TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Anne Frank’s Diary Gains ‘Co-Author’ in Copyright Move

56 点作者 NameNickHN超过 9 年前

10 条评论

pbhjpbhj超过 9 年前
&gt;&quot;The move has a practical effect: It extends the copyright from Jan. 1, when it is set to expire in most of Europe, to the end of 2050. Copyrights in Europe generally end 70 years after an author’s death. Anne Frank died 70 years ago at Bergen-Belsen, a concentration camp, and Otto Frank died in 1980. Extending the copyright would block others from being able to publish the book without paying royalties or receiving permission.&quot; (from nytimes article in OP) &#x2F;&#x2F;<p>Mr Frank of course has rights over the work he produced, but anything that Anne wrote will be out of copyright. Works representing the output of multiple persons needn&#x27;t be treated atomically AFAIA.<p>As a thought experiment: Something I find curious is what law - other than trespass - would prevent someone from getting hold of the original work and publishing it verbatim, it wouldn&#x27;t be a copyright infringement; I&#x27;m not sure it can truly be considered to theft. The criminal liability for entering and taking photos of a work that is out of copyright should rightly be very minor, the tort of trespass seems to be all that could be sued for.<p>If this stands the precedent set will surely see editors, typesetters and others claiming co-authorship of works such as out-of-copyright books and causing a further malevolent erosion of the public domain.
评论 #10578894 未加载
评论 #10578862 未加载
jacquesm超过 9 年前
Sickening to see her legacy soiled like this for what seem to be purely commercial reasons. &quot;This is not about the money&quot;... sure, what <i>is</i> it about then?<p>The most effective countermeasure would be to publish the actual diary, un-edited, ink stains and all without any further polishing or changing.<p>I also think that would be a much more powerful document than the interpreted one.
评论 #10578836 未加载
评论 #10578865 未加载
评论 #10578780 未加载
TazeTSchnitzel超过 9 年前
I beg of you: do not allow anyone to inherit your copyrights. This naked profiteering by the descendants of the deceased has happened time and time again. Consider the case of Martin Luther King, Jr., whose &#x27;I Have A Dream&#x27; speech cannot be printed in full in textbooks, because his estate charges $10 to read it. A speech that was written to be performed publicly.
评论 #10578982 未加载
评论 #10578737 未加载
mxfh超过 9 年前
While this move is questionable, it highlights a justice dilemma with the current copyright term practice of death of author + x years. Especially when arguing that that the descendants should benefit from the works of an author, now it is effectively so, that relatives of someone who got murdered (possibly even because of their works) are in terms of copyright worse off than someone who did not, just because of their date of death. There should be some clause that has either publication of work + x years or birth date + x + plus average life expectancy.<p>At least France has such a special clause of plus 30 years for people who fought and died for the country: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Mort_pour_la_France#cite_note-2" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Mort_pour_la_France#cite_note-...</a>
steve19超过 9 年前
Why is it not considered fraud to advertise the book as being written by Ms. Frank, only to claim another author decades later? They seem to both have their cake and eat it too.<p>I find it especially galling as the co-author died never claiming to be the author.<p>In 67 years time Tom Clancy&#x27;s third cousin&#x27;s son no doubt will suddenly appear as a co-author of his books just as they go out of copyright ...
Alex3917超过 9 年前
Isn&#x27;t one of the main beliefs of holocaust deniers that Anne Frank didn&#x27;t actually write the diary, and that it was actually written by her father? I thought the Anne Frank Foundation had been denying this for decades...
评论 #10578838 未加载
droithomme超过 9 年前
It&#x27;s so important to be able to profit from genocide.
评论 #10579071 未加载
techdragon超过 9 年前
Despicable.
gpvos超过 9 年前
Link should be to the much more informative <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;11&#x2F;14&#x2F;books&#x2F;anne-frank-has-a-co-as-diary-gains-co-author-in-legal-move.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;11&#x2F;14&#x2F;books&#x2F;anne-frank-has-a-co-...</a> , which this article points to.
评论 #10573366 未加载
stefantalpalaru超过 9 年前
Rick Falkvinge wrote an interesting article on the subject: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;torrentfreak.com&#x2F;anne-frank-scandal-an-underreported-copyright-monopoly-abuse-151115&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;torrentfreak.com&#x2F;anne-frank-scandal-an-underreported...</a><p>Relevant quote:<p>&gt; What’s really infuriating about this is how oldmedia doesn’t call it out as fraud at all, but takes a completely neutral stance. Most outlets seem to be rewrites of the New York Times story, which just neutrally reports “the book now has a co-author”, quotes a few people in the worst form of abdicative “he-said-she-said journalism”, and leaves it at that.