a separate copyrightable/copyrighted work (but the underlying novel itself remains subject to the original copyright). This means that the audio recording is subject to both copyrights unless part of the license given to the creators of the audio work includes a license to redistribute the audio work, which may be the case given that it is a BBC production.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    Right, since it is a legal licensed redistribution it seems logical to me that the situation is not as simple as it just being another publication of the same work. It is a licensed re-performance of the same content, but my understanding is that it is a separate legal entity (something that the legal owner of the original work agreed to upon licencing.) So the Asimov estate has no beef with the BBC, since all licensing was done there, the BBC presumably has no beef with archive.org users, and the Asimov estate has no beef with archive.org users because it is not their place to.
    - Turing_Machine 14y ago
      That would be my guess (and IANAL, either). The BBC presumably paid Asimov for worldwide distribution rights for the audio performance, so the Asimov estate has no reason to kick.
    - Steuard 14y ago
      I alluded to this in my initial comment: I find it hard to believe that Asimov's publishers would have agreed to a license deal that permitted public domain distribution of the derivative work. If this recording truly is public domain today, I should be able to type a transcript as a novel and sell it, right? What sane publisher would sign such a deal?
      - lutusp 14y ago
        > If this recording truly is public domain today, I should be able to type a transcript as a novel and sell it, right? No, that is not what "public domain" means. A public-domain work is still properly attributed to its creator. A person can't take credit for it on the ground that it's in the public domain.
        Steuard 14y ago
        [For the record, my intent wasn't that I'd pretend I was the original author, just that I'd sell the transcribed book. But running with your take on this anyway, and with the usual IANAL disclaimer:] Morally, you're certainly right: it's wrong to take credit for work that is not your own. But legally, I thought this is precisely what "public domain" means. Disney can make a movie out of Snow White without bothering to credit the Brothers Grimm (or their sources) at all, much less needing permission from their heirs. Public domain works can be used by anyone, in any way, for any purpose. As one example to illustrate this, Creative Commons provides a way to "dedicate work to the public domain". Their human-readable summary says, "You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission." That's pretty much what I was attempting to describe in my previous comment.
- batgaijin 14y ago
  wtf? what would happen if I transcribed it?
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    If that were a licensed derivative work, I assume that would be okay. Also transcribing the radio series would get you the same story, but not the same book.
    - derefr 14y ago
      Oh--suddenly I understand the economics of "the book of the movie of the book" books!
      - dalke 14y ago
        In addition to economics, I reread "The Wizard of Oz" recently. In the book, the witch's shoes are silver while in the movie they are ruby red. This was only one of places where the book and movie diverged. I can understand that someone who likes the movie may prefer to read the book of the movie, rather than the original book.
  - brigade 14y ago
    If a book is public domain, any transcription is in public domain as well (in the US at least.) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow#US_copyright_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow#US_copyright_...
- brigade 14y ago
  It seems as though it has fallen into the public domain in Europe, perhaps. [1] [1] http://www.gutenbergnews.org/20101127/public-domain-day-2011/ http://www.gutenbergnews.org/20101127/public-domain-day-2011...
  - yarrel 14y ago
    Assuming radio plays required copyright notices in the US at the time, the BBC didn't have them on broadcasts they sold to the US so that is probably what happened here. The novel and radio play will still be very much under copyright in Europe.
- nullc 14y ago
  > I assume archive.org has done their homework here, but IANAL. Bad assumption. Archive.org plays fast and loose with copyright law, to quote Brewster Kahle "Who's going to sue a library?"
- ldng 14y ago
  From the third comment on archive.org : "The three novels which make up the original Foundation trilogy were written as a magazine serial between 1940 and 1950, for a science fiction magazine edited by the legendary John W Campbell. They were thus composed as a series of short stories, giving them a number of advantages over the later books by which Asimov added to the story forty years afterwards." So there is no Asimov copyright problem as it's based on Campbell's work. Yet it's presented as Assimov's trilogy. So I don't know what to believe.
  - archangel_one 14y ago
    It's not based on Campbell's work, it's written for a magazine edited by him. Asimov presumably retained copyright on the stories himself.
    - ldng 14y ago
      Right, I missread ! Copyright is now 70 years. So, assuming it was published between 1940 and 1942, it effectively felt in public domain hence, inmho ianal, both original story and recorded are now in public domain.
      - archangel_one 14y ago
        Depends where you are, I guess. Public domain in the States extends back into the 20s still because that's when Mickey Mouse was created.

by Steuard 14y ago

jlgreco 14y ago

The books are still very much copyrighted, but I am not so sure that means much. The content may be the same but the book and the radio series are still entirely separate entities in copyright law. That is why you can copyright a recording of a presentation of Beethoven's 9th. I assume archive.org has done their homework here, but IANAL.

rprasad 14y ago
The books are still very much copyrighted, but I am not so sure that means much. That means everything. The audio recordings are a derivative work, so the audio"ness" of it is a separate copyrightable/copyrighted work (but the underlying novel itself remains subject to the original copyright). This means that the audio recording is subject to both copyrights unless part of the license given to the creators of the audio work includes a license to redistribute the audio work, which may be the case given that it is a BBC production.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  Right, since it is a legal licensed redistribution it seems logical to me that the situation is not as simple as it just being another publication of the same work. It is a licensed re-performance of the same content, but my understanding is that it is a separate legal entity (something that the legal owner of the original work agreed to upon licencing.) So the Asimov estate has no beef with the BBC, since all licensing was done there, the BBC presumably has no beef with archive.org users, and the Asimov estate has no beef with archive.org users because it is not their place to.
  - Turing_Machine 14y ago
    That would be my guess (and IANAL, either). The BBC presumably paid Asimov for worldwide distribution rights for the audio performance, so the Asimov estate has no reason to kick.
  - Steuard 14y ago
    I alluded to this in my initial comment: I find it hard to believe that Asimov's publishers would have agreed to a license deal that permitted public domain distribution of the derivative work. If this recording truly is public domain today, I should be able to type a transcript as a novel and sell it, right? What sane publisher would sign such a deal?
    - lutusp 14y ago
      > If this recording truly is public domain today, I should be able to type a transcript as a novel and sell it, right? No, that is not what "public domain" means. A public-domain work is still properly attributed to its creator. A person can't take credit for it on the ground that it's in the public domain.
      - Steuard 14y ago
        [For the record, my intent wasn't that I'd pretend I was the original author, just that I'd sell the transcribed book. But running with your take on this anyway, and with the usual IANAL disclaimer:] Morally, you're certainly right: it's wrong to take credit for work that is not your own. But legally, I thought this is precisely what "public domain" means. Disney can make a movie out of Snow White without bothering to credit the Brothers Grimm (or their sources) at all, much less needing permission from their heirs. Public domain works can be used by anyone, in any way, for any purpose. As one example to illustrate this, Creative Commons provides a way to "dedicate work to the public domain". Their human-readable summary says, "You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission." That's pretty much what I was attempting to describe in my previous comment.
batgaijin 14y ago
wtf? what would happen if I transcribed it?
- jlgreco 14y ago
  If that were a licensed derivative work, I assume that would be okay. Also transcribing the radio series would get you the same story, but not the same book.
  - derefr 14y ago
    Oh--suddenly I understand the economics of "the book of the movie of the book" books!
    - dalke 14y ago
      In addition to economics, I reread "The Wizard of Oz" recently. In the book, the witch's shoes are silver while in the movie they are ruby red. This was only one of places where the book and movie diverged. I can understand that someone who likes the movie may prefer to read the book of the movie, rather than the original book.
- brigade 14y ago
  If a book is public domain, any transcription is in public domain as well (in the US at least.) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow#US_copyright_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow#US_copyright_...
brigade 14y ago
It seems as though it has fallen into the public domain in Europe, perhaps. [1] [1] http://www.gutenbergnews.org/20101127/public-domain-day-2011/ http://www.gutenbergnews.org/20101127/public-domain-day-2011...
- yarrel 14y ago
  Assuming radio plays required copyright notices in the US at the time, the BBC didn't have them on broadcasts they sold to the US so that is probably what happened here. The novel and radio play will still be very much under copyright in Europe.
nullc 14y ago
> I assume archive.org has done their homework here, but IANAL. Bad assumption. Archive.org plays fast and loose with copyright law, to quote Brewster Kahle "Who's going to sue a library?"
ldng 14y ago
From the third comment on archive.org : "The three novels which make up the original Foundation trilogy were written as a magazine serial between 1940 and 1950, for a science fiction magazine edited by the legendary John W Campbell. They were thus composed as a series of short stories, giving them a number of advantages over the later books by which Asimov added to the story forty years afterwards." So there is no Asimov copyright problem as it's based on Campbell's work. Yet it's presented as Assimov's trilogy. So I don't know what to believe.
- archangel_one 14y ago
  It's not based on Campbell's work, it's written for a magazine edited by him. Asimov presumably retained copyright on the stories himself.
  - ldng 14y ago
    Right, I missread ! Copyright is now 70 years. So, assuming it was published between 1940 and 1942, it effectively felt in public domain hence, inmho ianal, both original story and recorded are now in public domain.
    - archangel_one 14y ago
      Depends where you are, I guess. Public domain in the States extends back into the 20s still because that's when Mickey Mouse was created.