[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Multiple recipients of list BOOK_ARTS-L <BOOK_ARTS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Copyright-copywrite
- From: "Jack C. Thompson" <tcl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 00:24:28 -0800
- Message-id: <199609032312.QAA18595@SUL-Server-2.Stanford.EDU>
- Sender: "The Book Arts: binding, typography, collecting" <BOOK_ARTS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I'm not a copyright attorney, but I am a publisher of original and
out-of-print material. I use the same boilerplate for both categories.
Often, I will write an introduction; sometimes an index, table of contents,
technical glossary, etc. Those items I consider covered by the current
copyright law. The text and any illustrations are re-set (i.e.,
scanned/OCR'd, or re-typed) and are not (always) in the original order,
typeface, or size. That is sort of a gray area of copyright.
For example, the iron gall ink text I'm publishing began with a 12 page
transcription of a 1596 English translation of a Dutch work. I negotiated
reprinting that text with the university library holding a copy. I've
added 52 pages to that. I'm copyrighting the entire work, except for one
section written by a colleague which is copyrighted in his name.
I'm also publishing a book on traditional leather production. The original
text was published in Sweden in 1991. I purchased the English language
rights and paid for a translation. I've edited the translation, enlarged
the bibliography, etc. Some of the illustrations were drawn by the
original author and I purchased the right to re-use those. Some I had
re-drawn, and I own those. Some, such as illustrations of 3400 year-old
Egyptian wall paintings, were taken from Waterer's contribution to Singer's
_A History of Technology_, and are being re-used with permission of the
The copyright statement for that book will be a little more complex, but
you get the idea.
Illustrations or text which is reproduced, more or less the same size as
the original, by a photomechanical process, is, as I understand the law,
not covered by copyright.
In your case, I would keep the dust jacket! If you plan to use a lot of
the images from this book, it wouldn't hurt to write to the copyright
department of Grammercy to clarify the issue.
>I just got a copy of "The complete encyclopedia of illustration"
>(Grammercy, 1996). It is a republication of the two volume 1851 book,
>"The Iconographic Encyclopaedia of Science, Literature, and Art" and has
>added editorial revisions and a plate indexed table of contents (12,000
>illustrations) that the dust jacket says are:
> "copyright free and clearly reproducible"
>However, the above statements are contradicted by the copyright notice:
> "No part of this book may be reproduced -cut- without
>written permission in writing from the publisher."
>Things get more interesting when the actual copyright information is
>examined. It says:
> "Special material copyright c 1979 by Crown Publishers, Inc. All
>rights reserved under International and Pan American Copyright Convention."
>My assumption is that the special material is the index and other
>additions, not any of the actual illustrations and that the warning about
>reproduction is Grammercy's boiler plate and that they received
>authorization from Crown for the republication of that material.
>Confused? Join the club.
>Does anyone have experience with whether or not the drawings are indeed
>public domain. What about any restrictions on any other published "clip
>art" manuals such as the Hart Picture Archives?
Jack C. Thompson
Thompson Conservation Laboratory
7549 N. Fenwick
Portland, OR 97217