Publishing Out of Copy-write Works

Hi,

Had never even considered the possibility of someone doing this, and it feels (not a legal term) a bit shonky. Having said that the major issue you would face is where and when the copyright has expired on a particular work. Different countries have different laws regarding how long copyright lasts, and while its usually fifty to seventy years,it can be much longer, and that time clock may not even start ticking until the author is dead. You could well find yourself wanting to republish a work that is copywrite expired in one country and not in another. Cogito is correct. You should consult a specialist lawyer before embarking on this road.

Also, not attributing the work to the original author would be extremely sus. Someone would recognise it, no matter how old, and while they might not be able to take legal action against you, the likelihood is that the court of public opinion would be devestating. More seriously though, if you then attempted to publish an original work by someone else, even out of copyright, under your own name, it would still be fraud or plagerism or both.

As a start I would recommend trying to obtain permission from the estates of the deceased authors of any works you seek to republish, before beginning work, and also make a note of thanking them for their permission assuming that they gave it.

Cheers.

 

I wouldn't ask permission if you're committed to the project. You don't need it, and there is really little up-side for the author. If you get it, most people aren't going to care. I guess you can have a notice on the book that the estate of Herman Melville said "OK" to it, but I doubt that's worth much. On the other hand, the potential negatives are worse. If they say no, then what? If you go ahead, you have a built-in PR problem if news gets out that the estate not only opposes the idea but actually said no when you asked them. Also, in questionable cases, where there may be some rights still on the table, the fact that you asked permission and then went ahead without it can hurt you in court. Asking permission seems to me to be a lot of potential negatives with very little or not positive.

Attribution, on the other hand, is definitely something you should do. Trying to pass off the work as one's own is something quite different from partially rewriting the work of another.

 

Hi Steerpike,

But then who do you put down as the author? I mean I have some E.R. Eddison sitting on my bookshelves right now, and I guess I could take the work, copy it and then maybe modernise it with a few new dates and words, but I wouldn't dare put myself down as the author. And I couldn't put old E.R. down either since he wrote the original but is not responsible for this new product. So its an authorless book?

Also, yes there is a downside to asking permission from the estate etc. But its still the right (honourable?) thing to do. Sometimes you just have to risk it. Besides, I can't see the estate really saying no in most cases, even if they get no financial reward out of it. At the very least its a reminder that gramps was a clever old codger and someone to remember fondly.

Cheers.

 

Books I have seen where they add in zombies and stuff, they just list both authors. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, for example, says it is by Jane Austen and Seth Gramahe-Smith.

 

Actually, I can't see the estate saying yes. You'd be essentially communicating:

"Your grandfather wrote a book that didn't stand the test of time; it's worthless. But I'm going to modernize the language, throw in some cell phones and rock music, and make that old junk worthwhile again! Aren't you grateful?"

Yes, I realize that you wouldn't say it nearly that rudely, but as I see it, that's the message. I'd say no. Instantly.

ChickenFreak

 

Hi Chickenfreak,

Its surely all in the approach. I mean if I was looking at going down this path I wouldn't look at it in any way at all as similar to how you'd put it. My thought would be to look at it as having found an old book which was brilliant, but sadly now out of print, which I'd like to modernise and make relevant to the 21st century and a new audience, with your gramp's name on it. Its a tribute rather then a repair job. And if you looked at it that way, and passed it on to the rellies that way, why would anyone say no?

Cheers.

 

Because I'd find the "modernise and make relevant" to be fairly insulting. A book should have a timeless relevance; by talking about making it relevant by tweaking the language, you're clearly stating that the book has utterly failed in that important area.

Now, if you're talking about something more than a quick rewrite, I might feel differently. West Side Story didn't just add a few modern words to Romeo and Juliet; it was a new work inspired by a previous work. But my impression was that we're talking about a couple of coats of paint, not a completely new work.

 

I'm a retired attorney and although I never specialized in intellectual property law, I think I can say with absolute certainty that there are no significant legal problems with re-publishing public domain literary works with or without revision, re-writing or adaptation. Publishers have been doing this for years and it is completely legal. The only caution is that in doing so, be sure that you work from the original public domain text, not someone else's adaptation which may very well have copywrite protection.

If you're serious about doing this, you need a good business plan with considerable thought given to your target audience, pricing, etc. In your original post you say that this is your area of expertise so I won't lecture you on how to go about it, only remark that this is the challenge. Who's going to buy the books and why would they pay for your adaptations rather than the originals or some other publisher's version? Would you try to release print versions or ebooks only?

In short, I don't see how you're going to make money doing this. I don't think there are any significant legal problems but from a business standpoint I don't see much of a general market.

 

As many posters have said republishing out of copywrite material has been done before and is still done to this day. How are you going to make a profit doing something other publishers are already established at doing? The remarketing of old stuff is always been a part of the publishing industry for a more extreme example look at the music industry which does not wait for copywrite all the time.

 

it's 'copyright' folks... 'copywrite' means to 'write copy'...

 

Legally, it's a "derivative work", that is, a work which is based on another work.

I don't find the idea of making commercial use of old, out-of-print books offensive. It kind of offends me if a work is being massacred to fit a modern audience, but you have to take the good with the bad. The crap will soon be used as landfill, while the original work will still be there for future generations, and every once in a while, something truly good will come out of it.

You can't "copyright" something - anything which is sufficiently original is automatically copyrighted from the moment it's created. So the question is how large changes you need to make to the old work to gain copyright protection. You'll probably have to consult an attorney to be sure.

 

Here here. I think there absolutely is a market for it! I'm a marketing person who writes too, and I can totally see your angle. Go for it.

 

This is true. I think a lot of people, when referring to "copyrighting" something, are talking about registering the copyright. You'll need to do that to bring suit in the U.S., and if you do it within a certain amount of time after publication you can ask for additional damages, attorneys fees etc.

 

right!... the key words there are 'after publication'.. which is why seasoned writers don't waste time/money registering their own copyrights and just let their publishers do it prior to the book's release...