Bit of a dodgy situation...

[reynardo]

This is about books published in the US.

Imagine, if you would, a book written by someone who was alive in the last 50 years, so therefore the book is still in copyright (as I understand US copyright law, that is. If I'm wrong, let me know).

The author wanted to share the joy with four other people, so she willed the ownership of the book to those four. Alas, two of them have since disappeared, and so no-one knows quite who owns the rights to the book, or who can give permission for reprints. The book itself has been out of print for years.

Now imagine a fast-acting company have got their hands on an old copy of the book and have decided to instead photocopy every single page, print off those copies, bind them and sell them as a new copy of the book. No money goes to the estate of the author.

The "reprint" is very spartan - the cover is minimalist to the point that I find it hard to believe the company even pays for a designer. It also has, on several pages, the marks that show that the original book came from an old library copy - it even has the asset number.

Assuming that the publishers got hold of the book legally (eg bought it at a sale from the Library), what is the legal situation in regards to just photocopying and printing off a new copy of the book?

Comments

[manna]

As I understand it, in the US, any of the joint owners of a copyright can sue someone for breaching the copyright whether or not the other owners agree with them.

Photocopying a book and selling it is pretty much the definition of breaching someone's copyright. How they acquired the text, whether or not it's still in print, or whether it's possible to find the copyright owners to ask permission is completely immaterial. If they genuinely thought it was out of copyright, then that can affect the damages, but that will be hard to prove if they photocopied a book with the copyright date printed in it.

The basic question, though, is always whether or not any of the copyright holders feel it's worth their time to hire a lawyer and go through the hassle of winning the court case and enforcing the judgement. I guess a lawyers would be able to give some estimate of the damages they might receive, but that still doesn't help if the reprint is being done by people without much in the way of assets.

[shiv5468.livejournal.com]

Breach of copyright, action for account, and restitution of profits called for.

[delphipsmith]

Owning the physical item does not mean you own the rights to the intellectual content thereof. This would be a clear violation of copyright (alas). There may be guidelines for identifying something as an "orphan work" (one to which no one owns the rights), but it would probably take some legwork to prove it. Laws vary by country, for example orphan works in the U.S..

[kerravonsen]

Violates copyright quite clearly, as far as I can see. Copying is copying, whether it's printed, photocopied, scanned, or written in longhand.

[sly-girl.livejournal.com]

Is there any possibility that the copy was approved by one of the two missing owners?

[reynardo.livejournal.com]

Apparently the will was so confusing that no-one is sure who owns the copyright, so even if one of the two missing owners had been tracked down, the others would still have to give consent.

No, I think it means that this company are being dodgy as all getout.

[sly-girl.livejournal.com]

Then I reckon a call from a lawyer asking them what the hell they're doing is the first step.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I can see someone (with a lot more money than sense, so not me) figuring that as a win-win. If nobody comes forward and sues, then a long-lost book is back in print; if somebody does, then the copyright holder or holders are revealed, and also made aware that they've got a valuable asset that they've been sitting on unawares and from which they could be making money. We all know books we love that have been out of print so long nobody remembers them but us; we've all tried to find another copy after the old one's bitten the dust, and shied away from paying "collectors' prices" for something that cost twelve and six brand new.

In fact, given the obviousness of the illegality, I can't see any other reason why someone would do this.

[frou-frou.livejournal.com]

Assuming there was an estate to settle, then the matter of ownership of the copyright would have been determined at that time: if not, a court could rule on it, but my understanding is that it would have all been worked out at settlement.

Of course, I'm assuming that the US functions like Australia but I find it hard to believe that the issue wouldn't have been determined.

As far as the copying goes - as others have said, it's illegal and irrelevant who owns the copyright but someone would need to lodge a complaint.

[darklotus1211.livejournal.com]

I'm not a copyright lawyer (thank god! LOL) and I know that copyright law can be very complex, especially if spanning different countries.

Having said that, however, this, to me, seems to be an infringement and no more than a 'bootleg' copy of the work.

I've had a little experience with copyright for written work, but most of my dealings has been with music, so I've been looked after by APRA (Australian Performing Rights Association).

I don't really know how you'd go about reporting this, but a good start may be via the Australian Copyright Council:

www.copyright.org.au

They give free online legal advice and may be able to point you in the right direction, whether this is an Australian work or not.

[gelsey.livejournal.com]

Preeeeetty surw anything that includes a copy machine is illegal....

[freyaw.livejournal.com]

No matter what else, the publishers are profiting without compensating any copyright holder(s) for the wholesale use of the work. Thus, breach of copyright law.

Who is entitled to sue for breach of copyright, and for restitution... no idea, in the scenario you have detailed. Possibly, any or all of the potential copyright holders can apply for a court order requiring that the publisher cease printing and/or selling until they work out who owns the rights to the work. I don't know.