Copyright laws regarding a book originally published a few hundred years ago, then republished There is this book (set), that was originally published a few hundred years ago (way before the copyright duration starts), but then recently published again, with some additions, in 1991, and in that 1991 version, the title cover says "all rights reserved. " and something like "forbidden to reproduce" etc. I'm assuming the company that is publishing it must have some kind of rights to it, but still, do they really have full rights the the actual contents of the book? To give some more context / details about this case, from the wikipedia article about these books: The work was published originally in two parts. The first part, Torah Or, was first printed in 5597 (1837) in Kopust, with treatises, most of them from 5556 (1796) through the end of 5572 (1812), covering Genesis and Exodus, the first two books of the Pentateuch, with several discourses on Shavuot and Pesach. The second half was published in Zhitomir in 5608 (1848) under the title Likutei Torah, covering Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, the final three books of the Pentateuch, Song Of Songs, the festivals, Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur.2 So it was published in two parts, but the latest the original versions were published were 1848. Now, the cover page of the modern printing says: The key part of the statement is the following line: All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this book or portions thereof, in any form, without prior permission, in writing, from the publisher, except by a reviewer who wishes to quote brief passages. 5761 • 2001 Manufactured in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Shneur Zalman, of Lyady, 1745-1813 So there seems to be 2 contradictory things in that statement: #1, it says that it's copyright and published in 2001, but at the bottom, it mentions the original authors name, and says explicit when we lived, which based on that, seemingly would mean that it is in the public domain. Possibly when it was first published, it wasn't necessarily copyrighted, so maybe that changes things. From the official copyright law website, section 302: Duration of copyright: Works created on or after January 1, 19784 (a) In General.—Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978, subsists from its creation and, except as provided by the following subsections, endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author’s death. (b) Joint Works.—In the case of a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire, the copyright endures for a term consisting of the life of the last surviving author and 70 years after such last surviving author’s death. (c) Anonymous Works, Pseudonymous Works, and Works Made for Hire.—In the case of an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the 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. If, before the end of such term, the identity of one or more of the authors of an anonymous or pseudonymous work is revealed in the records of a registration made for that work under subsections (a) or (d) of section 408, or in the records provided by this subsection, the copyright in the work endures for the term specified by subsection (a) or (b), based on the life of the author or authors whose identity has been revealed. Any person having an interest in the copyright in an anonymous or pseudonymous work may at any time record, in records to be maintained by the Copyright Office for that purpose, a statement identifying one or more authors of the work; the statement shall also identify the person filing it, the nature of that person’s interest, the source of the information recorded, and the particular work affected, and shall comply in form and content with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation. So, this is if the work was published after 1978, in this case, sometime in 2001 or 2002, it says that it's "70 years after the authors' life", but in this case, the orginazation that published the works is not the author, they just got it from somewhere else and published it, so I'm not sure if that would still be the case here, since, as mentioned before, the author was from 1813, and 1813 + 70 = 1883, long ago, so seemingly it should be ok. However, maybe this would then fit under subsec. "c", "Anonymous works etc...", which states, as quoted above: In the case of an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the 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. So in this case, the first publication (although not in the US) was in the year 1848, and 1848 + 95 = 1943, which has already passed. Or, it said, 120 years from "its creation", lets see: it doesn't say in the wikipedia page when it was created (as opposed to published), but even assuming it was created right before it was first printed, that would be 1848 + 120 = 1968, still a year that has already passed. So, can someone explain to me how the modern day book publishing company can copyright this work that was first published way more than 120 years ago? Do they own the rights to it at all? Can anyone republished (the original text of) it? If not, this seems to be similar to copyrighting a bible or Torah text itself, which I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to do, meaning copyrighting it has no effect, since its so old. So what's the law here?
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.
This would be considered a derivative work, which is not peritted without permission. Copyright duration varies by country but is at least the lifetime of the author plus 50 years. In France, it is 70 so Giraud's work becomes public domain in 2082. The second piece is public domain and therefore fine.
Prompted by this recent similar question, I've revisited this question and deleted my original answer as it was completely off the mark. This is its replacement. It is illegal, and it turns out to be an international standard in the Berne Convention. Article 16 in full: (1) Infringing copies of a work shall be liable to seizure in any country of the Union where the work enjoys legal protection. (2) The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall also apply to reproductions coming from a country where the work is not protected, or has ceased to be protected. (3) The seizure shall take place in accordance with the legislation of each country. Your scenario falls squarely within point (2) and the imported George Orwell book is to be treated as an infringing copy within the UK. The implementing UK legislation for (2) can be found in Section 27(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
No, John may not lawfully publish such a book in such a way What John wants to do is not lawful. It would infringe on the copyright on both the 1940 original, and on the 1955 translation. Both of those are still in copyright under the laws of France, the UK, and the US. Someone owns those copyrights: some person or business or other entity. If the owner has no legal heirs, in most jurisdictions the property escheats to the government (in the US to the state government). In the case of a company, its assets will be sold or handed over to some entity. But they will not become ownerless, any more than real estate will become ownerless when the owner dies or the owning company is dissolved. It is possible that the owner does not realize that s/he owns these rights. But if John publishes his book, then owner might then realize the rights that s/he holds. The owner could demand payment, or sue for damages. Under US law the damages could include any economic loss that the owner has incurred plus any profits that John or his publisher have made. John and his publisher would both be liable for these damages. As a result, no publisher is likely to be willing to publish John's book. If John self-publishers, he incurs the risk of such demands and suit. In some countries (such as the UK) there are legal procedures fore dealing with such &quot;orphan works&quot;. In those countries one can register with a government agency, and obtain permission to use the work after a search has revealed no owner, paying a rate set by law. But there is no such provision in the US. There, John must either not publish, or gamble that no owner will appear and make demands he cannot afford to meet.
It depends on the nature of the quote. Quotes from Buddha, Aristotle and Lincoln are out of copyright. Otherwise, the two basic questions are: who put that quote in fixed form, and is copying it "fair use"? If for example you happen to be at a political rally where a politician makes a noteworthy extemporaneous quote, you could be the copyright holder, because copyright law protects the person who first puts the work into fixed form. (If he's reading from prepared text, the speech writer or his employer would hold copyright). You can also quote small bits from any source, such as "Don't think about your errors or failures; otherwise, you'll never do a thing". It would not be "fair use" to chop up a novel into a sequence of 2-3 sentence quotes. This assumes that you manually assemble the quotes from legal sources, such as a print copy of "The Martian". Whether or not you can legally pull the data from an online source depends on the terms of service for that site. That lets out brainyquote as a source, so check the TOS for whatever source you get the material from.
I believe the author has published it online. I agree. It is posted at his publisher's website. However, I am unsure if I'm allowed to read it. This answer assumes you are in jurisdiction whose copyright laws is based upon the Berne convention (i.e. the civilized world + USA). Assuming it was the author published it online, it is perfectly legal to read it. Technically, the author is performing his work by putting it online, and by reading it, you are just enjoying his performance. Also, if you are in a jurisdiction with an explicit exception from copyright for personal use, or where fair use allows making copies for personal use, it would also be legal to download it, or to print it on paper (but for personal use only). As for downloading and printing for non-personal use - that is not legal in Berne jurisdictions.
It is not clear to me how you &quot;use&quot; a mythological entity, and I take no position as to the divine consequences of any unauthorized uses, but you are entitled to incorporate then in your own intellectual creations for two reasons. First, any imaginable copyright on original texts (e.g. the Bhagavad Gita) has long since expired. Not all texts are of such certifiably ancient provenance, so there may be contemporary texts created by a practitioner of Ásatrúarfélagið which is protected. Second, names (Amitāyus, Zaraθuštra, Ngai) are not protected by copyright, so you can use names.
According to Wikipedia, the organization that holds Vatican copyrights has the following policy: [N]ews organizations can quote from the pope's speeches, encyclicals and other writings without charge. They can also publish full texts free provided they cite Vatican copyright ... but if a text is published separately ... payment is due. You say that no Vatican copyright was cited, which is too bad - they'd have a good argument that they already had permission. it must have a copyright Correct. Published or unpublished, it has a copyright from the moment it was fixed. it's a translation, which require official permission. Translations are considered derivative works, which is a right protected under copyright. So you need permission, fair use, or some other law that allows you to use it. it's the whole document, and so not under fair use Well, not so fast. There are four factors included in fair use, and that's only one of them. The factors are: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; Is the website offering this work for religious purposes, or for profit? (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; I'm not really sure where religious works fall under this factor, honestly. (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; The whole work is used, so this factor would be against fair use. (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Is there a market for this work? Does the Vatican sell it, or use it to drive traffic, or anything? If so, this factor would be against fair use. If not, the translation probably does not affect the market for the work, and this factor would be in favor of fair use.