Pure Copyfraud: Anne Frank Foundation Trying To Pretend Her Father Wrote Her Diary... To Extend Its Copyright
from the copyright-term-stupidity dept
Quick: who is the author of the famous Diary of Anne Frank? If you said "Anne Frank" you'd be correct -- but thanks to copyright law, the Foundation that holds the copyright on the book is now trying to add her father's name as a co-author, all because of copyright law.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.Of course, there are some problems with this, including the fact that in the original publication of the diary, Otto Frank wrote a prologue insisting that the entire diary was written by his late daughter. The Anne Frank Fonds organization in Basel Switzerland currently holds the copyright, but the Anne Frank House Museum in Amsterdam -- which is a totally separate organization -- had been relying on the upcoming expectation that the book would move back into the public domain to apparently create a public version of the diary.
The museum has been working for five years with historians and researchers on an elaborate web version of the diary intended for publication once the copyright expires. The research is still progressing with a historical and textual analysis of her writing, including deletions, corrections and stains.Meaning, the two organizations connected to Anne Frank's legacy may end up in court sparring over the copyright on the diary.
Which, you know, should at least raise the following question: who in their right mind thinks that copyright was the "incentive" necessary for Anne Frank to write her diary? I'm sure that the revenue from the sales on the book have been quite good to the foundation, and I'll even assume the foundation has done good things with that money in Frank's memory. But that doesn't justify gaming the system to keep the work out of the public domain, where it is likely to do even more good.
Even more to the point: Otto Frank had over 20 years to claim that he was a co-author. And he did not. It's already somewhat questionable that we extend copyright after death, but to enable an organization to claim that someone else has had a copyright in a work decades after his death when he did nothing during his own life to claim it seems exceptionally questionable.
One of Anne’s own astute diary entries seemed to anticipate the disputes: “Why do grown-ups quarrel so easily?”In this case, the answer is: "because of screwed up copyright law and, of course, lots and lots and lots of money."
Of course, the folks who run the foundation are pulling out bogus arguments about protecting Anne. Because they're liars.
The foundation’s officials said that their aim is to “make sure that Anne Frank stays Anne,” Mr. Kugelmann said, by maintaining control and avoiding inappropriate exploitation of the work. “When she died, she was a young girl who was not even 16. We are protecting her. That is our task.”Except that's not the purpose of copyright law. And, at some point the book is going into the public domain no matter what. So what is he really "protecting"? The only thing that this protects is the money. That's it.
Critics, he said, are wrongly looking at the intended change as a financial matter. “It is not about the money,” he said.
Oh, and in the meantime, none of this really matters, because as the link above notes, in 1991, an editor named Mirjam Pressler "revised, edited and added 25 percent more material from Anne Frank's diary for what was called a 'definitive edition'." And, amazingly, Pressler was given the copyright on that edition, which she then transferred to the foundation. As the report notes, Pressler is still alive, and thus the Foundation will retain the copyright on that larger edition at least until 70 years after Pressler passes away.
And, of course, since that misleadingly titled "definitive edition" in 1991, additional content has been released as well. In 2001 some extra pages were published. Apparently, those were subject to something of a copyright fight as well -- with the Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation claiming to hold the rights to them and the same Anne Frank Fonds organization claiming that it was "absolutely illegal" for Otto Frank's friend to share the pages with an author. Eventually that fight was settled when a $300,000 donation was made.
And, of course, even more recently, the same foundation apparently released a fully "unedited" version that put back in a bunch of the stuff that had been cut out of all previous versions (which some deemed to be scandalous). Of course, as an unedited version, there shouldn't be any claim to a separate author -- so in theory that complete version should be entering the public domain in many countries in just a couple months. Of course, here in the US, where we keep extending copyright terms, we've got to wait longer anyway. Because, again, without that, why would there be any incentive at all for her to have written her diary...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anne frank, copyfraud, copyright, copyright terms, diary of anne frank, otto frank
Companies: anne frank fonds, anne frank house museum
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd rephrase that question: who is going to get money at the expense of a girl that did what other girls do and died horribly as a victim while denying the public of this cultural wealth?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...and now she's 70 years dead. Hate to break it to you, Mr. Kugelmann, but if there's anyone out there with the desire and the means to harm her, she needs protection that a lawyer or an administrator can't provide. And if there isn't, then you're full of crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So you see, children, infinite copyright has a good purpose after all. Let us humbly submit to our maximalist overlords and allow them to decide what we can or cannot read (or watch), however dearly a departed individual's memory is considered to be.
/Sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but it's already expired
The copyright has already expired in countries with death plus fifty copyright terms. I for one would love to see someone in Canada challenge this rights grab.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: but it's already expired
Pay attention when they screw you over. The next screwover with a general life+70 provision is on the way in the form of a "trade agreement", with the ground already prepared by the current extension.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: but it's already expired
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Creative or Not Creative Censorship...That Is The Question
Seems to me that the first two edits were selective censorship rather than actual, you know, editing. Apparently the first edit was not considered creative censorship while the second edit WAS considered creative censorship and awarded a new copyright, while ignoring that the complete, uncensored work already had a copyright on everything that was released in that newly creatively censored release. Or does the EU think that the unedited version gets no copyright because it was not released in its totality?
Somebody is quantumly confused, and it might be me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, basically, he's admitting they are looking for any means to maintain control. And artificially extending the copyright does just that. It does not, however, contribute in any way to make sure that "Anne stays Anne". It merely locks up the book behind a (pay)wall.
When the book is elevated to the public domain on the other hand, it would finally allow the entire world to discover the story from the "Achterhuis". Free and without restrictions (or pricetag).
I'm pretty sure I know what Anne would have wanted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why do you hate dead people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spelling error in article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Big pharma patent evergreening reaches copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright should end at the author's death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright should end at the author's death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright should end at the author's death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright should end at the author's death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright should end at the author's death.
A flat 50 years would be my preference. That way the stuff made when you were in high school would enter the public domain around your retirement age. And any author still making stuff before his own retirement age would still be getting royalties during his lifetime (assuming his works are in the tiny percentage of works that anyone even cares about 50 years later.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copywrong
Just so you know, That sentence made my stomach turn. :/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just change to the next gold mine
Trademark prior art on this sucker, and Ms Franck did not die in vain but can continue feeding the vultures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let is stop
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Enough is enough... it's History; Our common heritage -- No One should control it
It's ridiculous that we, as a society, are willing to concede that some private individual or corporation can essentially "own the rights to" and exercise control over public experience and to the very stuff of the historical record.
This needs to stop. Really! It Needs To Stop! It's Insane... Perhaps, between this case and the MLK documents, we can begin to consider applying a little common sense over the farcical legal framework that's grown up to wall us off from direct, simple access to our own common heritage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. Kugelmann
So says Mr. Kugelmann, bound for the fourth circle of Hell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's in a name?
Who didn't see it coming that mr Bulletman is protecting the heritage of a war victim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so anyone expecting to print the book without paying Mr Kugelmann is a ped o phile
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OK, let's extend that logic.
Ok. Hitler's "Mein Kampf" was actually put to paper by Rudolf Heß who died in 1987. So lets take some right-wing successor organization like the NPD and claim that Heß should be considered co-author of "Mein Kampf" and they'll secure ongoing copyright in his interest because their aim is to make sure that Hitler stays Hitler, by maintaining control and avoiding inappropriate exploitation of the work.
Who would stand for that kind of gigantic revisionist clusterfuck?
By the way, this kind of greedy legalistic corporate entitlement was what the early 20th century antisemitism in Europe particularly rode on since it was what people associated with "typically Jewish" professions. While there was lots of other propaganda bordering on wild fantasies (like an organized "Jewish World Conspiracy", a "protocol of the sages of Zion", lots of stuff about lewdness towards "good girls", racial fables and so on), the general resentment of the ordinary citizen that made it even possible to swallow all that poison was based about misgivings on the legal and financial professions, perceived as being mainly under Jewish control, spiraling out of control and good sense.
And while we seem to be over pinning the blame on a particular religion (admittedly, Muslim extremists do seem to pin it to Western nations with some success in convincing a percentage of their brethren sufficient for actually causing some damage), the same crap with legal and financial professions spiraling out of control and good sense is happening again, and the Anne Frank foundation seems to enjoy being at the forefront.
And frankly: if you take a look at how stuff like TTIP is force-fed to nominally democratic nations out of corporate interests, "World Conspiracy" seems like a pretty apt description.
So it would be quite a good idea to have both "Mein Kampf" and Anne Frank's diary publicly available so that people have a better chance to recognize the road we are on again and see where it is leading and how.
Before hundreds of millions of scapegoats have to die again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My other thought is that we shouldn't be reading someone else's diary in the first place. This is why I never kept a diary as a kid. There was a 100% chance that a parent or sibling would at some point read it, and apparently a nonzero chance it would be published and become required reading for children everywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]