Copyright info on Magazine Articles

I am sure I have seen someone comment on this before, but I cannot find a
specific reference in the archives.

I have a 1955 London Magazine, with an article on T.E. Lawrence and Richard
Aldington, by Basil Liddell - Hart.

I also note that this was published by BLH and distributed to interested
parties for free in subsequent years.

So my question is, can I reprint this on paper or web for a) non commerical
means b) sell it?

Many thanks,

Tom Lintern-Mole

"Tom L-M" wrote in message
...

I am sure I have seen someone comment on this before, but I cannot find a
specific reference in the archives.

I have a 1955 London Magazine, with an article on T.E. Lawrence and
Richard
Aldington, by Basil Liddell - Hart.

I also note that this was published by BLH and distributed to interested
parties for free in subsequent years.

So my question is, can I reprint this on paper or web for a) non
commerical
means b) sell it?



No. Copyright under the Berne Convention, as adopted in the EU, runs for
the life of the author plus 70 years. BLH died in 1970, so his copyright
runs to 2040.

Fair use for a noncommercial purpose is an option--but reprinting an entire
work is a big strike against fair use. I would recommend contacting his
estate and getting permission to republish.


William M. Klimon
http://www.gateofbliss.com

"michael adams" wrote in message ...

First off, it depends on who actually owns the copyright.
Liddell - Hart may have retained the copyright despite its not
appearing at the foot of the article. In which case the copyright
remains the Property of his Literary Heirs, either an Institution
or a family member for 75 years after his death. (In the UK at least)
Which takes you to 2040 I believe. As these people may also be
in receipt of royalties etc their affairs are often handled by
solicitors.



The Berne Convention provides that the duration of copyright for
literary works is life of the author plus 50 years. The Convention
also permits member countries to extend that term by their own
legislation. The EU member countries have adopted a blanket extension
of 20 years, or life of author plus 70 years. According to the UK
Patent Office, this applies in the UK as well:

http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/indetail/ownership.htm


William M. Klimon
http://www.gateofbliss.com

John A. Stovall wrote in
:

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 09:21:42 -0400, "William M. Klimon"
wrote:

"Tom L-M" wrote in message
...

I am sure I have seen someone comment on this before, but I cannot
find a specific reference in the archives.

I have a 1955 London Magazine, with an article on T.E. Lawrence and
Richard
Aldington, by Basil Liddell - Hart.

I also note that this was published by BLH and distributed to
interested parties for free in subsequent years.

So my question is, can I reprint this on paper or web for a) non
commerical
means b) sell it?



No. Copyright under the Berne Convention, as adopted in the EU, runs
for the life of the author plus 70 years. BLH died in 1970, so his
copyright runs to 2040.

Fair use for a noncommercial purpose is an option--but reprinting an
entire work is a big strike against fair use. I would recommend
contacting his estate and getting permission to republish.

This raise an interesting question. Just how does one go about
finding out in such cases who is the estate?


************************************************** ***************


This site http://tyler.hrc.utexas.edu/ has a list which covers a lot of
writers, though Basil Liddell-Hart does not seem to be amongst them.

I have some experience of republishing copyright material on my website
and most estates are quite happy for items which are not likely to be of
significant commercial value to be reproduced, though they do vary. I once
wanted to quote a Bernard Shaw letter to Frank Harris, only a few
paragraphs, and one that had been printed elsewhere a number of times. The
Society of Authors wanted £25 for it - not a huge sum, granted, but a lot
for a noncommercial use. So I paraphrased it, and then had them huffily
declare that I _should_ have asked permission for that, too, though they
would graciously consent, anyway: which I thought rather snotty.

The agents who look after Aldous Huxley's estate, on the other hand, let me
reproduce an essay of his in its entirety without fee.
--
Alfred Armstrong
Now! With added Dot.Communism: http://www.oddbooks.com/
"The eye has been described by scientists as a small-sized volcano"
- Webster Edgerly

"michael adams" wrote in message ...

Again, I believe the fact that you may be using copyright
material for non-commercial purposes has no bearing on your
entitlement to use it.



The purposes behind the use of copyrighted material do, in fact, bear
upon the permissibility of using such material. Under US copyright
law, the purposes of the use, whether commercial or not, is explicitly
a factor in determining fair use. Under UK copyright law, the
purposes of use are also considered when determining whether a
nonlicensed use is permitted or is an infringement.


William M. Klimon
http://www.gateofbliss.com

"michael adams" wrote in message ...

If we include your repeated refusals to answer my simple question
about clause 1:3 of the FAQ, that now makes it 8 - 0 in my favour
I believe.



Ha, ha, ha. You're so self-deluded that you think you and I are
competing and, on top of that, that you're winning. You're even
keeping score. How nice for you.

Because you are a troll, indeed a self-admitted troll, most RCBers
have kill-filed you or are ignoring you:

http://tinyurl.com/rmrv


I will continue to point out your errors when I see them on Google. I
don't, however, feel the strong need to respond to all your little
troll queries.


William M. Klimon
http://www.gateofbliss.com

Michael Adams wrote (in quite a different newsgroup):

Old yamamoto Wilson made a prick of himself again, coming over all
superior as usual and then snipping a part of sentence from
the Charter. I've seriously got up his nose somehow. But don't
forget I'm only doing this for Ireland because of his original
Paddy Joke.
(http://tinyurl.com/rn0i)

So, that was what all the fuss was about! Some people shoot off kneecaps and
blow people up "for Ireland". Michael Adams just trolls. But you didn't have
to troll the whole newsgroup, Michael; you could have got an apology out of
me just for the asking. I guess some people just have to let off steam!

For those who want to be up to speed on this, here's the joke again:

Light interlude: Irish joke (told to me by my Irish grandmother):

Paddy went to London because he'd been told the streets were paved with
gold. No sooner did he get off the train than he saw a 20 pound note lying
on the ground. He bent down to pick it up, then straightened up.

"Ach, forget it!" he said. "I'll start work tomorrow!"
(http://tinyurl.com/rn0w)

I'm sorry you took that so seriously, Michael. There's plenty of stuff
that's *worth* taking seriously, as even Sinead O'Connor knows ("...Irish
people were only allowed to eat potatoes... They gave us money not to teach
our children Irish... The highest statistics of child abuse in the EEC...
We're suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder... The most child-like
trusting people in the Universe, and this is what's wrong with us ..." -
Famine), not to mention all the miscarriages of justice ("There were six men
in Birmingham /In Guildford there's four /That were picked up and tortured
/And framed by the law /And the filth got promotion /But they're still doing
time /For being Irish in the wrong place /And at the wrong time" - Streets
of Sorrow, MacGowan/Woods), and a list of righteous grievances as long as
your arm.

But I don't think that joke's worth taking seriously. Mary Shelley said she
"never met with kindness from anyone calling himself a liberal", and if she
was alive now I bet she'd change that to "anyone calling him - or her! -
self politically correct". Certainly, that's been my experience. But perhaps
I'm reacting too badly against that experience and being too much of a
vehemently anti-politically-correct Andalusian (I'm Celtic by ancestry,
English by birth, Andalusian by culture and living in Japan, so I do get my
wires crossed from time to time). Since one can't choose one's company in a
newsgroup, one should at least choose one's words with care, so I'm sorry,
Michael. I had no wish to offend.

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com

Michael Adams wrote:

You can forget all your no-doubt impressive political
analysis

Well, I've always felt psychiatric analysis would be more use in your case,
but I don't expect you to take kindly to that idea.

- "Im doing this for Ireland" is simply a phrase
used to cover mischievous intent. Its intended as a joke.

Ha ha ha!

As in "I'm only doing this for England, don't forget".

Bwahhaahahahaha!!

If your feeble attempts at humour mainly consist in
telling 30 yr old Paddy Jokes, then its probably the age of
the jokes, rather than the subject-matter, which should be
your primary cause for concern

Yes, it's a pretty poor joke - almost as bad as the things you call jokes,
though not quite on the same puerile level as trolling newsgroups merely out
of "mischievous intent".

And of course, as I stated above, you did in fact snip part of that
sentence in Charter.

Yes.

In order to try and deliberately mislead,
and win an argument by dishonourable means.

No.

Furthermore, I personally would probably want concentrate rather
more on the books

Oh, I do so wish you would, instead of trying to keep a silly little score
chart with other members of the group. Beating Bill Klimon 8-0? In your
dreams! He was born knowing more about copyright law than you'll ever learn
by trawling through Google.

Scotch tape spells the death knoll to dust jackets. Unless you
can steam it off or otherwise remove it the book's value is
considerably reduced.

Let's just hope he didn't take you up on your advice, eh ?

Oh, I don't know. The books I've done it with are fine. The combination of
heat and damp worked to remove the tape with no danger of the colours
running. On the other hand, attempts to remove supposedly petrol soluble
labels, etc., by the lighter fluid method have never worked for me. Perhaps
the vintage or type of tape makes a difference. And, while I forgot this
time, I usually preface any advice I give about book conservation with the
caveat that free advice is sometimes worth rather less than one has paid for
it.

Anyway, I'd be happy to discuss this with anyone who was capable of mature
discussion (i.e., *wasn't* keeping a little score chart to boost their
damaged ego), happy to learn more, happy to find myself on occasion in the
wrong, and happy to admit it. Because, you see, it's supposed to be *fun*.
Collecting books is supposed to be *fun*, discussing with like-minded
enthusiasts is supposed to be *fun*, sharing information about issues
relating to book-collecting is supposed to be *fun*. People with a
"mischievous" hidden agenda just don't fit in. Never did. Never will.

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com

Michael Adams wrote:

Sorry John. My mistake.
I really should have learned the last time, shouldn't I
Offering you a gracious way out, doesn't work with you does it?
You merely take advantage.
OK I'll admit it I was being kind before.

Being kind? Interesting that you see it that way. From my angle, you were
kicking the sand back in my face.

In fact John you're are a Racist Bigot, and you see nothing wrong
whatsoever in making Bigotted Racist jokes in public.

Now, how does that suit you?

If it suits you to believe that, go ahead.

I notice you've again taken it upon youreself to issue injunctions
as to what is and isn't acceptable what does and doesn't "fit in"
on Usenet and on this Newsgroup.

If you think a lot of really heavy, angry stuff about racist issues is what
rec.collecting.books should be concerning itself with, then you've got
yourself and whoever posted all that "kill a ****** for Jesus" stuff a while
back for company. I think you'll find most people who come here come
expecting to find material relating to, er, books. Of course, books can't be
totally divorced from other aspects of life, but books are basically the
order of the day here. Common enjoyment of a common interest is what brings
people here, and anyone who ain't got that don't fit. Is there anything so
wrong with pointing that out?

Well I've got news for you John. I'd imagine it's racist bigots like
you, who think they can get away with making your nasty little racist
jokes, who are the ones who don't fit don't fit in on Usenet, or
anywhere else for that matterm Thankfully times have now moved on.

Unfortunately, times have *not* moved on. There's plenty that it might be
*worth* getting steamed up about. Why pick on a single Paddy joke? It could
as easily have been told as an exploit of Mullah Nas'redeen, or (in Japan)
the funny Zen monk Ikkyu san or (in Spain) my beloved Andalusians. It just
*happened* to be told to me as a Paddy joke, and (foolishly, as I now
realise) I repeated it that way. It was said to fit with the context, it was
not said with an intent to belittle or offend, and if it is going to be
taken that way then I'm sorry I said it (but I've already said that).

You really do think its funny to infer the all Irish people are
stupid, don't you?

No. If you want to discuss this in a suitable forum, let's do so. I don't
want to come across as "issuing injunctions", but I really *don't* think a
book-collecting newsgroup is the right place.

And silly remarks about having an "Irish Granny"

Oh, I didn't invent my grandmother, Michael. Or some very close friends with
very traceable surnames, either. If you want to carry on building a mountain
out of a molehill, go ahead. Alternatively, take a look at some of the posts
he http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/cgi-b...brissearch.cgi. Or he
http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/cgi-b...brissearch.cgi. There's quite
a bit of overlap between the two lists, and probably quite a bit of relevant
stuff that's slipped between the two, but at least if there's anything there
you take exception to I shall feel that your criticisms really do have
something to do with me and my level of racial awareness as an "Englishman"
in the "British" Isles. And it's all in a bookish context, too, just to add
icing to the cake!

and feeble attempts at aplogising afterwards in a vain atempt to excuse
yourself, only go to compound the problem.

Again, it's interesting that you see it like that. From my point of view,
what compounded the problem was you scorning a sincerely-meant apology.

I've got no hidden aganda at all.
I was initially flamed on this Ng for defending my animal rights
views.
That's how that all started.
Or is you're memory so bad, that you've conveniently forgotten
that fact?

Michael, if that's how you see it, that's fine. For my part, it's not a
question of forgetting, just that I'm not that interested. I come here
basically for bookstuff, but I've discussed a range of issues (some bookish,
some markedly less so) with you as patiently as I can. We haven't on the
whole ended up convincing each other, or even succeeded in finding all that
much common ground we can agree on, but that doesn't really matter, as long
as we can *agree* to differ, and concede that, just because we don't agree,
that doesn't mean the other is a bogeyman. I mean, I still think you're
*weird*, and you're welcome to think that about me, but I'm talking about
writing each other off. As Bill says, a lot of people *will* have written
you off, but you'll notice I'm still talking to you.

Sensing my aparent difficulty you thought you'd wade in and
attempt to setle as old score.

And you came unstuck. Because as usual, your overweening
arrogance got the better of you.

Funny. Didn't I call you "overweeningly arrogant" a while back? And, come to
think of it, I only sussed you were Irish a matter of hours ago; you struck
me rather as one of those Englishmen who probably call themselves "British"
and whose inflexible arrogance is one of the curses of Albion's green and
pleasant land.

In other words, I disliked you for precisely the same reasons as you appear
to dislike me. Don't want to play the amateur psychiatrist here, but perhaps
we both remind each other too much of something in ourselves?

As I said John, I've got no hidden agenda at all.

But I won't waste any opportunity to show you up for the nasty
vindictive type of individual, you continualy show yourself
to be.

Why bother? Let others be the judge of that. And anyway, when you embark on
that kind of crusade there's always the risk that some people might get the
wrong end of the stick and think that *you're* the one on a vindictive witch
hunt, when we all know you're innocent and sweet as buttermilk!

Michael, it's totally up to you, but if you want to discuss all this
further, could we do so in a way that doesn't disrupt this newsgroup any
more? It's been through so much turmoil in recent months I seriously think
it's in danger of crumbling apart at the seams. And I am rather fond of it!

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com

Michael, it's totally up to you, but if you want to discuss all this
further, could we do so in a way that doesn't disrupt this newsgroup any
more? It's been through so much turmoil in recent months I seriously think
it's in danger of crumbling apart at the seams. And I am rather fond of
it!

--
John

No, it is not totally up to him. It takes two to tango.
Why don't you both put each other on your respective kill files and stop
this nonsense?
I've already got Adams on my kill file and would really hate to have to add
you John.