i guess its hard to do a “poor-man’s-copyright” for IF, huh? for those who never heard of that, its where u mail the work to yourself but never open it. since it passes through a federal administration (post office) who stamps the date on it, then supposedly it holds up in court if presented as evidence. might just be urban legend and/or rumor. i guess e-mailing your source code to yourself doesnt count, huh?
lol thanks! (snopes is useful, but i find their homophobia distasteful)
Too easy to steam open an envelope. Or any number of other things. While technically as soon as you think something into existence you own the copyright on it, you still have to prove that you own that copyright. The only way to really do this is to get an actual copyright on it.
For the Mac Jr, I cite “Wizards, Pirates, and Thieves”, the TV movie about the 3 men who started it all.
The wizard - Wozniak, the pirate - Bill Gates, and the thief - Steve Jobs, and if you say that’s just a TV movie, it was also a book written by Jobs himself.
Soon after Lisa came out, she wasn’t feeling very well, so they got her cousin Mac Jr. and was introduced with a bang!
Alice Liddle had the rights to the books which was given to her grand daughter, then to her grand daughter, etc.
Liddle’s only living relative had the rights to the books throughout the 80s and 90s.
A perfect example of this is a lawsuit against the maker of American McEe’s: Alice.
“Douglas Adams passed his books down to his sons” with the agreement his wife would take care of any future books and series (see Thanks For All The Fish final edition).
[size=85]Published 1994 - on shelves in 95.[/size]
Yeah, I had all those copyright notices in mind that appear in technical books. They also seem to appear in fiction books (in the usual form “(C) year, Publisher, all rights reserved”), but I guess you’re more informed on the matter.
This was mildly funny at first, but it’s really starting to wear thin.
RealNC: I think the point was not that only “reference” type works are subject to copyright, but that, in practice, there tends to be a difference in who owns the copyright. Often, a publisher will hire an author to prepare a reference or technical work, and part of the deal is that the publisher owns the rights to the works. Fiction is more often written “on spec” and if and when the author finds a publisher the deal is more likely to be that the author retains copyright ownership. Either way, unless somebody really screws up, there will be a copyright notcie attached to the work.
Robert Rothman
Even if the original author maintains ownership of their copyrights, my impression is that there are few publishers which are willing to make non-exclusive distribution deals. Signing over distribution rights exclusively to one publisher almost amounts to the same as selling copyright (aside from leaving you with the option to make adaption rights in other media etc.)
For fiction these nearly always say “Copyright (C) YEAR by AUTHOR” and then “Published by PUBLISHER”.
(Sometimes the author designates another entity. For example, Terry Pratchett books say “Copyright (C) YEAR by Terry and Lyn Pratchett.” His wife is not a co-author, but he’s assigned the copyright to both of them for legal reasons – I suppose it simplifies inheritance. (Yes, he was doing this before he became ill.) Or for another example, this copy of Tongues of Serpents I have handy says “Copyright 2010 by Temeraire LLC”. The author is Naomi Novik. Temeraire LLC isn’t the publisher; it’s a small company that Novik has set up, again for legal reasons, or maybe tax reasons.)
Well, yes and no.
Publishers sometimes want worldwide distribution deals, but then sometimes they just want to say “We’ll publish your book in the US, you’ll have to find other publishers for other regions of the world.” It varies a lot.
Also, publishing contracts (for fiction) have various expiration clauses. For example, if the publisher stops printing a book, the contract will typically expire N months later, leaving the author free to seek a new publisher. That absolutely wouldn’t be the case if the author sold the copyright.
It’s all messy, and both sides are pushing in any given contract to get more rights and fewer obligations. This is why authors hire agents to do the negotiating.
As for IF Noob: Everything you are saying is either wrong or irrelevant to your earlier wrong statements.
Zarf is correct. The copyright for Alice’s adventures in wonderland expired in 1907.
42 years after it’s first publication under the 1842 copyright act.
The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy is still in copyright, and will be until 2071, under the 1988 copyright act & amendments.
I’m not sure who owns it, but it’s definitely not Douglas Adams’ sons, as he does not have any!
Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (1972) (convert full Youtube movie before it’s taken down).
The one in 1985 had a much younger Alice (American version of book), but the 72 one was the best I’ve seen so far.
Incidentally, Dodgson’s original manuscripts were made into one big book called Alice’s Adventures Underground.
His publisher cut out whole pages because he was paying (ink, paper, and electricity were rare items to get on a small budget) per word.
He even changed the title, naming it after his startup company (Wonderland Publishing), under the name Lewis Carol, he persuaded the publisher to go with Alice’s Adventures In Wonderland which would split the book in two (“Through The Looking Glass”).
He got tired of fighting when it was changed again to “Alice In Wonderland” (may have tipped him over the edge from pedophile to stalker).
All of your history is still wrong.
Prove it.
He was a sketch artist, amateur photographer, and painter of nude family portraits (including naked little children and siblings).
This is coming from a man with a very religious background.
By the time he wrote Alice’s Adventure’s, he was fantasizing about Alice Liddle in an infatuation manner.
He spent most of his time with her and infatuation fantasies quickly turned to lover fantasies.
There are many resources you can look up where he confesses his love (and I don’t use the term loosely) to Liddle.
I now believe you are trolling. Here, and in the “need input” thread. You’ve changed grounds too many times for it to be accidental.
Seriously, guys, this thread is about copyright.
I’m not the one who changed the subject, it was the person who first started arguing with me.
Please stop talking.
If you click the Profile link below someone’s post, you are taken to a details page for that user. Clicking the “Add foe” link beneath the username will hide that user’s posts.
To review your list of foes, you can click the User Control Panel link in the upper right of the forum interface. Then select the “Friends & Foes” option from the left side menu, and choose “Manage foes”.
Hope this helps!
Wtf does that have to do with the copyright of the original work? This thread is about copyright, not film reviews ffs!
Your reply doesn’t even attempt to make a point.
Just because someone made a movie of it in 1972 they cannot stop you from using anything in the original Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.
They own the copyright to THAT MOVIE ONLY (Not that it bothers you any!). You are completely free to write an IF work called “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland” and include as much
as you like of the original work AS IT IS OUT OF COPYRIGHT. The makers of the 1972 movie, or any other that is based on the original, cannot make ANY claim against you if you only use stuff from the original work.
It is not possible that anyone is arguing with you, that would imply a rational exchange of ideas!
.