3 ms·

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 audi

by 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.
      - lutusp 14y ago
        Yes, but not having to ask permission isn't the same as not having to include an attribution of the source and its author. The latter is required in virtually all cases. Consider the issue of plagiarism -- is it plagiarism if the plagiarized work is in the public domain? I think you know the answer.
        Steuard 14y ago
        I'm a college professor and a research scientist: I'd better know the answer! But I've never heard that plagiarism is a legal issue. Are there actual laws on the books that criminalize plagiarism of public domain material? (I live in the US; is that answer different here than elsewhere?) But honestly, your objection here is very much a side issue. As I already said, the point of my example earlier was to wonder whether someone could hypothetically transcribe the Foundation stories from the audio recording and sell the resulting novels, complete with a cover reading "Isaac Asimov's /Foundation/" (and perhaps with "Edited by J. Smith" in small text somewhere).

by rprasad 14y ago

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.
    - lutusp 14y ago
      Yes, but not having to ask permission isn't the same as not having to include an attribution of the source and its author. The latter is required in virtually all cases. Consider the issue of plagiarism -- is it plagiarism if the plagiarized work is in the public domain? I think you know the answer.
      - Steuard 14y ago
        I'm a college professor and a research scientist: I'd better know the answer! But I've never heard that plagiarism is a legal issue. Are there actual laws on the books that criminalize plagiarism of public domain material? (I live in the US; is that answer different here than elsewhere?) But honestly, your objection here is very much a side issue. As I already said, the point of my example earlier was to wonder whether someone could hypothetically transcribe the Foundation stories from the audio recording and sell the resulting novels, complete with a cover reading "Isaac Asimov's /Foundation/" (and perhaps with "Edited by J. Smith" in small text somewhere).