Is it allowed to ignore copyright claimed over an exact reprint of a public domain work? The question is general, but I will explain it with a specific example I am currently facing. In 1890, a book was published in Germany. Its author died in 1915. According to my understanding of copyright law, this book is now indisputably in the public domain in every country in the world and so I can do anything I want with it, though please correct me if this is not true. In 1974, a new reprint edition was published by the same publisher. At that time, the work was apparently still copyrighted, less than 70 years having passed since the author's death. The content is absolutely identical in all respects: close inspection of the two editions (which I have at hand) reveals that the 1974 edition was printed with plates that have been copied, either stereotypically or photographically, from the original 1890 plates. Apart from the title pages and the design on the endsheets, the type is indistinguishable. The 1974 edition is now out of print. I have contacted the publisher (which still exists, absorbed into a large and renowned German academic publishing conglomerate) regarding licensing and reuse. They claim that they still own the copyright on the 1974 edition, and they give me a quote of over 1000 euros to reproduce even just a few pages, and around 10000 euros for the entire work (which is less than 100 pages in total). Suppose I ignore their avaricious demands and reuse the text anyway. Is this safe? I do intend to credit the source, and I will claim that I am reproducing excerpts of the text from the 1890 edition (which is truthful, as far as anyone could know, because I could easily do the actual retyping and/or OCR using my physical 1890 copy). I will not mention the 1974 edition. However, the result will be that my publication will contain text which is an exact copy of the 1974 text, over which the publisher apparently reserves rights and expects licensing fees. Am I at any risk of legal trouble here, or is my defence watertight?
A (legal) derivative work has its own independent copyright I'll use the same example Wikipedia does, L.H.O.O.Q.: This is a derivate work of da Vinci's Mona Lisa. It's a legal work because the Mona Lisa was well and truly public domain partly because da Vinci had been dead 401 years but mostly because he died 191 years before the first copyright law was passed. However, it has it's own independent copyright which is still in effect because Marcel Duchamp, it's author only died in 1968. Anyone is free to copy the Mona Lisa. Only people with permission or who meet the exceptions to copyright such as commentary or criticism (as here) can copy L.H.O.O.Q. Of course, there are a lot of potential infringements of Duchamp's copyright out there. However, anyone can also copy any non-original components of a derivative work - like the Mona Lisa parts of L.H.O.O.Q. Your issue If the 1974 book is a derivative work of the 1890 book then it has it's own copyright and you can't copy the book. You can copy anything that is not original, like the text. However, it appears that your assertion is that 1974 book is, in fact, a copy of the 1890 book; if so, then it has no independent copyright as it is not a derivative work. The &quot;title pages and the design on the endsheets&quot; would appear to be independent work.
They have copyright in their additional text, and possibly in things like their visual design choices (fonts, layout etc). They may also have introduced a few deliberate typos to detect any literal copies from their version (rather as mapmakers add a few imaginary features to their maps). None of this creates any rights to the original text. You are still free to produce your own copies of the original text. Just get it from some other source so you can be sure not to include anything of theirs.
In the US, the author would be able to wind an infringement lawsuit against the re-publisher. Title 17, the US copyright law codified, grants the author the exclusive right to authorize republication, and does not require that a person use their real name. The argument "It was on the internet, it's in the public domain" is utterly without legal merit. The same goes for the assertion that a person loses his rights if he is uncontactable. The author has stated the terms of the license, so there isn't even a reasonable argument that the infringement is innocent (unknowing: "I thought it was with permission). There is no requirement that you have to allow a potential user to hassle you about the license terms. The one thing that is special regarding anonymous and pseudonymous works is that under 17 USC 302, "copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first". For a work whose author is identified, copyright "endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author’s death". This assumes that the host site has not preempted author's license: Stack Exchange, for example, preempts an author's exclusive right, so you can copy stuff from here accorting to the SE terms of usage.
how would this differ between say ArXiv which is open access, and a publication that is pay-only, like Elsevier or Nature? It wouldn't. But if the equation is the creation of the author of some publication, as in the author is expressing some unique mathematical expression, obviously the publication should be referenced. But is referencing enough? Are there additional rights one must obtain from the publication and/or author in order to show this content? Laws of nature, including purported laws of nature, are not protected by copyright. So, usually, key equations in an academic paper aren't protected by copyright law. Referencing the work is important as a matter of academic ethics, but is legally irrelevant. Copying of exposition by the author beyond laws of nature is permitted as fair use if it is limited to quotations necessary for academic discussion and criticism, but copying of an entire work would not be permissible fair use in most cases and would constitute copyright infringement. Of course, there is a large gray area between those extremes.
There are 196 sovereign nations in the world (more or less); each of them has its own copyright laws. 168 are signatories of the Berne Convention which requires them to extend to foreign copyright holders at least the same rights that they would have domestically. It relies from this on the concept of country of origin. Assuming that the book was originally published in the UK (as it has a London based publisher) then the applicable copyright law is that of the UK. Exceptions to copyright can be found here. The relevant exemption is the first part of the Teaching section: the copying of works in any medium as long as the use is solely to illustrate a point, it is not done for commercial purposes, it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement, and the use is fair dealing. Acknowledgement is pretty straightforward but fair dealing as a legal concept means: There is no statutory definition of fair dealing - it will always be a matter of fact, degree and impression in each case. The question to be asked is: how would a fair-minded and honest person have dealt with the work? Factors that have been identified by the courts as relevant in determining whether a particular dealing with a work is fair include: does using the work affect the market for the original work? If a use of a work acts as a substitute for it, causing the owner to lose revenue, then it is not likely to be fair is the amount of the work taken reasonable and appropriate? Was it necessary to use the amount that was taken? Usually only part of a work may be used The relative importance of any one factor will vary according to the case in hand and the type of dealing in question. If the work had been simultaneously or previously published in the USA the relevant consideration is fair use rather than fair dealing. Fair use typically gives the copier much greater latitude than fair dealing does. As to the specifics of posting on stack exchange. Extracts on SE are unlikely to affect the original market (they may even enhance it by serving as advertising) so providing that you have used the minimum amount necessary to illuminate your answer it is probably fair dealing (and fair use). This would probably be true even if, across tens of thousands of questions, the entire book were quoted. Notwithstanding, if the copyright owner issued SE with a take down notice they would take it down because they are not in the business of fighting protracted copyright cases even if they are in the right.
Yes Such a work might well still be protected by copyright after 50 years. The time that copyright protection will remain in force depends on the country where the work was created (normally where the author was living). In some countries it will also depend on when the creation occurred. In many countries such protection lasts for 70 years after the death of the author. Under US law recent works use the &quot;life of the author+70 years&quot; rule. Works created before 1978 may be protected for 95 or 120 years after creation, depending on the circumstances. See This well-known chart for details. If the work is protected by copyright, preparing a new derivative work, or performing or distributing the original or a derivative work are all copyright infringement, and the owner could sue. This is true whether a fee is charged or the work is performed or distributed for free. Exploiting the work for commercial profit might increase the amount of damages available, however. If the author has not published or exploited the work for 50 years or more, the author might not choose to sue, but that is entirely the author's decision. The author would have the right to sue, and given the facts as described in the question, to collect some damages. There is not enough information in the question to guess how large the damages could be. In the US 17 USC 504 provides for statutory damages, which the court has significant discretion on the amount of, with no proof of economic loss. Specifically this law says: (c) Statutory Damages.— (1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work. (2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was: (i) an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives acting within the scope of his or her employment who, or such institution, library, or archives itself, which infringed by reproducing the work in copies or phonorecords; or (ii) a public broadcasting entity which or a person who, as a regular part of the nonprofit activities of a public broadcasting entity (as defined in section 118(f )) infringed by performing a published nondramatic literary work or by reproducing a transmission program embodying a performance of such a work. In short, the mere lapse of 50 years does not make the unpublished musical work free for use without permission.
Those posts are talking about making a modified copy of a copyrighted work. The key word is copy. You are not making a copy. Copyright is not about how a physical embodiment of a copyrighted work is treated. You can burn a book and shred a newspaper. Neither of those actions is making a copy. Also, cutting up a newspaper and pasting a picture on your wall has nothing to do with any “derivative works” issue.
Absolutely. Copyright exists when the work is created, publication is immaterial.