Commentary: Philip K. Dick’s PUBLIC DOMAIN short stories, novelettes, and novellas

33 thoughts to “Commentary: Philip K. Dick’s PUBLIC DOMAIN short stories, novelettes, and novellas”

1. Pingback: SF Signal

2. It’s a real brain buster going through each of these stories checking on their copyright status. Thanks for getting the ball rolling in a comprehensive way. I haven’t checked through these, but I believe the ones published in Thrilling Wonder Stories are copyrighted because the magazine renewed the copyrights. But, hey, I haven’t checked to see if every single issue was renewed, so there could be a lapse on renewals. Same thing with ROOG, it was published in The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction and they always renewed their copyright as far as I know.

3. Jesse,

   Will you protect your sources of information to best of your ability and their desire for such protection? Identities, email addresses, IP addresses, etc. The Trust has a very intimidating reputation. :-(

   I believe I can furnish much information directly or indirectly under such conditions.

   There seems to be a more sophisticated effort now at Wikipedia to delete references to copyright status of public domain PKD works. Links to articles there may or may not show this information at any given time. Readers can use an article’s History to view deleted information. In the case of Adjustment Team there is a very impressive history of blanking and other vandalism in the last two years as well as some edits by people who appear to be using willful ignorance as an excuse to improperly delete copyfraud information.

   I think the text of Adjustment Team is available on a WikiMedia site. The Wikipedia article should have “portal” links to both the proofread text and the scan from the magazine. You might want to add a link to this in your list.

   Rick,

   F&SF renewed their copyright in the compilation. That is very different than renewing the copyrights for stories and other components of the magazine for which they were not the copyright holders or the authorized agent for the copyright claimants.

   A quick way to start checking the status of many 1954 PKD works is to save or email to yourself the “electronic index card” for the Copyright Office renewal registration entry that contains Adjustment Team, Shell Game, War Veteran and many other works. Then go to philipkdick.com and compare which works are listed as 1954 publications there and as 1955 publications in the copyright renewal entry. You should find over 20 discrepancies. If you are feeling brave use the website’s contact form to ask about these discrepancies.

   Or compare the renewal entry information to the copyright information in The Collected Stories of Philip K. Dick or a bibliography. Whatever, read the Copyright Office circulars or some other authorative source of information on how to check copyright status.

4. I still have collections published during Philip K. Dick’s lifetime whose copyright acknowledgement pages show original publications and don’t have copyrighted material mixed in with the copyright information. I.e., unlike the Collected Stories I can scan them without fear of copyright infringement claims. I’ll try to scan them soon and mail them to you but I’ll use a different email address than this one.

   Also try googling Galactic Central. The surviving co-editor of the bibliography “Philip K. Dick: Metaphysical Conjurer” may still have some copies for sale. The bibliography is from the 1990s, very thorough and affordably priced. Check out some of the other author bibliographies also. Some excellent and prolific authors didn’t renew copyrights on all their works and there are tons of wonderful stories and books in the public domain in the United States that have been out of print for decades and long forgotten by surviving members of my generation and are absolutely new to younger generations. And there is far more that should be in the public domain by now, isn’t profitable enough for companies to print and won’t be until long after the people who really want to read it are long dead.

   These new US copyright laws from the 1970s onwards are stealing our culture. They are also terribly damaging to political free speech which is something people seem to overlook. It’s not just about money gouging corporations. Government agencies and such are able to get away with amazing lies and deceptions which could be easily exposed if the information wasn’t under lock and key by “copyrights” and “possible” copyrights that people have no ability to even locate the possibly nonexistant copyright holders of material and ask permission to use the material in public debate.

   I’ll spare you most of my thoughts on the idea my government can abridge my freedom of speech through giving me the “right” of automatic copyright on what I say or write against my will and scaring people from repeating what I want to be publicly known or don’t care if people repeat. “Censorship is a load of bollocks” to quote from a Chumbawamba CD.

5. Rick,

   The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction may have always renewed their copyright for all I know but their copyright would normally have been as “proprietor in a work of compilation” or some phrase like that. Someone correct me on any errors but my understanding is that this is a renewal of the magazine issue as a whole but not the individual components of it except for things like editorials and artwork done as “work for hire” and maybe items they had contractually been authorized to renew on behalf of the author acting as agent for the author. I’ve seen plain English explanations of how this works and why copyright acknowledgements in things like short story collections will list stories as copyright by magazines instead of by the authors although the authors are the real copyright holders. I think it is something about contractual *assignment* of publishing rights not *transfer* of copyright but I may have the words wrong.

   Try this link http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter13/13-a.html#8.

   Some other good places to look at are http://blog.grossmeier.net/2009/03/19/copyfraud/
   http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/law-copyright-all-rights-reserved.html
   http://www.coultertm.com/blog/

   And this link is one for all of us to read and remember when we comment so we stay out of trouble and to remind us not to cause *inappropriate* trouble for others. It’s US law but I imagine lots of countries have laws of this sort. It’s also a reminder to me to try and speak politely about some things even when the words in my mind are far from polite. http://www.personalinjurylawyer.com/resources/personal-injury/libel-slander/slander-title-a-digital-world.htm

6. Nice. I think I can fill some gaps when I get some free time.

   Would you also like some Table of Contents scans from magazines the copyright renewal entry states stories were first published in where the copyright renewal first publication differs from reality? I think I have some of these magazines and other people must also. I don’t believe there is a single one of the 1955 magazines that even has a reprint of the story listed in the copyright renewal when the renewal entry falsely lists the magazine for the first publication of a story.

7. Perhaps you’d like to add a link to the etext of “Adjustment Team” at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Adjustment_Team.

   Had more to say but need to investigate at the manufacturer’s website whether a pop up window about the version of my firewall is legitemate. It may be legitemate but I’m not trusting a pop up window and clicking OK to update to a new version without reading about it at a trustworthy source first.

8. Very interesting.
   I wonder what the situation of the film is away from the country – it’s a movie derived from a PD text, so the movie might be fine but anyone trying to print the story in the UK, Canada, ect – will have to wait 50 to 20 more years.

   Ironic really, 8 years ago Ellen Datlow, editor of the online SciFiction website couldn’t get permission from the estate to print any stories whatsoever, they being sniffy about online access. Would love to see ‘Time Pawn’ and other novellas that were turned into novels but never printed in the collected stories, to be in the PD. Thanks

9. Bobby Johnson,

   “Time Pawn” is in the public domain in the US. RE0000190631 has a false listing of a 1955 “Time Pawn” but the real 1954 “Time Pawn” wasn’t renewed. Here’s a snippet from the Public Catalog of the Copyright Office with a link to the full entry. 25 of the 37 entries are fakes that “coincidentally” have the same titles as 1954 stories that weren’t renewed. Compare the entries in Copyright Renewal Registration Number RE0000190631 to entries in bibliographies and do a count of the works that don’t match for yourself so you are going by the official records and not just taking my word for it.

   Public Catalog
   Copyright Catalog (1978 to present)

   Search Request: Left Anchored Title = time pawn
   Search Results: Displaying 1 of 1 entries
   [War veteran, and other contributions.] By Philip K. Dick.

   Type of Work: Serial
   Registration Number / Date: RE0000190631 / 1983-11-22
   Title: [War veteran, and other contributions.] By Philip K. Dick.
   Copyright Claimant: Laura Coelho, Christopher Dick & Isa Dick (C)
   Contributions: (In If: worlds of science fiction, Mar. 1955) War veteran. Pub. 1955-01-10; B00000513322.
   (In Galaxy science fiction, Mar. 1955) Shell game. Pub. 1955-01-21; B00000515180.
   [snip]
   (In Startling stories, summer 1955) Time pawn. Pub. 1955-06-14; B00000540374.
   [snip]

   http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=time+pawn&Search_Code=TALL&PID=QzVutPUCX2VWFzP9jqY5y8MrLLWK&SEQ=20120702015009&CNT=25&HIST=1

   The film situation in other countries must be very complex even in any other countries where the story is also public domain. And don’t forget that where the story isn’t PD the film probably isn’t considered derived from a public domain work so it’s probably still tangled in a copyright situation due to that. “Probably” is really just a geuss but that’s how I’d bet it will normally be.

   Here in the US a similar situation went through the courts concerning the movie “It’s A Wonderful Life” after the movie became public domain because the story it was based on was/is still copyrighted until hell freezes over or whatever the current copyright term is. Maybe you remember how “It’s A Wonderful Life” used to be on some TV channel almost around the clock near Christmas for years after it became public domain then suddenly started being broadcast much less often. That’s because it’s based on a story, the copyright claimants of the story sued and the courts ruled that since their copyright was good they still had rights concerning derivative works even if those works had been lawfully made and were now in the public domain. So the TV stations have to negotiate and pay them to show the public domain movie even though they don’t need any permissions from whoever used to hold the copyright on the movie. It’s probably more complex than that but such a famous case you should be able to look it up easily.

   Returning to coincidences, this is the 50th anniversary of publication of THE MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE. The only novel PKD won the Hugo Award for. Remember this from Chapter 4?

   “You know what retailers like that are selling?” McCarthy said. “And getting a fortune for? Those goddam silver belt buckles from New Mexico that the Indians make. Those goddam tourist trash pieces, all alike. Supposedly native art.”
   For a long time Frink regarded McCarthy. “I know what else they sell,” he said finally. “And so do you.”
   “Yes,” McCarthy said.
   They both knew — because they had both been directly involved, and for a long time.
   W-M Corporation’s stated legal business consisted in turning out wrought-iron staircases, railings, fireplaces, and ornaments for new apartment buildings, all on a mass basis, from standard designs. For a new forty-unit building the same piece would be executed forty times in a row. Ostensibly, W-M Corporation was an iron foundry. But in addition, it maintained another business from which its real profits were derived.
   Using an elaborate variety of tools, materials, and machines, W-M Corporation turned out a constant flow of forgeries of pre-war American artifacts. These forgeries were cautiously but expertly fed into the wholesale art object market, to join the genuine objects collected throughout the continent. As in the stamp and coin business, no one could possibly estimate the percentage of forgeries in circulation. And no one — especially the dealers and the collectors themselves — wanted to.

10. Thanks for the comprehensive reply. I remember the ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ theft from the PD and also, Hitchock’s ‘Rear Window’.

11. There’s an explanation of the United States public domain status for “Of Withered Apples” at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Of_Withered_Apples.djvu. It’s one of two scanned stories I see listed at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Philip_K._Dick which haven’t been proofread and made into text versions at Wikisource. You might need a browser plugin to see the .djvu file but the file information will definitely be readable without needing any sort of plugin.

    Wikisource can always use more proofreaders and there is plenty of material from many authors and sources to choose from for anyone considering helping out.

12. Jesse, this is terrific and exciting work, thank you. And I’m especially enjoying the pdfs of PD stories by other luminaries too, such as Kuttner and Bradbury. I do have one query and it’s on the Collier classic – are you sure it’s in the public domain? It was printed in the ‘Atlantic Monthly’ in October ’40. I never though to see it slip into the PD, though your version if from ‘Famous Fantastic Mysteries’.

    I remember being a daily visitor to Project Gutenberg when Greg Weeks was releasing a slew of marvellous fiction from the pulps.

    Another question is – you asked for the table of contents for some magazines but not the stories, but isn’t it the copyright of that first printing that has to be renewed – whereas reprintings of the tales can be copyrighted by the editorial work done on it?

    I had a look and will keep doing so for the magazine list you’ve posted up. Some of them – the shipping cost dwarfs the cost of the magazine costing about £18 (roughly $30). Will be visiting some second hand bookshops in the next few weeks and will have your list handy. By the way, one of the members of the pulp magazines group suggested creating a Project Holy Grail – where members can contribute some loose dollars to get rarities – these issues and others, like early ‘Weird Tales’ might just be perfect for such a project.

    Keep up the brilliant work.

13. Jesse,

    “Thus I Refute Beelzy” did have its copyright renewed. I hate trying to research renewals on anything first published before 1952 for various reasons but this seemed important enough to check for renewal confirmation.

    John Collier (A); 13Dec67; R424426. Thus I refute Beelzy. (In The Atlantic monthly, Oct. 1940) 19Sep40; B469580. John Collier �(A); 18Oct67; R420026.

    I strongly advise you to take the story off your site ASAP and to have someone highly knowledgeable verify your research for anything possibly uncertain. Perhaps Greg Weeks? I recognize him as perhaps the only knowledgeable and reasonable participant in a discussion elsewhere. In fact, I’d like to discuss some matters with Greg Weeks regarding the PG-Bear/Anderson dispute. If you know him, please inform him of this but don’t give him this email address if he is interested in discussing that situation. I’ll privately inform you of a different email address he can use. This address is apparently known to one or more people who sometimes target it with spam, email not from who it purports to be from and possibly email with links to malicious code after I speak publicly about certain subjects.

    Bobby Johnson,

    General disclaimer/reminder that I’m just someone participating in a public discussion. I’m not a lawyer, not offering legal advice, blah, blah, blah and what I write may be incorrect, incomplete or otherwise problematic. And I’m making assuptions about time periods and the applicable law.

    A simplified response to your question is that the copyright of the original publication of a work needed to be properly renewed to to maintain copyright protection. Editorial revisions, compilations and such *may* qualify works as derivative works protectable by a different copyright but that copyright doesn’t restore any copyright claims in the public domain parts or alter the copyright of the original work if the original work is protected by copyright. E.g., if a story is copyrighted and later expanded into a novel these will be two different works protected by different copyright claims assuming both are protected by copyright. This is why it is safest to use the original publication of a public domain work rather than a reprint to be certain the reprint isn’t a derivative work rather than a true reprint. IIRC, the Public Domain Sherpa covers this well in the appropriate section of a tutorial.

    You should be able to locate the Public Domain Sherpa’s URL with a search engine though suppression of displaying search engine results has become a major problem due to bogus complaints of results being links to something that infringes copyright and unreasonable compliance with this sort of search result link takedown by search engine owners. From some studies and other reports I’ve read recently, I suspect somewhere above a third of current “link takedown” requests to Google and Yahoo/Bing are felony violations of anti-trust laws and often have nothing to do with copyright except as the pretext for unlawful anti-competitive acts. A disturbing trend that I hope *many* people will complain about to the Federal Trade Commission.

    I think Jesse is primarily interested in magazine Table Of Contents/copyright pages for documentation purposes.

    Returning to your question, the Copyright Office doesn’t give legal advice but felt able to write this a few years ago. (I think White Collar Crime is actually the appropriate FBI division/section/whatever to report the type of fraud I asked about though AFAIK the FBI has no interest in investigating or prosecuting such fraud.)

    Copyright is a federal law, so you can report such fraud and abuse to the FBI. For additional information, see http://www.fbi.gov/ipr/ .

    However, works in the public domain can be freely used by anyone because they are no longer under copyright protection. This means that if you add something to a public domain work, you can file a copyright claim in only what you added to the PD work and the claim can only be in what was added, never in the PD work itself.

    Thank you.
    cfk

    >>> 9/12/2009 8:38 PM >>>
    [Name]:
    David Keller

    [Question]:
    Where can the public report apparently fraudulent copyright registration of works in the public domain and use of such copyright claims to commit fraud?

    Submitted at 20:38 on 9/12/09.

14. The renewal citation above accidentally included a line from the previous entry. It should be:

    Thus I refute Beelzy. (In The
    Atlantic monthly, Oct. 1940)
    © 19Sep40; B469580. John Collier
    (A); 18Oct67; R420026.

15. Hmmmm… the copyright page of ”Out of This World”, edited by Julius Fast, gives 1931 as the copyright year for Thus I Refute Beelzy.

    But I don’t have a copy of the Atlantic Monthly publication.

    I’d be interested to see a scan of it.

    And I don’t have any contact with Gregg Weeks, sorry.

16. http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?76253
    Bibliography: Thus I Refute Beelzy

    Note: According to Contento, this story first appeared in ”Atlantic Monthly” in October 1940, but the copyright page of ”Out of This World”, ed. Julius Fast, gives 1931 as the copyright year.

    I was glancing at Famous Fantastic Mysteries Combined with Fantastic Novels Magazine, October 1952 recently and that credited Atlantic Monthly 1940 as does everything I’ve found online. Indeed it was an online scan of FFMCwFNM, Oct. 1952’s TOC that reminded me of this as the Collier story was filler for an issue that otherwise consisted of a Sax Rhomer novel reprint and maybe some nonfiction pages. Also, “Thus I Refute Beezly” has an amazing reprint history in collections and anthologies but none of the entries I’ve spotted are pre-1940. Where does Out of This World say “Thus I Refute Beelzy” was published in 1931?

    http://magawiki.com/1703/atlantic-monthly/1940-10-2/ isn’t a TOC scan but the list of the TOC is very interesting and a great context reminder for the times and society. Not that I personally remember 1940. Though a while ago I picked up a 1969 issue of U.S. News & World Report and I remember that year pretty well but was surprised by some of the current events in the same week’s issue so that had a lot of contextual interest and even nostalgia for me. Biggest surprise was that Ho Chi Min had died the previous week. If someone had asked me when Uncle Ho died I would have geussed 1970.

17. Jesse, could you pass on my e-mail address to David or link him to the pulp preservation group where you posted your request for the PKD table of contents, Greg is a regular there and is always happy to answer any queries.

18. I try to stop in here every now and then too. Not every day. I do check the emails from the pulp group daily.

    There are two more PKD works I’m working on for PG. I don’t have my notes available right now to check which ones.

    Another thing to keep in mind with renewals, is a renewal for a later publication may be valid against an earlier publication if it’s in the time window allowed for the eralier publication. The Anderson works that were removed from PG were removed for that reason. It’s not a guarantee that copyright is still in force, but figuring the window is difficult and even judges have gotten it wrong.

19. I’m not familiar with the pulp preservation group unless I have some vague knowledge of it by a more formal name.

    Greg,

    I don’t know why the Anderson works were removed from PG or whether that really has anything more to do with law than avoiding the destructive power of even the most frivilous litigation. I don’t understand your statement “a renewal for a later publication may be valid against an earlier publication if it’s in the time window allowed for the eralier publication”. Can you give me citations to the law(s) and/or your other sources of information?

20. If the renewal filing for the second publication falls within the 28 year window required for a renewal of the first publication the court is likely to consider the first publication as renewed. Figuring the window is error prone and the way it is figured changed a couple of times. PG does not want to get into trying to decide if the renewal is timely or not. The Anderson works removed had publications by Anderson in the following year that were renewed. No one at PG wanted to calculate the window and try to use that as an argument.

21. This is from some incomplete draft notes I started over a week ago. No doubt the scribblings I paste in with be embarrassingly disjointed, poorly phrased, omit things that should be included and so on but at least I’ll have made some response. BTW, justia may be a more convenient source of the United States Code than findlaw when historical notes and revisions are important. It may just seem that way because I happened to use justia today.

    A reminder to readers this is not legal advice. If you want that you should become wealthy and buy it from a lawyer. Also, that Greg’s reference to “the 28 year window” for copyright renewal doesn’t refer to a 28 year long window during which a valid renewal could have been made. It refers to a one year period at the end of the 28 year period initial copyright existed during which renewal could be made (actually it’s a bit more complicated than I’ve just stated). Greg can correct me if I’ve misstated his meaning.

    “If the renewal filing for the second publication falls within the 28 year window required for a renewal of the first publication the court is likely to consider the first publication as renewed.”

    Greg,

    You give no citations to any statutory or case law. This is contrary to the relevant codes, regulations, legislative history and judicial precedent I’m aware of. Excepting historical precedent for a great deal of gullibility, ignorance, sophistry, aberration, corruption, historical revision and such in all areas of political/legal matters, of course. I am ignoring the “restoration” of copyright in some foreign works bullshit as it’s not relevant to these authors. Also, the odd renewal of copyright “registrations” for works that were copyrighted but not registered as the timely period for that has passed and it goes against your statement anyway; I expect you’ve run across instances of that in your research but don’t know if you’ve recognized what was done or looked into the basis and process of it. I think that would be/or have been in Chapter 4 of 17 USC. IIRC, both Dick and Anderson (shorthand for whoever actually handled their renewals) failed to use this process to renew some contributions in periodicals where other authors did make renewals for their contributions in this manner.

    Honestly, all I’m seeing of legal signifcance is that PG’s decision seems to be based on intimidation due to the high costs of litigation, especially if appeals are made or necessary and uncertainty about possible court decisons that may or may not be due to doubt about whether courts will rule incorrectly. Besides the lack of citations there isn’t a quote of what the unnamed attorney actually said to Greg Newby (or whoever) at Project Gutenberg. Perhaps I’m thick as a brick but I still don’t understand the statement and its basis.

    Admittedly, I don’t have the resources or time to do proper legal research and case law is probably the area I’m weakest in resources to research. Still, first publication is what matters. Republication of a work first published (with exception of unauthorized publication) doesn’t doesn’t mean squat other than in nature/composition of derivative works and/or contract disputes and courts have addressed the related issue(s) repeatedly.

    I do know there have been changes in how that renewal window is calculated. 28th year based on exact date of first publication to 28th year based on calender year of first publication comes to mind immediately. Plus there are some matters that could have allowed a renewal outside the strict timelines and requirements that normally apply/applied. E.g., the Copyright Office, which is a Legislative branch administrative agency, has used its delegated powers to create a regulation for implementation of 17 USC 709 that gives it discretion to accept slightly late applications as valid when the lateness is due to things like storms delaying mail delivery. Think a month was the maximum extension Congress authorized though I’d have to look that up. 37 CFR 201.8 (Disruption of postal or other transportation or communication services) is where this regulation is currently located. I don’t know where dispositions would be found or have time to look for such information now. I did find some for the USC that go back as far as matters for our purposes.

    The only Anderson work I know of that PG removed was the first part of “The Escape” published in 1953 with copyright notice in the final issue of Space Science Fiction. Nobody claims it was unauthorized, by the time 1953 works were eligible for renewal calculations relevant to renewals of works published in the year were based on calendar years, the Brainwave registration doesn’t even allude to prexisting material (which it properly should) though the few pages which I’ve compared of the two works are *almost* identical. But that is a largely irrelevant digression. These are seperate works with seperate copyrights, timely renewal of the registration for the published part of “The Escape” would have protected the copyright of that pre-existing material in Brain Wave quite straightforwardly as both are by the same author and Brainwave is a derivate work from a legal standpoint but not the additional material. Renewal of the Brain Wave copyright did not renew the seperate and earlier copyright for the published part of “The Escape” or restore copyright protection to that material which had entered the public domain. There is not even an applicable registration fee saving provision of law that would have allowed the two works to have their registrations renewed in the same registration application. And one thing the Copyright Office takes very seriously about registration requirements and rejection of applications or cancellation of registrations made in error it is the payment of the required fee(s). From the records realistically available to me it isn’t even definitely possible for me to determine whether an original or renewal registration application for the published part of “The Escape” was rejected or was accepted in error and subsequently cancelled. It may be possible to determine this from some Copyright Office documents I don’t have realistic access to. Note that some of the PKD stories in the public domain were improperly included in a group renewal application which Jesse has posted a scan of on this site and after C.O. correspondence with PKD’s agent they were deleted from the application allowing the amended application to be processed and accepted for the other stories included in the application. That can’t be determined from the registration in the Copyright Office Catalog online which only shows what registrations were renewed. I think it is notable that those contributions would probably not have been rejected if they hadn’t stated the true dates of first publication which were not in the same calendar year as the accepted works on the registration. Same calendar year of first publication being one of the requirements for the fee saving group renewal of contributions to serial works. In this context, serial works refers to periodicals such as magazines published in serial form and I note that individual issues are individually copyrighted and registered with renewal registrations of magazine issues not acting as blanket registrations for all the components. This is a bit of an oversimplification but I hope it will clear some confusion I’ve seen about the meaning of “serial”, “serialization” and related terms in different contexts.

    I intended to include parts of the notes for 17 USC 101 and 102 below as well as the notes for section 103. Also sections from other parts of Title 17 with Historical and Revision notes; such as the material at http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2010/title17/chap4/sec410/. Conveniently they are both public domain and evidence of Congressional intent. You can click on the links to them at the section pages of the current code. I would like to emphasize this statement in the notes for 103:

    Section 103(b) is also intended to define, more sharply and clearly than does section 7 of the present law [section 7 of former title 17], the important interrelationship and correlation between protection of preexisting and of “new” material in a particular work. The most important point here is one that is commonly misunderstood today: copyright in a “new version” covers only the material added by the later author, and has no effect one way or the other on the copyright or public domain status of the preexisting material.

    17 USC 101
    Except as otherwise provided in this title, as used in this title, the following terms and their variant forms mean the following:
    [snip]
    A “collective work” is a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology, or encyclopedia, in which a number of contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole.
    A “compilation” is a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. The term “compilation” includes collective works.
    [snip]
    “Copies” are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term “copies” includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed.
    [snip]
    A work is “created” when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time; where a work is prepared over a period of time, the portion of it that has been fixed at any particular time constitutes the work as of that time, and where the work has been prepared in different versions, each version constitutes a separate work.
    A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.
    [snip]
    A work is “fixed” in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. A work consisting of sounds, images, or both, that are being transmitted, is “fixed” for purposes of this title if a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission.
    http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/17/1/101

    17USC 102
    (a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:
    (1) literary works;
    (2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
    (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
    (4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
    (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
    (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
    (7) sound recordings; and
    (8) architectural works.
    (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
    http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/17/1/102

    17 USC 103
    (a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully.
    (b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any
    copyright protection in the preexisting material.
    http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/17/1/103

    (Pub. L. 94-553, title I, Sec. 101, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2545.)
    HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES
    HOUSE REPORT NO. 94-1476
    Section 103 complements section 102: A compilation or derivative work is copyrightable if it represents an “original work of authorship” and falls within one or more of the categories listed in section 102. Read together, the two sections make plain that the criteria of copyrightable subject matter stated in section 102 apply with full force to works that are entirely original and to those containing preexisting material. Section 103(b) is also intended to define, more sharply and clearly than does section 7 of the present law [section 7 of former title 17], the important interrelationship and correlation between protection of preexisting and of “new” material in a particular work. The most important
    point here is one that is commonly misunderstood today: copyright in a “new version” covers only the material added by the later author, and has no effect one way or the other on the copyright or public domain status of the preexisting material. Between them the terms “compilations” and “derivative works” which are defined in section 101 comprehend every copyrightable work that employs preexisting material or data of any kind. There is necessarily some overlapping between the two, but they basically represent different concepts. A “compilation” results from a process of selecting, bringing together, organizing, and arranging
    previously existing material of all kinds, regardless of whether the individual items in the material have been or ever could have been subject to copyright. A “derivative work,” on the other hand, requires a process of recasting, transforming, or adapting “one or more preexisting works”; the “preexisting work” must come within the general subject matter of copyright set forth in section 102, regardless of whether it is or was ever copyrighted.
    The second part of the sentence that makes up section 103(a) deals with the status of a compilation or derivative work unlawfully employing preexisting copyrighted material. In providing that protection does not extend to “any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully,” the bill prevents an infringer from benefiting, through copyright protection, from committing an unlawful act, but preserves protection for those parts of the work that do not employ the preexisting work. Thus, an unauthorized translation of a novel could not be copyrighted at all, but the owner of copyright in an anthology of poetry could sue someone who infringed the whole anthology, even though the infringer proves that publication of one of the poems was unauthorized. Under this provision, copyright could be obtained as long as the use of the preexisting work was not “unlawful,” even though the consent of the copyright owner had not been obtained. For instance, the unauthorized reproduction of a work might be “lawful” under the doctrine of fair use or an applicable foreign law, and if so the work incorporating it could be copyrighted.
    http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/17/1/103/notes

    This is from the same Notepad document though I’m not sure where I intended to use it:

    17 U.S.C. 709

    (c) Circumstances under which a registration will be cancelled. (1) Where the Copyright Office becomes aware after registration that a work is not copyrightable, either because the authorship is de minimis or the work does not contain authorship subject to copyright, the registration will be cancelled. The copyright claimant will be notified by correspondence of the proposed cancellation and the reasons therefor, and be given 30 days, from the date the Copyright Office letter is mailed, to show cause in writing why the cancellation should not be made. If the claimant fails to respond within the 30 day period, or if the Office after considering the response, determines that the registration was made in error and not in accordance with title 17 U.S.C., Chapters 1 through 8, the registration will be cancelled.
    ==============
    (e) Except as provided by section 706(b) and the regulations issued thereunder, all actions taken by the Register of Copyrights under this title are subject to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act of June 11, 1946, as amended (c. 324, 60 Stat. 237, title 5, United States Code, Chapter 5, Subchapter II and Chapter 7).

22. David,

    With regards to the 28 year window, yes I meant a 1 year window in the 28th year. Unfortunately how this window is calculated changed several times. PG is a belt and suspenders conservative organization. They don’t want to get into how the window is calculated at all. Their rule 6 gives a windows required for the searches that is wide enough to cover all possible ways it was calculated as well as the margin the the copyright office allow. The current rule is published+28-2 through published+28+2 and anything that was renewed in that window is considered renewed for purposes of their clearance process. If this doesn’t allow some material that is actually in the public domain they don’t care as long as it insures that anything that did actually renew is caught.

    Your reading of the statute follows mine. I was never able to directly correspond with PG’s lawyer and never got any case cites. I did ask for them, but as I wasn’t the person directly corresponding and the lawyer was doing the work pro bono it didn’t surprise me that I didn’t get any. The description I gave is my attempt to explain the pieces of correspondence I was copied on, as well as description Greg Newby gave to questions I asked. I could easily have it wrong.

    The two places I argued with the Anderson estate people were:

    http://ereads.com/2010/11/project-gutenberg-improperly-pdd-copyrighted-works-authors-claim.html

    and

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/?p=3025

    I eventually gave up and told them to go talk to their own lawyer. This was all after PG had pulled “The Escape” as well.

    You are welcome to try to make any sense out of their arguments.

23. Greg,

    I understand why PG would take such a conservative stand given the astounding cost of copyright litigation. Most of us err on the side of caution. It was the statement about what courts would likely decide that I didn’t understand a basis for and that open letter from Greg Newby at http://cand.pglaf.org/bear-response.txt where he seems to be saying PG’s determination of copyright status was an error of law, not an error of defensive strategy. That letter is creating confusion and having a chilling effect on many people who are a little less risk averse (probably because they aren’t risking as much) but are concerned about staying within the law.

    I’ve read the comments and arguments at both places you provided links to fairly recently and have not been able to make sense of the arguments of the Anderson estate people (if they all are part of the estate) but couldn’t tell if there was something unstated that did make sense. Except in the 800 pound gorilla sense, of course. I think I was lead to those web pages by a discussion on a Librivox forum.

    Thanks for the additional information. BTW, the Copyright Office has a Federal Register Notice or two open for comment that you might want to look at and comment on. Also, I have a lot of PKD-specific bibliographic material and may be able to look some things up for you if you are still working on a couple of his stories and you’d like to know what something you don’t have says. Phil Stevensen-Payne of Galactic Central has informed me the Galactic Central bibliographies are still available as POD. If necessary you can contact him directly as Amazon or whoever doesn’t always show them as available. He’s not sure if they are still available through Chris Drumm who he hasn’t been in touch with for years.

    Also, I may be able to provide scans for some US public domain material by various authors. If you find some things that are PD but don’t have a source for the original publication to scan or reference put up a list and I may be able to help. Fair warning that I’m very slow about that sort of thing and will want to see the evidence that they are PD.

    Most of the federal court records available from the federal PACER system (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) for The MRC II Distribution Company LP et al v. Laura Archer Dick Coelho et al are currently collected at

    http://www.mediafire.com/?iaazn73ii1l86c2
    http://www.mediafire.com/?6kcxxrib5ykekrc

    and all the documents from the 2011 case are going to be reuploaded to an archive to replace one lost in the megaupload takedown. This is more convenient than getting them from PACER but the links are temporary. Mindnumbingly fascinating reading.

    Many thanks for your work with Project Gutenberg.

    And many thanks to Jesse for all his work here at sffaudio.

24. I’m curious about something. I’ve read before that Phil Dick had throughout the course of his career extraordinary difficulty publishing in Astounding/Analog. He seems to have squeezed one by John Campbell in 1953 (“Imposter”), but until Campbell’s death that appears to be his ONLY story to appear in that particular publication. My question is: why? What was Campbell’s problem with Dick’s stories? Can anyone give me a clue?

25. Very useful and well researched information for what I checked so far. As an old K Dick fan I really do appreciate

26. Does anyone have document 40 and 41? That should be the last bit of information we get. I suspect it just says that the case is dismissed with no determination of copyright status.

27. Greg Weeks,

    Perhaps you and/or some other people can chime in articulately and helpfully in the discussions at the links below about the nature of a PCW registration renewal for a periodical and the meaning and effect of such a renewal on the copyright status and ownership of individual contributions to the periodical whose copyrights weren’t renewed. The people arguing that “Small Town” and “Time Pawn” aren’t public domain agree that Copyright Registration Renewal RE0000190631’s entries for stories of those names are bogus and didn’t renew copyright protection/monopoly of the stories for PKD’s heirs but then go off on some odd claims that the periodical PCW renewals somehow created exclusive copyright ownership of PKD’s contributions for the periodical publishers or their “heirs”. [This claim seems to be something that some publishers unsuccessfully argued at some time under the 1909 Copyright Act but was rejected by the courts long before the 1976 Copyright Act.]

    The Wikimedia projects are biased towards the idea that somebody should, may or does own an exclusive copyright or some other sort of monopoly on all expression and reflexive censorship trumps solid research and analysis or discussion of the issues involved in any “possible copyright violations”. The Wikimedia projects are also biased against discussing deletion and some other disputes in reasonably public forums and decisions are frequently made in shadowy places without disinterested or knowledgeable input. Time to let a little sunshine in.

    wikisorcery.wordpress.com/ 2013/ 04/ 02/ the-internal-cost-of-copyright-illiteracy/

    en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations

    The blog author, who apparently hasn’t looked at relevant bibliographies, does suggest in the blog post that the imaginary 1955 “Time Pawn” listed in RE0000190631 is a later version and has this to say: ” A later version of “Time Pawn” (published in Startling Stories, Summer 1955) appears to have been renewed as well, under RE0000190631 in 1983 by Dick’s children. This may or may not be relevant; a court could declare it close enough.” I imagine this is a sign of the damage Greg Bear’s well-publicized misinformation continues to cause.

28. oh quibble kibble klapper flapper drapple….stop all this nonsense and get to reading pkd. i dare to think some of you here typing longwindedly maybe newer ( or if with gray hair) older versions of the man himself..dare i say it… yes i dare…DERRUFO

29. Nonsense?

    I suggest you read this for some insight on what PKD’s opinion might have been.

    How to Build a Universe: Philip K. Dick on Reality, Media Manipulation, and Human Heroism by Maria Popova

    http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2013/09/06/how-to-build-a-universe-philip-k-dick/

30. Jesse,

    Your OTOC link for Jon’s World is to a scan from a 1958 reprint of Time To Come. I’m emailing you scans from the 1954 first publication of Time To Come.

31. Hi Jesse, I’ve been gorging on the PD scans for the last week, thanks a lot.

    Just two requests:
    The Sheckley story ‘Ultimatum’ is offline and isn’t downloading….

    Also, are you still adding titles and if so, would it be possible to flag them up as “new additions”, otherwise they might be missed and maybe a mention on the pulp scans group too with the new or reawakened titles would bring traffic that would appreciate them.

32. Hi Sam,

    I’ll fix the link to the Sheckley story – Yes, I am still adding titles, usually several per week – I’ve considered the problem of updating and letting people know of updates and unfortunately the best I could come up with (time wise) is posting the new links and titles on Twitter (@sffaudio is my username and I use the hash tag #PUBLICDOMAIN with those tweets.

33. Did You Ever Reach For The Glued-Down Penney?
    The same old trick and it’s not funny.

    After all these years, has the Philip K. Dick Testamentary Trust ever made any public statements concerning the discrepancies between the entries in Copyright Renewal RE0000190631 and the entries in bibliographies of Philip K. Dick’s published works? Has the “Trust” ever claimed an ability to document the publication claims stated in RE0000190631?