On 18/09/2021 10:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <gLqdnT2EAdMB4dn8nZ2dnUU78RPNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Max
> Demian
> <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>> In those days copyright was quite short lived: I think 12 years from
>> publication, so Wells used to make small changes and re-issue his works
>> with a different title, in this case originally it was "When the Sleeper
>> Wakes".
>
> I'd thought the term for printed works was 70 years from death even back
> then.

For what it's worth, it was 50 years from death until the late 1990s,
when it was increased to 70. The original term was devised so as to
give protection for the author's life plus two successive generations,
ie his children and grandchildren.

No, I don't agree with it or appreciate the logic either, but that's an
aside.

> And in principle an author can re-write/expand/change and release a
> new version if and when they feel like it. Getting it *published* is a
> slightly different, though. To resolve questions about the
> significance/scope of alterations you'd need to look at the details of any
> original contract with a publisher.

That doesn't renew the copyright in the original, however, which if
copyright has expired in it, anyone is free to copy.

What you are not allowed to do is copy any of the new bits that have
copyright protection in their own right.

> That said, Creasey - using various names - used to churn out bucketloads of
> stories with much the same content for many publishers under various names
> for decades. Not sure, but in the end he probably wrote more than Frank
> Richards!

Copyright does not protect concepts, though, only the manner of their
expression.

In message <iqof2pFjpe6U1@mid.individual.net>, Norman Wells
<hex@unseen.ac.am> writes
>On 18/09/2021 10:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>> In article <gLqdnT2EAdMB4dn8nZ2dnUU78RPNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Max
>> Demian
>> <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In those days copyright was quite short lived: I think 12 years from
>>> publication, so Wells used to make small changes and re-issue his works
>>> with a different title, in this case originally it was "When the Sleeper
>>> Wakes".
>> I'd thought the term for printed works was 70 years from death even
>>back
>> then.
>
>For what it's worth, it was 50 years from death until the late 1990s,
>when it was increased to 70. The original term was devised so as to
>give protection for the author's life plus two successive generations,
>ie his children and grandchildren.
>
>No, I don't agree with it or appreciate the logic either, but that's an
>aside.
<snip>

I have an idea that until comparatively recently the US wasn't signed up
to the international accord on copyright, and that their copyright laws
were much less draconian. It might be that what Wells did was intended
to protect his US copyright.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

On 18/09/2021 10:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
> I'd thought the term for printed works was 70 years from death even back
> then. And in principle an author can re-write/expand/change and release a
> new version if and when they feel like it. Getting it *published* is a
> slightly different, though. To resolve questions about the
> significance/scope of alterations you'd need to look at the details of any
> original contract with a publisher.

Yes, I think that's right, but ISTR it's not the whole story. A
publisher also has copyright of anything published for, I think, 25 years.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 19/09/2021 11:05, John Hall wrote:
>
> In message <iqof2pFjpe6U1@mid.individual.net>, Norman Wells
> <hex@unseen.ac.am> writes
>>
>> For what it's worth, it was 50 years from death until the late 1990s,
>> when it was increased to 70.  The original term was devised so as to
>> give protection for the author's life plus two successive generations,
>> ie his children and grandchildren.
>>
>> No, I don't agree with it or appreciate the logic either, but that's
>> an aside.
>
> I have an idea that until comparatively recently the US wasn't signed up
> to the international accord on copyright, and that their copyright laws
> were much less draconian. It might be that what Wells did was intended
> to protect his US copyright.

I think that might depend on just how long ago you mean by
'comparatively recently'! Jerome K Jerome, author of what could be
argued to be the world's funniest book, 'Three Men In A Boat', p1889,
mentions this in his autobiography 'My Life & Times' (p12 PDF numbering):

"I called my sheaf of essays "The Idle Thoughts of an Idle Fellow"; and
again the Leadenhall Press was my publisher. The book sold like
hotcakes, as the saying is. Tuer always had clever ideas. He gave it a
light yellow cover that stood out well upon the bookstalls. He called
each thousand copies an "edition" and, before the end of the year, was
advertising the twenty-third. I was getting a royalty of twopence
halfpenny a copy; and dreamed of a fur coat. I am speaking merely of
England. America did me the compliment of pirating the book, and there
it sold by the hundred thousand. I reckon my first and worst misfortune
in life was being born six years too soon: or, to put it the other way
round, that America's conscience, on the subject of literary copyright,
awoke in her bosom six years too late for me. "Three Men in a Boat" had
also an enormous sale in America - from first to last well over a
million. Putting aside Henry Holt, dear fellow, who still sends me a
small cheque each year, God's Own Country has not yet paid me for either
book."

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 19/09/2021 10:43 am, Norman Wells wrote:

> On 18/09/2021 10:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>> Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>>> In those days copyright was quite short lived: I think 12 years from
>>> publication, so Wells used to make small changes and re-issue his works
>>> with a different title, in this case originally it was "When the Sleeper
>>> Wakes".
>
>> I'd thought the term for printed works was 70 years from death even back
>> then.
>
> For what it's worth, it was 50 years from death until the late 1990s,
> when it was increased to 70.  The original term was devised so as to
> give protection for the author's life plus two successive generations,
> ie his children and grandchildren.

I can certainly remember marvelling back in the 1970s that alternative
PD versions of Shaw's plays (he died in 1950) were not available and
would not be available until I, in my twenties at the time, would be
over seventy. Needless to say, Shaw's plays were expensive to buy in print.

At that time, not that it was regarded as much practical use, copyright
in audio recordings was fifty years from the date of original
publication, normalised to the 31st December of the year of first
publication (issuing PD compilations wasn't big business before modern
pop music). And that was in the UK only. In some other European states,
the period of exclusive copyright was shorter than that - sometimes a
LOT shorter than that, depending upon the nationality of the artist and
also upon how the recording was made and published in the first place.

For instance, in 1990, I recall buying a locally-produced 4-CD box set
of Beatles recordings in Germany. Because the Beatles were not German,
it was lawful for companies there to treat their recordings as PD if
they had been published at least twenty five years earlier. That set
contained all the contents of their first four albums (1963, 1963, 1964
and 1964) and half of the material from their first 1965 set. Totally
legal in Germany at the time (I think this was just before reunification
- a matter of months). In Italy, recordings ran out of copyright after
twenty-five years irrespective of nationality, and there was a strange
quirk in that live recordings, whether issued on disc or recorded
off-air, ran out of copyright after a shorter time.

This situation (there may have been other quirks elsewhere in Europe)
was irksome to certain recording companies and artistes, especially when
the internet started to create awareness of the availability of
foreign-published CDs and cassettes, and the fifty years copyright was
starting to be a problem for them by the early 1960s, as material from
well inside the R&R era was starting to become PD in greater volumes.
Eventually, artistes whose income was still partially derived from
royalties on late fifties and early sixties recordings banded together
with the mechanical rights holders to demand an extension. And the EU
granted a union-wide extension to seventy years. This was in 2013
(IIRC), meaning that recordings issued on or before 31st December 1962)
were not caught by it. Thus it is that there are many CD sets available
with material right up to that date (including the Beatles' first UK
single).

Two points:

(a) the 70 year threshold will start to allow 1963-published recordings
to be treated as PD from the end of 2033, and

(c) the fact that this was an EU rule *might* mean that the UK might
repeal it, which would restore the UK legal position as it was before
1995 (or so) and release recordings published 1st January 1963 - 31st
December 1970 into the public domain immediately.

> No, I don't agree with it or appreciate the logic either, but that's an
> aside.
>
>> And in principle an author can re-write/expand/change and release a
>> new version if and when they feel like it. Getting it *published* is a
>> slightly different, though. To resolve questions about the
>> significance/scope of alterations you'd need to look at the details of
>> any original contract with a publisher.
>
> That doesn't renew the copyright in the original, however, which if
> copyright has expired in it, anyone is free to copy.
>
> What you are not allowed to do is copy any of the new bits that have
> copyright protection in their own right.

Record companies do something similar by copyrighting new "Digital
Remasters".

>> That said, Creasey - using various names - used to churn out
>> bucketloads of stories with much the same content for many
>> publishers under various names for decades. Not sure, but in the
>> end he probably wrote more than Frank Richards!
>
> Copyright does not protect concepts, though, only the manner of their
> expression.

"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:iqof2pFjpe6U1@mid.individual.net...
> On 18/09/2021 10:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>> In article <gLqdnT2EAdMB4dn8nZ2dnUU78RPNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Max
>> Demian
>> <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In those days copyright was quite short lived: I think 12 years from
>>> publication, so Wells used to make small changes and re-issue his works
>>> with a different title, in this case originally it was "When the Sleeper
>>> Wakes".

Presumably making small changes and re-issuing under a different title would
only extend he copyright for the modified text, and not for the original
version.

>> I'd thought the term for printed works was 70 years from death even back
>> then.
>
> For what it's worth, it was 50 years from death until the late 1990s, when
> it was increased to 70. The original term was devised so as to give
> protection for the author's life plus two successive generations, ie his
> children and grandchildren.
>
> No, I don't agree with it or appreciate the logic either, but that's an
> aside.

Ah, if it was 50 years from publication until the 1990s, then my grandpa's
book will be out of copyright in 2029. He published it in 1971 and died in
1979. What happens if the copyright has been assigned to a company (ie it
has a "(C) Advertiser Press 1971" on the imprint page, though the author is
clearly identified as Grandpa's name). I think the publisher retained the
copyright as part of the deal for publishing the book. Does the copyright
still expire 50 (or 70) years from the date of the author's death, or does
the copyright date from publication? I ask because there has been occasional
interest in new copies, but the publisher (or the conglomerate that took it
over) has always resisted this. Presumably in 2029 the matter will be taken
out of their hands, when my dad (as Grandpa's beneficiary) may decide to
re-publish it for free on the web (OCR the text and scan the original
photographs of opposed to the half-tomes in the book).

I've always wondered why copyright dates from date of death rather that date
of publication. It means that books written early in an author's life get a
longer copyright period (70 years plus most of the author's life) than those
written near the end (70 years plus a few years).

On 19/09/2021 11:59 am, JNugent wrote:
> On 19/09/2021 10:43 am, Norman Wells wrote:
>
>> On 18/09/2021 10:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>> Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> In those days copyright was quite short lived: I think 12 years from
>>>> publication, so Wells used to make small changes and re-issue his works
>>>> with a different title, in this case originally it was "When the
>>>> Sleeper
>>>> Wakes".
>>
>>> I'd thought the term for printed works was 70 years from death even back
>>> then.
>>
>> For what it's worth, it was 50 years from death until the late 1990s,
>> when it was increased to 70.  The original term was devised so as to
>> give protection for the author's life plus two successive generations,
>> ie his children and grandchildren.
>
> I can certainly remember marvelling back in the 1970s that alternative
> PD versions of Shaw's plays (he died in 1950) were not available and
> would not be available until I, in my twenties at the time, would be
> over seventy. Needless to say, Shaw's plays were expensive to buy in print.
>
> At that time, not that it was regarded as much practical use, copyright
> in audio recordings was fifty years from the date of original
> publication, normalised to the 31st December of the year of first
> publication (issuing PD compilations wasn't big business before modern
> pop music). And that was in the UK only. In some other European states,
> the period of exclusive copyright was shorter than that - sometimes a
> LOT shorter than that, depending upon the nationality of the artist  and
> also upon how the recording was made and published in the first place.
>
> For instance, in 1990, I recall buying a locally-produced 4-CD box set
> of Beatles recordings in Germany. Because the Beatles were not German,
> it was lawful for companies there to treat their recordings as PD if
> they had been published at least twenty five years earlier. That set
> contained all the contents of their first four albums (1963, 1963, 1964
> and 1964) and half of the material from their first 1965 set. Totally
> legal in Germany at the time (I think this was just before reunification
> - a matter of months). In Italy, recordings ran out of copyright after
> twenty-five years irrespective of nationality, and there was a strange
> quirk in that live recordings, whether issued on disc or recorded
> off-air, ran out of copyright after a shorter time.
>
> This situation (there may have been other quirks elsewhere in Europe)
> was irksome to certain recording companies and artistes, especially when
> the internet started to create awareness of the availability of
> foreign-published CDs and cassettes, and the fifty years copyright was
> starting to be a problem for them by the early ***1960s***, as material
> from well inside the R&R era was starting to become PD in greater volumes.
> Eventually, artistes whose income was still partially derived from
> royalties  on late fifties and early sixties recordings banded together
> with the mechanical rights holders to demand an extension. And the EU
> granted a union-wide extension to seventy years. This was in 2013
> (IIRC), meaning that recordings issued on or before 31st December 1962)
> were not caught by it. Thus it is that there are many CD sets available
> with material right up to that date (including the Beatles' first UK
> single).

[Erratum: the reference to 1960s highlighted in the above paragraph
should have mentioned the 1990s.]
>
> Two points:
>
> (a) the 70 year threshold will start to allow 1963-published  recordings
> to be treated as PD from the end of 2033, and
>
> (c) the fact that this was an EU rule *might* mean that the UK might
> repeal it, which would restore the UK legal position as it was before
> 1995 (or so) and release recordings published 1st January 1963 - 31st
> December 1970 into the public domain immediately.
>
>> No, I don't agree with it or appreciate the logic either, but that's
>> an aside.
>>
>>> And in principle an author can re-write/expand/change and release a
>>> new version if and when they feel like it. Getting it *published* is a
>>> slightly different, though. To resolve questions about the
>>> significance/scope of alterations you'd need to look at the details
>>> of any original contract with a publisher.
>>
>> That doesn't renew the copyright in the original, however, which if
>> copyright has expired in it, anyone is free to copy.
>>
>> What you are not allowed to do is copy any of the new bits that have
>> copyright protection in their own right.
>
> Record companies do something similar by copyrighting new "Digital
> Remasters".
>
>>> That said, Creasey - using various names - used to churn out
>>> bucketloads of stories with much the same content for many publishers
>>> under various names for decades. Not sure, but in the
>>> end he probably wrote more than Frank Richards!
>>
>> Copyright does not protect concepts, though, only the manner of their
>> expression.

On 19/09/2021 12:13, NY wrote:
>
> Ah, if it was 50 years from publication until the 1990s, then my
> grandpa's book will be out of copyright in 2029. He published it in 1971
> and died in 1979. What happens if the copyright has been assigned to a
> company (ie it has a "(C) Advertiser Press 1971" on the imprint page,
> though the author is clearly identified as Grandpa's name). I think the
> publisher retained the copyright as part of the deal for publishing the
> book. Does the copyright still expire 50 (or 70) years from the date of
> the author's death, or does the copyright date from publication? I ask
> because there has been occasional interest in new copies, but the
> publisher (or the conglomerate that took it over) has always resisted
> this. Presumably in 2029 the matter will be taken out of their hands,
> when my dad (as Grandpa's beneficiary) may decide to re-publish it for
> free on the web (OCR the text and scan the original photographs of
> opposed to the half-tomes in the book).
>
> I've always wondered why copyright dates from date of death rather that
> date of publication. It means that books written early in an author's
> life get a longer copyright period (70 years plus most of the author's
> life) than those written near the end (70 years plus a few years).

I think there are two terms of copyright, the author's of 70 years after
death and the publisher's of 25 years after publication - I discovered
this when trying to obtain permission to publish other people's poems on
my website - but IANA lawyer, you'd best research it for yourself.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 19/09/2021 12:13, NY wrote:

> I've always wondered why copyright dates from date of death rather that
> date of publication. It means that books written early in an author's
> life get a longer copyright period (70 years plus most of the author's
> life) than those written near the end (70 years plus a few years).

I expect it's because arty types CBA to contribute to a pension as the
rest of us have to; and they breed freeloaders who CBA to work for their
living at all. I don't think employers would be very pleased if there
was a law saying that they had to pay you wages until 70 years after
your death, however diligent a worker you were.

--
Max Demian

On 19/09/2021 12:13, NY wrote:
> "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
> news:iqof2pFjpe6U1@mid.individual.net...
>> On 18/09/2021 10:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>> In article <gLqdnT2EAdMB4dn8nZ2dnUU78RPNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Max
>>> Demian
>>> <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In those days copyright was quite short lived: I think 12 years from
>>>> publication, so Wells used to make small changes and re-issue his works
>>>> with a different title, in this case originally it was "When the
>>>> Sleeper
>>>> Wakes".
>
> Presumably making small changes and re-issuing under a different title
> would only extend he copyright for the modified text, and not for the
> original version.
>
>>> I'd thought the term for printed works was 70 years from death even back
>>> then.
>>
>> For what it's worth, it was 50 years from death until the late 1990s,
>> when it was increased to 70.  The original term was devised so as to
>> give protection for the author's life plus two successive generations,
>> ie his children and grandchildren.
>>
>> No, I don't agree with it or appreciate the logic either, but that's
>> an aside.
>
> Ah, if it was 50 years from publication until the 1990s, then my
> grandpa's book will be out of copyright in 2029. He published it in 1971
> and died in 1979. What happens if the copyright has been assigned to a
> company (ie it has a "(C) Advertiser Press 1971" on the imprint page,
> though the author is clearly identified as Grandpa's name). I think the
> publisher retained the copyright as part of the deal for publishing the
> book. Does the copyright still expire 50 (or 70) years from the date of
> the author's death, or does the copyright date from publication? I ask
> because there has been occasional interest in new copies, but the
> publisher (or the conglomerate that took it over) has always resisted
> this. Presumably in 2029 the matter will be taken out of their hands,
> when my dad (as Grandpa's beneficiary) may decide to re-publish it for
> free on the web (OCR the text and scan the original photographs of
> opposed to the half-tomes in the book).
>
> I've always wondered why copyright dates from date of death rather that
> date of publication. It means that books written early in an author's
> life get a longer copyright period (70 years plus most of the author's
> life) than those written near the end (70 years plus a few years).

There is much that is very unsatisfactory about copyright. One is you
never know whether it has expired or will expire, another is that it's
far too long anyway in a fast moving world, another is that there may be
many copyrights in what would normally be regarded as a single work, eg
a film or an album, which are difficult to determine, expire at
different times and belong to different parties, and another is that
it's difficult to know and track down who actually owns each one. It's
so difficult many just won't bother.

Yet another, of course, is that with the ease of copying most works now,
fewer and fewer are paying it any attention but just doing it
regardless. There's growing public resentment which doesn't help.
People do wonder why a shop can't have a radio playing for example or
why a band can't perform a particular song from the 1950s. And the idea
of paying for music, which we all used to do, is looked on in amazement
by the young who wouldn't dream of doing so.

The concepts and operation of copyright have to be reconsidered and soon
or the whole system will disintegrate. It's past its sell-by date, and
in fact may never be recoverable.

"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:iqouuuFmoteU1@mid.individual.net...

> The concepts and operation of copyright have to be reconsidered and soon
> or the whole system will disintegrate. It's past its sell-by date, and in
> fact may never be recoverable.

The big problem with copyright is that it can be used as a dog-in-a-manger:
the copyright holder refuses to re-issue (eg reprint) the work, but also
will not let anyone else make copies, even if they are prepared to pay
royalties.

I'd like to see copyright used solely as a protection of royalties. In other
words, once the existing copies are sold and the copyright holder refuses to
republish, it goes into an "open season" where anyone may make their own
copy (as long as it is clearly identified that it may not be of the original
standard) but must pay a standard fee to the copyright holder.

OK, it is open to abuse, but is it better for the work to continue
generating *some* income (even if fewer than 100% of the copies generate
royalties, depending on people's honesty) or is it better for it not to
generate any?

The concept of "publication" is, to my mind, an irreversible step - you are
getting guaranteed royalties for a period of time, in exchange for agreeing
to make copies available in unlimited numbers for an unlimited time, either
by producing them yourself (via your publisher) or else by allowing anyone
to make their own copy on payment of a royalty fee. Ideally, that fee should
all go to the author, once the publisher's copyright has expired.

On 19/09/2021 15:40, NY wrote:
>
> "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
> news:iqouuuFmoteU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>> The concepts and operation of copyright have to be reconsidered and
>> soon or the whole system will disintegrate.  It's past its sell-by
>> date, and in fact may never be recoverable.
>
> The big problem with copyright is that it can be used as a
> dog-in-a-manger: the copyright holder refuses to re-issue (eg reprint)
> the work, but also will not let anyone else make copies, even if they
> are prepared to pay royalties.
>
> I'd like to see copyright used solely as a protection of royalties. In
> other words, once the existing copies are sold and the copyright holder
> refuses to republish, it goes into an "open season" where anyone may
> make their own copy (as long as it is clearly identified that it may not
> be of the original standard) but must pay a standard fee to the
> copyright holder.
>
> OK, it is open to abuse, but is it better for the work to continue
> generating *some* income (even if fewer than 100% of the copies generate
> royalties, depending on people's honesty) or is it better for it not to
> generate any?
>
> The concept of "publication" is, to my mind, an irreversible step - you
> are getting guaranteed royalties for a period of time, in exchange for
> agreeing to make copies available in unlimited numbers for an unlimited
> time, either by producing them yourself (via your publisher) or else by
> allowing anyone to make their own copy on payment of a royalty fee.
> Ideally, that fee should all go to the author, once the publisher's
> copyright has expired.

I agree with some, but not all, of the above. Some while back, I made a
submission to the Gowers report on the subject, here is an anonymised
version of my submission:
www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/Gowers(anonymous).doc

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 19/09/2021 14:38, Java Jive wrote:
> I think there are two terms of copyright, the author's of 70 years after
> death and the publisher's of 25 years after publication

Are you thinking of the copyright on typographical arrangement, which
stops people making facsimile copies, even though the actual text has
lapsed into the public domain.

On 19/09/2021 18:50, David Woolley wrote:
> On 19/09/2021 14:38, Java Jive wrote:
>> I think there are two terms of copyright, the author's of 70 years
>> after death and the publisher's of 25 years after publication
>
> Are you thinking of the copyright on typographical arrangement, which
> stops people making facsimile copies, even though the actual text has
> lapsed into the public domain.

I'm not sure, all I know is that when I considering putting other
people's poems on my website, I had to consider both when the poem was
published, and when the author died.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 19/09/2021 19:21, Java Jive wrote:
>
> On 19/09/2021 18:50, David Woolley wrote:
>>
>> On 19/09/2021 14:38, Java Jive wrote:
>>> I think there are two terms of copyright, the author's of 70 years
>>> after death and the publisher's of 25 years after publication
>>
>> Are you thinking of the copyright on typographical arrangement, which
>> stops people making facsimile copies, even though the actual text has
>> lapsed into the public domain.
>
> I'm not sure, all I know is that when I considering putting other
> people's poems on my website, I had to consider both when the poem was
> published, and when the author died.

Yes, that would appear to be it, see here:
https://www.gov.uk/copyright
https://www.gov.uk/copyright/how-long-copyright-lasts

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 19/09/2021 19:21, Java Jive wrote:
> On 19/09/2021 18:50, David Woolley wrote:
>> On 19/09/2021 14:38, Java Jive wrote:
>>> I think there are two terms of copyright, the author's of 70 years
>>> after death and the publisher's of 25 years after publication
>>
>> Are you thinking of the copyright on typographical arrangement, which
>> stops people making facsimile copies, even though the actual text has
>> lapsed into the public domain.
>
> I'm not sure, all I know is that when I considering putting other
> people's poems on my website, I had to consider both when the poem was
> published, and when the author died.
>

Covering what subjects would be the poems which interest you?

I paid for and published my own anthology and would willingly
let you expose mine toa wider audience

On 19/09/2021 22:50, gareth evans wrote:
>
> On 19/09/2021 19:21, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure, all I know is that when I considering putting other
>> people's poems on my website, I had to consider both when the poem was
>> published, and when the author died.
>
> Covering what subjects would be the poems which interest you?
>
> I paid for and published my own anthology and would willingly
> let you expose mine toa wider audience

In one sense, you could say that I have a wide range of tastes, because,
besides my own few, there are both ancient and modern poems listed on my
site below - though the most modern I cannot reproduce for the sort of
reasons we've been discussing - but in another you could say my taste
is very limited, because, for example, of all the poems I hear on Poetry
Please, I hear relatively few I actually like!

The poems that required my obtaining the permission of rights holders to
be able to reproduce legally are by Edith Sitwell, Giles Dixey, & Louis
MacNiece, the latter of whose I could only choose one. There are some
others listed there that I would have liked to include, but they are
already freely available on other sites, so it seemed rather pointless
to reproduce them further on mine. These include the Walter De La Mare
and the T S Eliot poems. There are others like James Fenton's comic
poem 'Skip' which I'd love to include, but I wouldn't know how to set
about obtaining his permission to do so, because I only heard it read on
Poetry Please, and haven't seen it in print.

Taste in poetry, as in music, is a very personal thing, so there's the
danger that you might be offended if I choose not to include anything of
your own that you might care to send me, but as a start you could take a
look at the ones that are there already, and see whether or not you
think yours are likely to chime in tune.

http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Poetry/Poetry.html

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 20/09/2021 01:05, Java Jive wrote:
> On 19/09/2021 22:50, gareth evans wrote:
>>
>> On 19/09/2021 19:21, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not sure, all I know is that when I considering putting other
>>> people's poems on my website, I had to consider both when the poem was
>>> published, and when the author died.
>>
>> Covering what subjects would be the poems which interest you?
>>
>> I paid for and published my own anthology and would willingly
>> let you expose mine toa wider audience
>
> In one sense, you could say that I have a wide range of tastes, because,
> besides my own few, there are both ancient and modern poems listed on my
> site below - though the most modern I cannot reproduce for the sort of
> reasons we've been discussing - but in another you could say my taste
> is very limited, because, for example, of all the poems I hear on Poetry
> Please, I hear relatively few I actually like!
>
> The poems that required my obtaining the permission of rights holders to
> be able to reproduce legally are by Edith Sitwell, Giles Dixey, & Louis
> MacNiece, the latter of whose I could only choose one. There are some
> others listed there that I would have liked to include, but they are
> already freely available on other sites, so it seemed rather pointless
> to reproduce them further on mine. These include the Walter De La Mare
> and the T S Eliot poems. There are others like James Fenton's comic
> poem 'Skip' which I'd love to include, but I wouldn't know how to set
> about obtaining his permission to do so, because I only heard it read on
> Poetry Please, and haven't seen it in print.
>
> Taste in poetry, as in music, is a very personal thing, so there's the
> danger that you might be offended if I choose not to include anything of
> your own that you might care to send me, but as a start you could take a
> look at the ones that are there already, and see whether or not you
> think yours are likely to chime in tune.
>
> http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Poetry/Poetry.html
>

This sort of thing? ...

-----ooooo-----

“To A Seat Given
‘In Memory Of Gertrude Alice Locke 1879 – 1972’
In The Churchyard at Liss St.Mary ”

Copyright © 6th September 2005 By Gareth Alun Evans

Waiting in vain for the ringers to appear (They didn’t – the 6th stay
was cracked). Roger & Rachael
Barber plus dog “Star” walked past, so I went for a walk with them along
the track-bed of the
Longmoor Military Railway and thence back to their cottage for tea (&
strawberries!!!).

A valued member I shall be
And missed by my community
If on my death there shall be found
A seat of wood in hallowed ground.

One Tuesday night in autumn gloom
Sat I by trees and stones and blooms
(To wait the ringer’s weekly meet)
On weary legs on Gertrude’s seat.

A church of yellow well-dressed stone.
Not ancient, though, there still lie, bones
In serried ranks around the door.
They rest in peace by traffic’s roar.

This seat is such a welcome place,
Memento of the human race,
Reminds us we must pass one day
In wooden box, in ground to lay.

So, who was Gertrude may we ask
Whose seat is here on which to bask?
A pillar of the church, no doubt,
Whose loss is felt, of her, without.

Did she, at Liss, for ninety years
Her God and Saviour praise with cheers
From infant, fair, in christening gown
To chorister of voice renown?

Or maybe matriarch supreme
With offspring’s legions full the stream
Of sons and daughters who in turn
Bore children sent to school to learn?

No matter. Place of comfort, this,
To rest myself in peaceful Liss,
And so to Gertrude, thanks are due
For all your friends who valued you.

On 20/09/2021 09:28, gareth evans wrote:
>
> This sort of thing? ...
>
> -----ooooo-----
>
>
> “To A Seat Given
> ‘In Memory Of Gertrude Alice Locke 1879 – 1972’
> In The Churchyard at Liss St.Mary ”
>
> Copyright © 6th September 2005 By Gareth Alun Evans
>
> Waiting in vain for the ringers to appear (They didn’t – the 6th stay
> was cracked). Roger & Rachael
> Barber plus dog “Star” walked past, so I went for a walk with them along
> the track-bed of the
> Longmoor Military Railway and thence back to their cottage for tea (&
> strawberries!!!).
>
>
> A valued member I shall be
> And missed by my community
> If on my death there shall be found
> A seat of wood in hallowed ground.
>
> One Tuesday night in autumn gloom
> Sat I by trees and stones and blooms
> (To wait the ringer’s weekly meet)
> On weary legs on Gertrude’s seat.
>
> A church of yellow well-dressed stone.
> Not ancient, though, there still lie, bones
> In serried ranks around the door.
> They rest in peace by traffic’s roar.
>
> This seat is such a welcome place,
> Memento of the human race,
> Reminds us we must pass one day
> In wooden box, in ground to lay.
>
> So, who was Gertrude may we ask
> Whose seat is here on which to bask?
> A pillar of the church, no doubt,
> Whose loss is felt, of her, without.
>
> Did she, at Liss, for ninety years
> Her God and Saviour praise with cheers
> From infant, fair, in christening gown
> To chorister of voice renown?
>
> Or maybe matriarch supreme
> With offspring’s legions full the stream
> Of sons and daughters who in turn
> Bore children sent to school to learn?
>
> No matter. Place of comfort, this,
> To rest myself in peaceful Liss,
> And so to Gertrude, thanks are due
> For all your friends who valued you.

Sorry, doesn't grab me.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 09:59:34 UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
> I can't imagine watching any of it in 46 years time, as I'll be 118
> years old.

In 46 years' time that might not be that old.

Owain

In article <si72qq$svf$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 18/09/2021 10:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> >
> > I'd thought the term for printed works was 70 years from death even
> > back then. And in principle an author can re-write/expand/change and
> > release a new version if and when they feel like it. Getting it
> > *published* is a slightly different, though. To resolve questions
> > about the significance/scope of alterations you'd need to look at the
> > details of any original contract with a publisher.

> Yes, I think that's right, but ISTR it's not the whole story. A
> publisher also has copyright of anything published for, I think, 25
> years.

Assignment of rights to a publisher tends to be covered in the sometimes
tedious legalese. Varies from one publisher to another in my experience. In
general, publishers try to demand all the rights they can and law allows.
Sometimes more than that!:-)

This can be a problem when a publisher ceases to remain in business as you
may then not be able to find out who - if anyone - has 'gained' those
rights, or if the've reverted to you as the author. Hence many old books
that languish out of print because no-one knows who owns the rights. So
others are put off simply republishing for fear of then being sued.

Fortunately for me, IoP had a more sensible arrangement. When they decided
to 'sell off' their old publication house they gave authors a chance to
'take back' their rights. Which I did. This meant that the 'new' publisher
who bought their business could sell the copies they had printed, but not
sell newly made ones unless they did a deal with me (and other authors
involved). I decided to make 'free' copies available instead.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <iqojh1FkjitU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Eventually, artistes whose income was still partially derived from
> royalties on late fifties and early sixties recordings banded together
> with the mechanical rights holders to demand an extension. And the EU
> granted a union-wide extension to seventy years.

The 'artistes' part of that was a bit of a smokescreen. The reality was -
and to some extent remains - that the bulk of old recordings tend to be
kept 'in the vaults' because it suits the large 'media' companies. For them
it is simpler and more profitable to limit their catalogue to fewer items
and avoid other recordings from meaning the company is 'competing with
itself'. In essence, selling 1,000 copies of one item is more profitable
than selling 100 copies of each of ten slightly different items.

This is why many recordings of classical music langusihed for *decades* -
earning the artists nothing, and causing their reputations to fade.

The reality is that EMI and others started to panic when they realised
recordings by The Beatles and some key others would become PD. The bulk of
'popular' artists from pre 1963 weren't going to make a significant income
from the change. And of course many non-classical artists sold 'all rights'
for a one off payment anyway.

Personally, I'd have the law changed so that no term of copyright could
extend beyond about 25 years from first publication. If the creators and
publishers can't sell enough in that time for it to be 'profitable' then
maybe they should be doing something else anyway! And having the
publishers' rights lapse means the author could self-publish if they chose.
And if not, others could make free copies. So that the work remains
available even if not profitable.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <jridnRA5XIb7otr8nZ2dnUU78b3NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Max
Demian
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:

> I expect it's because arty types CBA to contribute to a pension as the
> rest of us have to; and they breed freeloaders who CBA to work for their
> living at all. I don't think employers would be very pleased if there
> was a law saying that they had to pay you wages until 70 years after
> your death, however diligent a worker you were.

Well, for an 'author' the significant point tends to be you get paid *per
copy sold*. You get no pay when creating a 'work' that you may *hope* or
need to gain income from... eventually.

They also have no 'pension scheme' provided by an employer.

And presumably pay tax, etc.

But I agree that the 70 year term is insanely excessive. In large part
because it renders many works 'unobtainium' when the publisher closes down
and no-one can determine who owns any rights.

e.g. Steve Spicer wrote an excellent book on 'Leak' the hi-fi manufacturer
and his products. A few years later the publisher vanished. Leaving people
unable to buy a copy. And Steve can't publish it again because no-one knows
who - if anyone - has gained the rights from the now-evaporated original
publisher. Any new publisher may find themselves hit with a law suit and in
deep trouble.

Much the same is true for many old magazines and journals which do contain
useful info.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <iqouuuFmoteU1@mid.individual.net>, Norman Wells
<hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:

> The concepts and operation of copyright have to be reconsidered and soon
> or the whole system will disintegrate. It's past its sell-by date, and
> in fact may never be recoverable.

As things stand it won't happen. Our entire economy is moving over to
'renting access/use' rather than ownership - except ownership by a few
wealthy people and companies who 'rent access' to the rest. In effect our
economy is morphing into a form of the feudal system.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 20/09/2021 10:33, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <jridnRA5XIb7otr8nZ2dnUU78b3NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Max
> Demian
> <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>> I expect it's because arty types CBA to contribute to a pension as the
>> rest of us have to; and they breed freeloaders who CBA to work for their
>> living at all. I don't think employers would be very pleased if there
>> was a law saying that they had to pay you wages until 70 years after
>> your death, however diligent a worker you were.
>
> Well, for an 'author' the significant point tends to be you get paid *per
> copy sold*. You get no pay when creating a 'work' that you may *hope* or
> need to gain income from... eventually.
>
> They also have no 'pension scheme' provided by an employer.
>
> And presumably pay tax, etc.
>
> But I agree that the 70 year term is insanely excessive. In large part
> because it renders many works 'unobtainium' when the publisher closes down
> and no-one can determine who owns any rights.
>
> e.g. Steve Spicer wrote an excellent book on 'Leak' the hi-fi manufacturer
> and his products. A few years later the publisher vanished. Leaving people
> unable to buy a copy. And Steve can't publish it again because no-one knows
> who - if anyone - has gained the rights from the now-evaporated original
> publisher. Any new publisher may find themselves hit with a law suit and in
> deep trouble.
>
> Much the same is true for many old magazines and journals which do contain
> useful info.

There are now at least some provisions concerning such so-called 'orphan
works':

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/copyright-orphan-works