Notifications
Clear all

Copyrights, Liber Al and Liber L


nigris
(@nigris)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 6
Topic starter  

93

Liber XXXI

"Alastrum" wrote:
...firstly, ownership of the manuscript does not confer ownership of copyright. Anyone can own the manuscript, but you would not be able to reproduce it without permission of the copyright holder. This most often happens with works of art: an artist will sell a painting, but often retain the copyright.

is it known who now owns or claims possession of the copyright for the manuscript, Liber XXXI?

Liber CCXX

As for copyright in Liber AL, whatever any of our own beliefs as to  the nature of the author (Crowley repeatedly denied being the author of the book), the plain fact is that a court of law would not seriously consider angelic beings as being under their jurisdiction. They would therefore consider that the copyright belongs to whoever was holding the pen when these "messages from beyond" came through. Amazingly, there is already a legal precedent for this: back in the 20's a medium was sued over copyright in an automatic writing that she had channelled. The court ruled that the copyright belonged to her.

I think you were talking about Samuel Clemens and the following law suit:

Missouri writer Emily Grant Hutchings, along with spiritualist Lola Hays, claimed to have communicated with the spirit of Mark Twain via the ouiji board in the composition of an 'after death' manuscript titled JAP HERRON. Spiritualism was all the rage, and several clairvoyant novels had been published with claims of authorship beyond the grave. In the novel Jap Herron, a young Huck Finn-like boy, who sounds like he could be a Twain character, is taken in and guided by a benevolent older couple. With their help, he becomes a successful editor of the hometown newspaper. Author Hutchings and publisher Mitchell Kennerly [sic] eventually halted publication of Jap Herron after being threatened with a lawsuit from Samuel L. Clemens' daughter."

a fascinating case. another one with L. Frank Baum also came about, but i'm unsure it ever went anywhere legal (writing Oz stories via ouija contact/automatism).

So the copyright in Liber AL belonged to Crowley. ...all his copyrights became the property of the Official Receiver upon his death, from whom the Caliphate OTO purchased them. That purchase was declared legally valid in 2002, and to be absolutely correct, they should only really date their copyright in Crowley material from that year. HOWEVER.... there is evidence that ....  the purchase of the copyrights by the Caliphate {may be} legally invalid, as they were no longer the Official Receivers to sell. As it is, the OR didn't check the records before they accepted the money: John Symonds was explicitly awarded the Crowley copyrights in the Probate of Crowley's Will in 1949. That Grant of Probate has never been legally revoked. It's clear there has been a travesty of justice: the copyrights rightfully belonged to Symonds, who later legally transferred them to Naylor, and the Caliphate obtained them in a very sneaky manner. If anyone has the money to afford a good lawyer, they can be challenged...

so what is the general consensus on who owns the copyrights for Liber CCXX, then, beyond the recent edition(s) by Hymenaeus Beta?


Quote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"nigris" wrote:
93

Liber XXXI

"Alastrum" wrote:
...firstly, ownership of the manuscript does not confer ownership of copyright. Anyone can own the manuscript, but you would not be able to reproduce it without permission of the copyright holder. This most often happens with works of art: an artist will sell a painting, but often retain the copyright.

is it known who now owns or claims possession of the copyright for the manuscript, Liber XXXI?

Liber CCXX

So the copyright in Liber AL belonged to Crowley. ...all his copyrights became the property of the Official Receiver upon his death, from whom the Caliphate OTO purchased them. That purchase was declared legally valid in 2002, and to be absolutely correct, they should only really date their copyright in Crowley material from that year. HOWEVER.... there is evidence that ....  the purchase of the copyrights by the Caliphate {may be} legally invalid, as they were no longer the Official Receivers to sell. As it is, the OR didn't check the records before they accepted the money: John Symonds was explicitly awarded the Crowley copyrights in the Probate of Crowley's Will in 1949. That Grant of Probate has never been legally revoked. It's clear there has been a travesty of justice: the copyrights rightfully belonged to Symonds, who later legally transferred them to Naylor, and the Caliphate obtained them in a very sneaky manner. If anyone has the money to afford a good lawyer, they can be challenged...

so what is the general consensus on who owns the copyrights for Liber CCXX, then, beyond the recent edition(s) by Hymenaeus Beta?

Uh, despite your last question not making much sense, you've answered your own question on your own website:

"Original text copyright (c)O.T.O."

::)


ReplyQuote
newneubergOuch2
(@newneubergouch2)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 287
 

An interesting observation which I may have brought up in the past is that the standard (Red cover) version used to just have `The Book of the Law` on the spine, now it also has `Crowley` on the spine.


ReplyQuote
Obitus
(@obitus)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 44
 

I still find it odd that the O.T.O. somehow manages to completely ignore the copyright laws that place anything published before the year 1923 into the Public Domain and get away with it. Also, there is the the whole matter of copyright expiring upon 70 years after the author's death. Can't wait to see what happens in 2017. But of course, those laws will probably be ignored as well and all sorts of claims from hired lawyers will help certain people side-step established public domain laws once again.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5795
 
"Obitus" wrote:
... to completely ignore the copyright laws that place anything published before the year 1923 into the Public Domain ...

Um, that's our olde (er, new) USA law. If something was published pre-23 in the USA, then its publick domain - in the USA.

But what if it wasn't published in the USA (say, London)?
Some countries have author's life plus 100!  - and other rules for other folks in other countries).

For example: The Blue Equinox (III-1) was published in Chicago, Illinois, USA in 1919. So it's an example of a resident in the publick domain - in the USA.

International copyright considerations are a bit tricky. See tricky wiki for many/most/all rules, but beware of citing how it will go over in court. That's why these matters have been argued before the agents of Ma'at in courts of LAW. So far, OTO keeps winning ... thus, they're not "ignoring," and they're not indulging in wishful thinking - they're winning! "Success is your proof ..."


ReplyQuote
Obitus
(@obitus)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 44
 

True Shiva, you have a point about the pre-1923 being a USA law. But on the other hand, the O.T.O. is, unless I'm completely mistaken, based in California nowadays. And here in the States, they sure as hell don't hesitate to send out cease and desist notices to anyone publishing pre-1923 Crowley material.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1072
 
"Obitus" wrote:
True Shiva, you have a point about the pre-1923 being a USA law. But on the other hand, the O.T.O. is, unless I'm completely mistaken, based in California nowadays. And here in the States, they sure as hell don't hesitate to send out cease and desist notices to anyone publishing pre-1923 Crowley material.

This contradicts what HB (as William Breeze) himself says in the introduction to The Drug and Other Stories (Wordsworth Editions, 2010 (copyright named as OTO), p. XIV):

"Wordsworth excels at affordable editions of public domain literature, but, whilst Crowley's works published before 1923 are public domain in America, in Europe the works authorised in his lifetime are in copyright through 2017, and his posthumous works through 2039."

(emphasis added)

Note that he doesn't limit the pre-1923 public domain Crowley to works, such as the Blue Equinox, which were actually published in the United States.

It would seem that anyone is free to reprint The Equinox, for instance, if they so wish, as long as it published in the US.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5795
 

OTO now holds the British copyrights to AC's work. Stuff published pre-23 in England (and not published in the USA) is still protected today by British copyright. You seem to be arguing that OTO is operating illegally. You have not paid attention to (many) other (previous) threads and the court procedings in the USA and England. You don't have to remind me of what OTO does, as I (personally) was prohibited from publishing a certain AC work. I am not a member of (c)OTO, but I have to respect their claims - when applicable. If you don't like the siuation, then just go ahead and sue them - and see what happens!

By the way, OTO bought the British copyrights from "The Queen," who was holding them in her possession - because Crowley died as an "undischarged bankrupt," and so his valuable (?) copyrights were snatched up by her agents. Most of AC's works were published in England, and OTO has flexed its muscles in US and English courts and won. Again, if you want to argue the point, feel free to sue them ... anywhere. But please stop whining about it on these forums - because most of us have seen the matter from all angles, again and again.

And yet, every so often, somebody new comes along, playing cosmic attorney, and raising the same old matter for another round.


ReplyQuote
Obitus
(@obitus)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 44
 

Hey now, I only chimed in because someone else started a thread about copyrights. I didn't bring it up. And to be clear, I'm not bothered by the OTO retaining claims to the things they clearly have legal rights to. It just irritates me when they (or anyone else) goes through every avenue possible to keep a hold on works published in the US, before 1923, in US courts of law. The Blue Equinox is a perfect case in point. Arkham House tried the same crap with Lovecraft stories published here pre-1923.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1072
 

So you are both saying that Breeze says one thing (quoted above), but does another?

He clearly says, without equivocation, that Crowley pre-1923 is public domain in America.


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1091
 

Shiva is channeling Col. Jessup...

[flash=420,315:397s7s2f] http://www.youtube.com/v/5j2F4VcBmeo[/flash:397s7s2f]


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5795
 

See how mixed up it gets? Anything that anybody says is being interpreted, misinterpreted, and confused. Since I am not a legal counselor, I rest my case. That is, I quit.

Anybody who wants to publish something should research the matter and consult their own attorney. Anyone not contemplating publication should simply relax and do something productive - rather than speculate about matters that don't pertain to them.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1072
 

How is it possible to misinterpret this statement? -

"Crowley's works published before 1923 are public domain in America."

William Breeze, 2010


ReplyQuote
Obitus
(@obitus)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 44
 

Well, if that quote means that the OTO has actually decided to lay off anyone in the US publishing and selling the public domain stuff, then I have no qualms or issues of any sort with them and I've been mistaken. However, it would be nice for them to put a public domain notice on their online texts instead of slapping a copyright notice on every last bit of it.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1072
 
"Obitus" wrote:
Well, if that quote means that the OTO has actually decided to lay off anyone in the US publishing and selling the public domain stuff, then I have no qualms or issues of any sort with them and I've been mistaken. However, it would be nice for them to put a public domain notice on their online texts instead of slapping a copyright notice on every last bit of it.

It could be that, like many people who post digital editions of texts online, OTO is relying on a little-tested aspect of copyright law, namely the degree to which "creativity" enters into the production of a digital edition of an otherwise public domain text. Things like formatting and silent corrections of typos are claimed by the producers of these digital editions to essentially constitute the text as a "new" work, which is under copyright in that form.

There used to be a site that reproduced articles from the Britannica Encyclopedia of 1911, claiming copyright over the text. The articles had deliberate typos scattered throughout, in order to prevent people from copying the text directly from the site and claiming it as public domain.

Another person who does this is Joseph Peterson at esotericarchives.com, who posts the following notice at the top of every old book he has put online -

"This HTML edition by Joseph H. Peterson, Copyright © 1998. All rights reserved.

The copyright to the Twilit Grotto Esoteric Archives is owned by Joseph H. Peterson and is protected by the copyright laws of the United States and the Universal Copyright Convention.

The materials on the Twilit Grotto Esoteric Archives (including all texts, translations, images, descriptions, drawings etc.) are provided for the personal use of students, scholars, and the public. Any commercial use or publication of them without authorization is strictly prohibited. All materials are copyrighted and are not in the public domain."

http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/grand.htm

He obviously cannot claim 18th and 19th century texts as copyrighted - what he is claiming is that the texts as he has posted them in HTML format - as well as all the other things he has done to improve the texts - constitute creativity, and are therefore subject to copyright protection in that form.


ReplyQuote
Obitus
(@obitus)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 44
 

Sacred-texts.com uses a similar trick to tell if people copy and pasted their stuff and reused it. If you pay close attention, in most of their electronic editions, the letter "m" is replaced with "rn" which looks similar at a glance. It's amazing how lazy alot of online self-publishers can be. You can spot that "typo" over and over again in crappy slapped together editions using the text from that site. The most hilarious example I've seen of it is in online versions of the Yezidi book "Al-Jilwah" which contains a phrase "four corners." However, all over the place, people retain the sacred-texts.com typo of "four comers." It's even funnier when you realize some branches of "Satanism" have actually made commentaries to the book, and interpret secret meanings into that verse, all based on the word "comers!"

Correction: I meant to say "rn" is normally replaced by "m", not the other way around.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

I don't think the "rn" is a sign of cunning website editorship, but rather of your typical ocr software being used.


ReplyQuote
Obitus
(@obitus)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 44
 

Either way, it has resulted in some funny shit. I myself do a little self-publishing, and when I grab a public domain text, I head on over to books.google.com and get a scan of an old ass copy so I can proofread and correct the typos. I wish I was making that stuff up about the "four comers" and folks actually making dogma based around it.


ReplyQuote
nigris
(@nigris)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 6
Topic starter  
"Alastrum" wrote:
...firstly, ownership of the manuscript does not confer ownership of copyright. Anyone can own the manuscript, but you would not be able to reproduce it without permission of the copyright holder. This most often happens with works of art: an artist will sell a painting, but often retain the copyright.

is it known who now owns or claims possession of the copyright for the manuscript, Liber XXXI?

I will assume until i hear otherwise that this is copyright OTO.

"N.O.X" wrote:

{megasnippage}so what is the general consensus on who owns the copyrights for Liber CCXX, then, beyond the recent edition(s) by Hymenaeus Beta?

...you've answered your own question on your own website: "Original text copyright (c)O.T.O."...

I am not the final word on any of this. I am in fact asking the question because i am attempting to most accurately reflect the most up-to-date information on copyright. thanks for your input.

I also have observed conversation and contention that the OTO does NOT attempt to defend copyrights on The Book of the Law. this strikes me as odd, and i'm curious whether there are any others who hold the same opinion. obviously the Wilkinson publishing is recent and a particular format. I think this is just a consideration of what was originally published by Crowley in the early 1900s, and will enjoy seeing additional discussion on the matter. thanks.


ReplyQuote
Mazus
(@mazus)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 98
 

There was also Greg von Seewald's Headland Press release in the last few years which was text and manuscript.  Would that be the most recent? 


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
 

Thinks: where would we all be without the cease & desist ramifications of posthumous copyright law? (Sigh!)

- Calling my lawyers,
Norma N. Joy Conquest


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2964
 
"Mazus" wrote:
There was also Greg von Seewald's Headland Press release in the last few years which was text and manuscript.  Would that be the most recent? 

It's the most recent one that I'm aware of.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5330
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
"Mazus" wrote:
There was also Greg von Seewald's Headland Press release in the last few years which was text and manuscript.  Would that be the most recent? 

It's the most recent one that I'm aware of.

That'll be this one: http://www.lashtal.com/portal/news/1403-1402-old-news.html

'Each book utilizes an original vintage 1975 e.v. 93 Publishing, Quebec, Canada, 77pp, full original book block, not a recent facsimile reprint. This renders this portion of the Book as a timeless historical Thelemic relic & collectible.'

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

A wonderful edition, although a little pricey. Will ask Greg's daughters if there are still copies available. Thanks for reminding me of this elegant edition.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2964
 
"terra_trema" wrote:
A wonderful edition, although a little pricey. Will ask Greg's daughters if there are still copies available. Thanks for reminding me of this elegant edition.

It's definitely a beautiful, "collector's" type of edition. Thanks for the link too, Paul.

I own copy number 11, and have found it to be a wonderful altar piece.


ReplyQuote
Share: