need support for pseudonymously and anonymously published works

[kaplanmyrth]

Nothing in the function works for pseudonymously or anonymously published works

[David Strauss (davidstrauss)]

Pseudonymously published works are treated the same way as works published in the author's actual name. We're currently handling anonymous works the same way as works with unknown authorship. In other words, very conservatively. Should we handle anonymously published works differently?

[kaplanmyrth (andy-kaplan-myrth)]

Pseudonymous and anonymous works are a distinct case because they include the possibility of being in the public domain at Creation+75 or Publication+50 if the author (or none of the authors if the work is of joint authorship) come to light within that timeframe.

When you say that "We're currently handling anonymous works the same way as works with unknown authorship", could you confirm how we're handling works of unknown authorship? Is that the catch-all line near the end, "pdyear = pubyear + 50"?

[David Strauss (davidstrauss)]

That's correct, any book without any assigned authors will be treated as "pdyear = pubyear + 50." I assume we're not assigning a fake "Anonymous" author to books.

[kaplanmyrth (andy-kaplan-myrth)]

Is there a value for creation year so it can be:

"pdyear = earlier(pubyear + 50, creation_year + 75)"

[my own naive syntax, obviously!]

David Strauss wrote:
> That's correct, any book without any assigned authors will be treated as
> "pdyear = pubyear + 50." I assume we're not assigning a fake "Anonymous"
> author to books.
>

--
Andy Kaplan-Myrth, M.A., LL.B.
Barrister & Solicitor
------------------------------------------------
email: <email address hidden>
web: http://kaplan-myrth.ca
------------------------------------------------
PGP Key ID 0xE9349025
------------------------------------------------

[David Strauss (davidstrauss)]

Creation year isn't part of the Open Library database, so I can't base any calculations off of it. Fortunately, this appears to be a conservative move. (We won't falsely classify something as PD.)

[rejon (rejon)]

Seems pretty useful to have this in as well for all jurisdictions....

[David Strauss (davidstrauss)]

So, is anonymous publication the legal equivalent of unknown authorship, for the sake of public domain status?

[kaplanmyrth (andy-kaplan-myrth)]

Yes, in the Canadian Copyright Act at least, unknown authorship =
anonymous publication. The relevant sections are titled "Anonymous and
pseudonymous works", but their text says, "... where the identity of the
author of a work is unknown...". No distinction among the various
reasons why.

David Strauss wrote:
> So, is anonymous publication the legal equivalent of unknown authorship,
> for the sake of public domain status?
>

--
Andy Kaplan-Myrth, M.A., LL.B.
Barrister & Solicitor
------------------------------------------------
email: <email address hidden>
web: http://kaplan-myrth.ca
------------------------------------------------
PGP Key ID 0xE9349025
------------------------------------------------

[rejon (rejon)]

David, can you make a final assessment on this then please.

[kaplanmyrth (andy-kaplan-myrth)]

The solution to this will require an additional field in the Book record, for the date when the identity of the author became known. In Canada at least, if the author is unknown when the pseudo/anonymously published work enters the public domain, then it stays there even if the author's identity becomes known. Likely true in other jurisdictions as well. So it's not sufficient to add a calculation for copyright term for books of unknown authorship based on publication and creation -- it also needs to account for *when* the author became known for those records that do become associated to an author.

[rejon (rejon)]

David, please fix asap!

[rejon (rejon)]

David, please fix this as well. Can do in a test environment, then file patch:

http://openlibrary.org/dev/docs/setup

[David Strauss (davidstrauss)]

#183053 is an easy patch, but we simply don't have that field yet, and I can't add a field with a patch (AFAIK). If I file a patch now and create the field only on my side, applying the patch will break PDR's copyright module until the field is created on PDR.

Here's how we should fix this:
(1) Create the field on PDR and OL.
(2) Create a fresh DB development dump with the new field.
(3) I create a patch using the new field.

I don't know how to do (1) in both PDR and OL; this is probably something for the team at IA.

[David Strauss (davidstrauss)]

Can we get word from the IA/OL team about officially adding a field and putting it into the dev snapshot?

[rejon (rejon)]

Yes, we are having call WED morning and under the gun to get our release out.

thx

On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 3:19 PM, David Strauss <email address hidden> wrote:
> Can we get word from the IA/OL team about officially adding a field and
> putting it into the dev snapshot?
>
> --
> need support for pseudonymously and anonymously published works
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/183053
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to
> PDregistry.ca.
>

--
Jon Phillips
http://rejon.org/

[rejon (rejon)]

David, can you check with anand or solrize about this one ASAP. thx