Lovecraft Copyrights - Recent Trends
Donovan K. Loucks
books (and one audio tape) by publishers other than Arkham House:
H.P. Lovecraft's Book of Horror (Barnes & Noble Books, 1993)
'Supernatural Horror in Literature' by H.P. Lovecraft. Copyright
(C) 1939, 1945 by August Derleth and Donald Wandrei. Originally
published in _The Recluse_ (1927) and _The Fantasy Fan_ (1933-35).
Reprinted by permission of the agent for the author's Estate.
The Shadow over Innsmouth (Necronomicon Press, 1994)
Published by permission of The Estate of H.P. Lovecraft, Robert C.
Harrall, Administrator
H.P. Lovecraft: A Life (Necronomicon Press, 1996)
Permission to quote portions of unpublished letters and to reproduce
drawings by H.P. Lovecraft has been granted by Robert C. Harrall,
Administrator of the Estate of H.P. Lovecraft, and the John Hay
Library, Brown University.
The Annotated H.P. Lovecraft (Dell, 1997)
Story texts copyright (C) Arkham House Publishers Inc.
The Dunwich Horror - Audio Tape (Necronomicon Press, 1997)
Produced by permission of The Estate of H.P. Lovecraft, Robert C.
Harrall, Administrator
Tales of H.P. Lovecraft (Ecco Press, 1997)
The stories in this volume have been reprinted with permission of
Robert C. Hall {sic}, administrator of the literary estate of Howard
P. Lovecraft.
More Annotated H.P. Lovecraft (Dell, 1999)
Story texts copyright (C) Arkham House Publishers Inc.
The Call of Cthulhu and Other Weird Stories (Penguin, 1999)
The stories in this volume are reprinted by arrangement with
Lovecraft Properties LLC.
Lord of a Visible World (Ohio University Press, 2000)
Permission to quote portions of letters and other documents by H.P.
Lovecraft has been granted by Robert C. Harrall, Adminstrator of the
Estate of H.P. Lovecraft.
Lovecraft Properties LLC was formed by Robert C. Harrall for the
"enforcement of literary rights." Its record in the Rhode Island
Corporations Division database may be found here:
http://155.212.254.78/corp_detail1.ASP?CORP_ID=101425
And, here's the year 2000 annual report:
http://155.212.254.78/annual_images/2000/101425.tif
I plan on posting a little more about Harrall in a few days.
-------------------
Donovan K. Loucks <webm...@hplovecraft.com>
The H.P. Lovecraft Archive: http://www.hplovecraft.com
The alt.horror.cthulhu FAQ: ftp://ftp.primenet.com/users/d/dloucks/ahc
Franklin Hummel
"Donovan K. Loucks" <webm...@hplovecraft.com> wrote in message
news:94lve0$9as$1...@nnrp1.phx.gblx.net...
> The following list demonstrates an interesting trend in recent Lovecraft
> books (and one audio tape) by publishers other than Arkham House:
As I mention in another post and from what you post here, it seems what
Arkham House has is a copyright the -specific text- which was corrected
by S.T. Joshi. The Estate of H.P. Lovecraft, administered by Robert
Harrall,
seems to own the -stories- themselves, some of which might be coming or
already be in public domain.
How is that for a clear and vague summary?
--Franklin Hummel
Gregory L. Hansen
What's the story with the little paperback Del Ray books? They're not
published by Arkham House, so I assume they must have worked out copyright
issues somehow.
--
"'No user-serviceable parts inside.' I'll be the judge of that!"
wwha...@my-deja.com
license gives Del Rey and their parent company the exclusive right to
publish Lovecraft in paperback in the US--at least for those who derive
their right to publish HPL from Arkham House. For instance, Dell, who
published the two volumes of THE ANNOTATED LOVECRAFT, is a division of
Random House, which owns Del Rey. Since Ecco Press and Penguin went the
Harrall route, they ignore Arkham. Whether this is right or not is
another matter. Best, Scott
In article <94pd72$3el$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Donovan K. Loucks
As I mention in another post and from what you post here, it seems what
Arkham House has is a copyright the -specific text- which was corrected
by S.T. Joshi. The Estate of H.P. Lovecraft, administered by Robert
Harrall, seems to own the -stories- themselves, some of which might be
coming or already be in public domain. How is that for a clear and
vague summary?
In addition, the John Hay Library of Brown University owns the original
autograph and typescript manuscripts of these stories, complicating
matters even further.
Karl Kluge
> Franklin Hummel <hum...@world.std.com> wrote,
>
> As I mention in another post and from what you post here, it seems what
> Arkham House has is a copyright the -specific text- which was corrected
> by S.T. Joshi. The Estate of H.P. Lovecraft, administered by Robert
> Harrall, seems to own the -stories- themselves, some of which might be
> coming or already be in public domain. How is that for a clear and
> vague summary?
>
> In addition, the John Hay Library of Brown University owns the original
> autograph and typescript manuscripts of these stories, complicating
> matters even further.
Well, yes and no. IANAL, but owning the physical artifacts conveys no
interest in the copyright to the text on the paper. Now, you sign what
is effectively a contract with the Hay Library in order to get access
to the physical artifacts, and that contract may have conditions regarding
what you can do with what you see, but that's not a matter of copyright.
Karl
Scott Briggs
From my understanding of copyright and communications law,
I don't believe that it would make any difference whatsoever that the John
Hay
Library owns the HPL manuscripts etc. The library itself is a repository
for the works of HPL, just as it is a repository for other authors. That
doesn't mean the library has control over the publishing/media rights to the
works in question. If the author is deceased, the rights revert to the
estate. If there's no estate left to manage the permissions, then the
rights would revert to whatever commercial entity had any kind of exclusive
legal agreement or contract with said author. To say that Arkham House, for
example, can claim total ownership over HPL's works simply because they've
published a good deal of his work is total nonsense.
I think the rights to the publishing and media use of the material still
must lie with either the estate of the author (which allegedly is Robert
Harrall at this point), any agent that the author entrusted by a will or
business arrangement (and this would really have to be a signed, official,
legal document or contract of some kind--a gentleman's/handshake deal made
in 1935 isn't gonna hold much water in court these days), etc. Of course
anything by Lovecraft that's public domain now is fair game for anyone,
that's not being contested anyway to be sure.
Simply because Arkham House published Lovecraft for many years means
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in a permissions sense or ownership sense. For example,
if NAL/Signet paperbacks wants to reprint Stephen King novels that they own
the rights to reprint, they can do so at will as long as the contract
specified these rights. However, they couldn't go ahead and claim exclusive
rights to publish any of King's non-NAL/Signet editions (future or past)
unless these permissions were made exclusive in the original contract(s)
that were signed by the author and publisher.
Also, if Robert C. Harrall really claims domain by the power of estate
over the HPL material, he should do so decisively and not let Arkham House
or anyone else get away with threats of lawsuits, etc. If he owns
permissions rights, he should exercise them totally. If Arkham House ends
up going to court to prove total ownership of the HPL material, they will
definitely lose because they have no legal claim to ownership of those
materials.
Scott Briggs,
Forest Hills, NY
Donovan K. Loucks wrote in message <94tcu8$9pb$1...@nnrp2.phx.gblx.net>...
Donovan K. Loucks
In addition, the John Hay Library of Brown University owns the original
autograph and typescript manuscripts of these stories, complicating
matters even further.
Next, Karl Kluge <kck...@yarf.eecs.umich.edu> wrote,
Well, yes and no. IANAL, but owning the physical artifacts conveys no
interest in the copyright to the text on the paper. Now, you sign what
is effectively a contract with the Hay Library in order to get access
to the physical artifacts, and that contract may have conditions
regarding what you can do with what you see, but that's not a matter of
copyright.
Then, Scott Briggs <Scott....@worldnet.att.net> wrote,
From my understanding of copyright and communications law, I don't
believe that it would make any difference whatsoever that the John Hay
Library owns the HPL manuscripts etc. The library itself is a
repository for the works of HPL, just as it is a repository for other
authors. That doesn't mean the library has control over the
publishing/media rights to the works in question. If the author is
deceased, the rights revert to the estate. If there's no estate left
to manage the permissions, then the rights would revert to whatever
commercial entity had any kind of exclusive legal agreement or contract
with said author.
Hey, Scott! My point was not that Brown University has a claim on the
copyrights due to their owning the original manuscripts, but that their
ownership "complicates matters." The most obvious example is the "newly"
discovered (1995) autograph manuscript of "The Shadow Out of Time." The
John Hay Library could have restricted access to this manuscript so that
no one -- not S.T. Joshi, not Robert Harrall, not Arkham House -- could
have transcribed and published the text, even if they had a claim to the
copyright of that text. However, if Brown University wished to publish
this text themselves, they'd probably run into legal complications with
those who claim copyright ownership.
Franklin Hummel
"Donovan K. Loucks" <webm...@hplovecraft.com:
>
> Hey, Scott! My point was not that Brown University has a claim on the
> copyrights due to their owning the original manuscripts, but that their
> ownership "complicates matters." The most obvious example is the "newly"
> discovered (1995) autograph manuscript of "The Shadow Out of Time." The
> John Hay Library could have restricted access to this manuscript so that
> no one -- not S.T. Joshi, not Robert Harrall, not Arkham House -- could
> have transcribed and published the text, even if they had a claim to the
> copyright of that text. However, if Brown University wished to publish
> this text themselves, they'd probably run into legal complications with
> those who claim copyright ownership.
The Deed of Gift I signed when the John Hay Library accepted
my boxes of papers of the Gaylaxians (science fiction/fantasy/horror
organizations for gay people and their friends that I founded) says:
"I hereby give and assign irrevocably to Brown University,
its successors and assigns, the items described below and
all of my right, title and interest therein, both as to use,
form
and content as well as to literary property right, copyright
and right of renewal, statutory or otherwise, which I may
have, and represent that I am lawfully entitled to do so."
I certainly do agree that the Hay's ownership "complicates matters".
--Franklin Hummel
Scott Briggs
True, since the newly discovered manuscript of Shadow Out of Time is,
in essence, a new work and previously unknown and unpublished, and the
owner sold it or donated it to Brown University, then in this case Brown
would
certainly have ownership and copyright on the material. I guess I had in
mind
more HPL's previously published works, works in the public domain of course
(but then that would be true of ANY author in the public domain), and
certainly
anything not owned outright by the library.
I think still though, that if Arkham House, let's say, ended up going to
court
with the Hay if they ended up publishing a new edition of The Shadow Out of
Time,
they'd have a hard time proving they retain copyright on the story. Since
the manuscript is a "new" work and the library owns it outright in this
case, I believe
the courts would ultimately rule in Brown's favor. Just because a
publishing house has published an author's work for 50 years doesn't mean a
thing if they have no
legal claim to ownership of the works in question.
Scott Briggs,
Forest Hills, NY
P.S. Hope you're doing well up there in Boston these days, I haven't
been
much in the loop the past year or so.
Franklin Hummel wrote in message ...
Karl Kluge
> Dear Franklin,
>
> True, since the newly discovered manuscript of Shadow Out of Time is, in
> essence, a new work and previously unknown and unpublished, and the owner
> sold it or donated it to Brown University, then in this case Brown would
> certainly have ownership and copyright on the material.
Owning the piece of paper on which HPL wrote the MSS of "Shadow" does *not*
confer ownership of the copyright. The doner of the MSS (the son of one of
Barlow's grad students IIRC) couldn't transfer rights he didn't own. In this
case, presumably Lovecraft's estate (or its successors in interest) would own
the copyright.
Similarly, the *text* of Lovecraft's letters is presumably owned by the
estate (with the abridgements in _Selected Letters_ owned by Arkham House
as derivative works), regardless of who owns the physical letters. You may
need Brown's permission to publish portions of the letters as a condition of
being granted access, but that is a matter of contract law, not copyright.
Karl