Copyright query

[DiGi]

I've been researching my 2 x great grandfather's life as a Redcoat in India and Afghanistan in the early 1800's and was reading a book [via Google Books] called "Scenes in a soldier's Life: being a connected narrative of the principal military events in Sindh, Beeloochistan, and Afghanistan during 1839, 1840, 1841, 1842 and 1843 under Generals Lord Keane, Brooks, Sir R Sale, Wiltshire, Pollock, Nott, England, McCaskill and Sir C Napier” written by John Henry Wilton, 1848.  I've now found that the book is copyright of someone who has changed the name of the writer from John Henry Wilton to J H W Hall.  Apart from the changed name of the author, the book title exactly the same as John Henry Wilton's and I take it that it will be the same book.  I realise if I want to quote anything from the book I will need to get the permission of the copyright holder. I've found John Henry Wilton's version on a website called "Forgotten Books".  So my question is, if I quote anything from John Henry Wilton's book,  who exactly is the copyright holder?

DiGi

[Marmalady]

The original version will be out of copyright - so you should be OK quoting from that

The other version may well have other differences besides the change of authors name -- the addition of notes or maps etc -- and that version will be copyrighted to the new author

*DISCLAIMER* these are my personal opinions from my understanding of copyrights - i do not have in depth legal knowledge

[mazi]

Google books is the copyright holder of   The image you see on your screen.  As I understand it you may not cut and paste any part of that image.

I wait to be corrected but, since the original book is out of copyright you may use the words and sentences in it, since they are part of everyday language.

Mike

[Flattybasher9]

As Google books states, this book is in the public domain. Considering that it was written in 1848, then one would think so.

http://copyrightuser.org/topics/public-domain/

Regards

Malky

[Billyblue]

I'd agree with Marmalady.
If you are quoting from the 1848 ORIGINAL then, unless the author assigned his copyright to someone 'forever', it is now out of copyright.

Google Books that mazi quotes, would have to be altered / edited in some way from the original, for them to claim copyright.  Or they may just be claiming copyright to a digital rendition of the work.

If you're only quoting little bits from it, you can cover this by stating what it's from and putting it in quotes;  or you can paraphrase what it says with the rider something like 'according to' or 'this book tells us' or something like that.  If you are not copying word for word without quotes, then you won't be breaching copyright.
Do you know which country the copyright is claimed in?  UK? America?  somewhere else?
Each country's laws may differ slightly.

Dawn M

[Billyblue]

If Google Books states the book is in the public domain, then they can't also claim copyright!



Dawn M

[Mike in Cumbria]

If the version on Google books is the older version and is now in the public domain I don't see why you can't quote from that book (giving standard references). It really shouldn't matter that someone has since produced something similar, based on the older work.

Where are you wanting to quote it anyway? In personal research or in a published work?

Mike

[KGarrad]

The original book may well be out of copyright - so you can quote from the book.

BUT, Google will own the copyright of the digital images - so you can't copy-and-paste without their express permission.

So, as with all the transcriptions we are able to do on RootsChat, if you type out the information yourself, then there is no problem.

[DiGi]

Thank you to everyone who replied to my query.  I think what I will do if I ever publish anything is take legal advice on the copyright position just to make sure I'm in the clear.  I did think that copyright would have expired since the original writer died in the 19th Century.  However if he passed it on to descendants maybe today's copyright owner bought the copyright from a descendant.

Thanks again for your views.

Digi