|
|
Post by ginnyrules27 on Sept 16, 2012 1:09:43 GMT -5
Did you know....
that if all the Harry Potter books had been written in the 1790's, we'd have no problem writing our Reading the Book fics. It's because of corporations bribing congress to push the number of years a work can be copy-writed before it can be in the public domain back that we're having these problems.
1790's: limit was 14 years
Had that still been the limit today, the copy-write for Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone would be expired and in public domain.
|
|
|
|
Post by melodypottersnape on Sept 16, 2012 2:00:06 GMT -5
If that rule still existed we could probably only write about the first few. Probably would have to wait a few years for HBP and DH. Though I wish that rule was true because people probably wouldn't care about doing the last to books illegally.
|
|
|
|
Post by ginnyrules27 on Sept 16, 2012 2:04:32 GMT -5
Good point, but we could at least write about them. Unlike now where the site's controlled by people bent on world domination!
|
|
|
|
Post by unbeastly on Sept 16, 2012 4:27:58 GMT -5
How many years is it now?
|
|
|
|
Post by ayrine on Sept 16, 2012 5:50:20 GMT -5
In some country, it's 70 years after the death of the author, meaning that he/she owns her copyright all her life and her children and great-children and great-great-children and possibly great-great-great children own it after his/her death (or more than three generations after, if he/she dies old).
|
|
|
|
Post by 19811945 on Sept 16, 2012 6:12:13 GMT -5
It's something like that with Agatha Christie. Her grandson holds the copyright or possible The Agatha Christie Trust that owns it. He is possible board member along with his mother - who sadly died a few years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by ayrine on Sept 16, 2012 7:35:44 GMT -5
There is this website, that archives the books that are now old enough to be under public domain, some are interesting, well, if you are interested. www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page You can search by Authors and 2 of the firsts Christie's novels are there too. well they are public domain in US, but in other countries they still have to wait until 2047.(she died in 1976) |
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Sept 16, 2012 12:04:02 GMT -5
Yep, 70 years after the death of the author. That I know for sure for my country, and after all these discussions about the rights to the Tolkien books, I am pretty sure that it is an international law as well. Otherwise people could use a translation, but not the original, or something along that line.
While it has its disadvantages for us, you have to remember that otherwise people could make lots of money with them, while the author wouldn't get a cent, because his/her rights have expired. That wouldn't be very fair, either.
|
|
|
|
Post by ayrine on Sept 16, 2012 12:27:33 GMT -5
I think what's in common is the copyright is in place until the death of the author+ a certain number of years, some are +70 years, for others it's less.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Sept 16, 2012 12:44:27 GMT -5
Usually it seems to be either 50 or 70 years, as this article explains. |
|
|
|
Post by ayrine on Sept 16, 2012 13:22:46 GMT -5
In my country Algeria if you are interested lol Duration of rights: authors’ rights: economic rights: 50 years after lawful publication; if no lawful publication has taken place within 50 years of the making, 50 years after communication to the public, if no lawful communication to the public has taken place within 50 years of the making, 50 years after the work is made. moral rights: not specified performers’ rights: 50 years after the fixation of the performance; if no fixation is made, 50 years after the performance. producers of videograms’ rights: 50 years after videogram publication. Failing publication within 50 years after fixation, 50 years from fixation. broadcasters’ rights: 50 years from broadcasting year. euromedaudiovisuel.net/p.aspx?t=general&mid=53&l=en&did=80Well, but there isn't that much creation's work in here. So it seems about the country of the right holder, or where he registred his copyright? |
|
Chameleon
Headmaster/Headmistress
Call me Headmistress Chams.
Posts: 1,873
|
Post by Chameleon on Sept 20, 2012 13:14:20 GMT -5
Well... If it's 70 years after the death of the author... Then we're all dead, when it's allowed.. Or really super-old.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Sept 20, 2012 13:30:38 GMT -5
That's the sad part, isn't it? There was a lot of talk about filming the Silmarillion or some other parts of Tolkien's work, but as the film rights were never sold, that would be possible only at a time when we are all six feet under, most likely. And by then I don't think we'd be too interested in HP RtB fics any longer  |
|
Chameleon
Headmaster/Headmistress
Call me Headmistress Chams.
Posts: 1,873
|
Post by Chameleon on Sept 20, 2012 13:41:19 GMT -5
Yeah... And I kind of doubt HP will be the big thing then. Newer books get written all the time. I think Tolkien is gonna be one of these few authors who manage to stay in 100 years. I'm a doubtful of HP.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Sept 20, 2012 14:41:27 GMT -5
Same here. It's been nearly 60 years already and still going strong, after all. HP still has to prove it can endure over such a time.
You know, I like to imagine the Professor somewhere beyond the circles of the world, surrounded by fans, explaining more about his world, answering all their questions and how the story should have continued.
|
|
Chameleon
Headmaster/Headmistress
Call me Headmistress Chams.
Posts: 1,873
|
Post by Chameleon on Sept 20, 2012 15:31:11 GMT -5
Hahahah. He probably does that  I've never read LotR, never made myself to borrow it from the library. It wasn't in my school library, and then, yeah ... I keep remind myself that I plan to read and watch the movies. I've only seen a few snippets of the movie, when my brother used to watch it. |
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Sept 20, 2012 15:38:18 GMT -5
It's not the easiest book, but it's worth it! For me, it's still better than HP. And the movies surprised me positively; I had feared what they would make of these complex books, but despite some changes I didn't like, overall they were amazing. When *I* stay glued to the screen for hours, then it's serious |
|
Chameleon
Headmaster/Headmistress
Call me Headmistress Chams.
Posts: 1,873
|
Post by Chameleon on Sept 20, 2012 16:30:27 GMT -5
Oh... that sounds really good. I've got to make myself to read the books. I should really borrow it... A vacation is soon coming, and although I'm about to build myself a stack of books, maybe they should be added... Well, we see.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Sept 21, 2012 0:14:33 GMT -5
One advice: It wouldn't hurt to start with The Hobbit. While it's a pretty different tone from LotR, it explains what happened before. And if you have problems with the opening chapter of LotR (Concerning Hobbits), then skip it and read it afterwards. You don't really miss much, and it can be a bit boring.
Otherwise: Either you give up on LotR early on, or you get over the 100 page mark and are hooked. When I tried the first time, I gave up. The second, I was more interested, started reading - and never stopped. I fell hard and fast into the wonderful world of Middle-earth and live part-time there since February 2003. And when I finished the third book, I started over. Then I bought the original edition. And started reading fanfiction ...
|
|
|
|
Post by 19811945 on Sept 21, 2012 9:44:25 GMT -5
Kitty, I will definately take your suggestion into account regarding the The Hobbits chapter in LotR. I've just got the book. It's all three books rolled into one. When originally done it was supposed that all three books were meant to be done as a single book at a few years down the line.
I did loan the first book out of the library a few years ago and I gave up then. At least I'm going to read it at a more my pace.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Sept 21, 2012 10:08:25 GMT -5
Oh, have fun, and if you manage to keep reading, I'd like to hear your thoughts  Professor Tolkien always saw LotR as one book, but back in the 50's paper was still too expensive and they had to publish in 3 books for economical reasons. So the book became a trilogy, and I've been wondering if it's coincidence that so many fantasy stories nowadays are published as trilogies. It's as if they follow that one famous example, regardless of the fact that the author saw it as one single book |
|
|
|
Post by jaffaninja on Sept 21, 2012 13:45:36 GMT -5
My sister did some research on that for school. You would not believe how many things he came up with first - a Dark Lord, a battle between good and evil, elves being tall and beautiful, setting the story in another world... it's pretty insane, actually, how much all the other stories take from LOTR.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Sept 21, 2012 13:51:36 GMT -5
Oh yes, and you'd not believe how many times he changed the story. I've got the HoME (History of Middle-Earth) books, with a detailed chronology. It's staggering, considering that he had to write all that in longhand.
True, sometimes I wonder if the fantasy genre would even exist, or how it would look like if not for LotR. There are always some elements of it in other fantasy books, after all.
You can probably understand why I always want to bang my head when people complain that Tolkien copied from JKR when in truth it was the other way around. The Nazgul must have been what sparked the Dementors, too.
|
|
Chameleon
Headmaster/Headmistress
Call me Headmistress Chams.
Posts: 1,873
|
Post by Chameleon on Sept 21, 2012 13:56:07 GMT -5
I would want to bang my head too, if I heard that too. Like when some Twi-idiots claim that JKR copied from Meyer.
|
|
|
|
Post by unbeastly on Sept 21, 2012 14:04:20 GMT -5
I'd say we owe the entire genre to Tolkien's work. He created a world, that's whole and complete, filled it with incredible creatures and even developed his own language. I don't think anyone has really come close to depth and breadth of his creation.
Harry Potter is a wonderful series to teach you a love of reading. But LotR has a lasting legacy that will never end.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Sept 21, 2012 14:06:58 GMT -5
Heard about that, too. Doesn't make much sense! They just don't know enough to get the fact that they have the chronology backwards. Maybe they judge by when the movies came out and don't even get the fact that in all three cases, there were books first?
Besides, LotR is so old that it could only now be filmed adequately. The Professor insisted that it's unfilmable, and in his time, that was true. The 1960's or 1970's were technologically not ready to make that sort of movie, no matter if we talk about LotR or HP. (Not going to say anything about Twilight here, as I don't know it)
Well said, unbeastly! LotR is so much more than most fantasy ever will be.
|
|
|
|
Post by ginnyrules27 on Sept 21, 2012 14:24:07 GMT -5
Kitty! *glomp* You're on!
Is it weird that I read the Lord of the Rings back when I was ten? My dad read me the Hobbit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Sept 21, 2012 14:28:33 GMT -5
*waves* Ginny! Nice to see you!
No, it's not weird, it is great! Good of your dad to read it to you.
|
|
Chameleon
Headmaster/Headmistress
Call me Headmistress Chams.
Posts: 1,873
|
Post by Chameleon on Sept 21, 2012 14:32:32 GMT -5
Why am I jealous now? My parents aren't in fantasy at all. I think they're close to despise it. It has reached to whenever I tell them about whatever book I've been reading, it's only about non-fantasy stuff. And stuff with no sex and that kind of things.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Sept 21, 2012 14:35:02 GMT -5
Actually, I don't like fantasy myself. Never understood why I love LotR and HP when I am not into the genre at all. Taste is something you can't really argue about.
Don't be sad, dear, you have us to talk to about HP, and if you read LotR, I'm only too happy to talk about that, too! It's not your parents, but at least there will always be someone you can talk to.
|
|
