To Copyright More Or Tu Copy Right Less?
(Part II of this Blog series about copyright restrictions.)Are Copyright Restrictions More Restrictive?
I did my own personal research using the books in my
'ho-mah lī-brair-ry'.
I noticed changing copyright information and restrictions.
In a book by A. Haley and Mr. M. X, printed (I think) around 1964, the book's copyright information mentions the rights of the publisher, reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. Other than publishing information [published by a division of Random House Inc], the only other information mentioned was about the cover of the paperback book...for some reason, if the book did not have a front cover, than according to the print, the sale of the book may have been unauthorized.
It is implied that a coverless book may have been reported as damaged...with neither the author, not the publisher receiving payments for the 'damaged but sold' book.
I remember working in an Independent Bookstore.
The manager instructed volunteers to remove the cover of the unsold magazines or journals.
I was told the publishing company did not want to pay for the return of the unsold magazines, (think weight), yet the publishers wanted to know the total count of the unsold magazines...the manager was suppose to (I believe) resend the magazine covers of the unsold magazines back.
Since people (especially book-lovers) spent hours looking through the magazines, I doubt stealing was what the average person, with hours 'to kill,' was planning.
Volunteer bookstores (that I have worked in) are closer to a 'commie library' than a real bookstore with books to sale, profits to make and people to keep employed.
[ BTW - By the way, I never sold a damaged and month old magazine to any person.]
In a book pulished, I think, around 1982, the copyright information is scant. It had the same 1 sentence I read before (in the book published around 1964). The Authors and Publishers rights are reserved. This information was followed by publisher information.
The Publisher's Note included information I had read before when watching a film or movie...
This [media] is a work of Fiction...
The Publisher stresses the imaginative work of the writer or creator in creating names, interesting characters, or imaginary places.
The Publisher's Note I read, left the impression that any similarities the fictional work may have to actual people, events or locations are coincidental.
In the inside of a book printed around 2003, by T. Morrison, the same one sentence message is reprinted...Authors and Publishers rights are reserved.
In a book printed around 2000, the publication states that the publication may not be:
- reproduced (no part)
- saved
or
- sent
(not electronically, not by photocopying, nor audio recordings or scanning.)
Except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the States Copyright Act or, after having obtained permission, or by other authorized method of authorization.
A pamplet at one community college warns students and other readers to be cautious... although allowed to use the photocopying equipment, they should be careful of violating the authors copyright protected material.
Warning are helpful.
Although still in the dark, I am a bit better informed. The gothic literary Collection that shocked me when I read it's copyright restrictions, does provide instructions for citing Gothic Literature.
The series seems to acknowledge students who quote directly from their publications and gives students a generic format for citation in the footnote section.
Although I don't know how to cite written work when posting a Blog, or what ri-printed criticism is, I feel better about my gothic literary experiences.
11-0-1-11
