3

In the spring of 2005, a professor handed me a copy of his newest textbook. As I browsed it, I was surprised that the copyright notice had 2006 (the next year) rather than 2005 (the current year).

I assumed it was an advance copy, but I was wrong. The professor informed me it was already for sale and shipping, and that a couple college courses were going to start using it the fall of 2005.

I asked specifically why the copyright notice claimed 2006. He shrugged and said something to the effect of "that's how the publishers always do it."

I know that the Berne Copyright Convention eliminates the requirement for a copyright notice, but are there implications of a future date if there is one?

My understanding is that works fall into the public domain on January 1 after the term of the copyright. Is it therefore normal and appropriate for a publisher to claim the copyright term begins as of the next January 1?

[Off-topic musing: If somebody published a paper in the fall of 2005 that cited something from the post-dated book, should their citation also say 2006?]

(United States)

Adrian McCarthy
  • 431
  • 2
  • 10

2 Answers2

1

The implications of a future date are complicated.

For works published on or after March 1, 1989, there are no significant implications. The duration of the copyright is determined by the year of actual publication, the year of actual creation, or the lifespan of the author, depending on the nature of the work.

For works published prior to that date, the copyright can be post-dated by up to one year without penalty; post-dating by more than that, per 17 USC 406(b), is equivalent to publishing without a copyright notice. The copyright owner can't recover damages from innocent infringers, and in many cases will void the copyright entirely.

(The reason why post-dating by a year is permitted is that publishers start printing a work in advance of it going on sale to build up a stock and get it distributed. Inevitably, accidents will happen resulting in copies being sold too soon.)

Mark
  • 6,722
  • 32
  • 51
0

There might be two copyrights at issue, the publisher's copyright and the author's copyright. The author's copyright is effective when the work is created (written). The publisher almost always gains some copyright over the visual aspect of the work, and that copyright is effective when the final book "is created", let's say when it is printed. The publisher has to guess when the final book will actually be created, and we can generally say that that is when final copy is sent to press. Hence the possibility of an ambiguous copyright date in the printed work, since the author does not necessarily transfer copyright to the publisher. In case of dispute, the defendant would have to establish that the text was completed at the earlier data, regardless of what is printed in the book. If the author registers copyright, he will have filled in the presumptively-correct year of completion as well as first publication.

user6726
  • 217,973
  • 11
  • 354
  • 589