Kliest-Lilly New Testament 1954

[Doom]

Fr. James Kliest SJ (who died in 1949) and Fr. Joseph Lilly CM (who died in 1952) worked on a new translation of the New Testament, this work was completed in 1948 but not published until 1954.

It seems to be an extremely obscure New Testament translation, I have no idea how popular it was in 1954 but its long-term impact appears to be nil. Certainly, it didn't help that it arrived at an inopportune time, after the Knox translation of the full Bible in 1949, two years after the publication of the RSV in 1952, and a few years before Vatican II whose decrees would dramatically change Catholic Bible translations. I don't know if it is a translation of the Vulgate or the Greek. Information on it is difficult to find.

I've been interested in this for a while, the copyright (and who knows who if anyone owns it) won't expire until 2049, and even though the odds are good that I will still be alive in that year, the apparent lack of interest in it means that there will probably be no one who will republish it at that time.

So I found a used copy on AbeBooks and ordered it. For a 70-year-old book it is in excellent condition.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

No one owns the copyright. This falls before the date when copyrights were automatically extended, and no extension is on file. https://exhibits.stanford.edu/copyright ... r&q=kliest

Moreover, the Internet Archive has it freely available, which means they think it's in the public domain too.
https://archive.org/details/newtestamen ... 7/mode/2up

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

Bruce Publishing assets are now owned by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kendall_H ... ng_Company

[Doom]

No one owns the copyright. This falls before the date when copyrights were automatically extended, and no extension is on file. https://exhibits.stanford.edu/copyright ... r&q=kliest

Moreover, the Internet Archive has it freely available, which means they think it's in the public domain too.
https://archive.org/details/newtestamen ... 7/mode/2up

I don't think it can possibly be in the Public Domain because in 1954 copyrights lasted for 28 years, which means it would have expired in 1982, but that is after the 1976 Copyright Act which automatically extended all copyrights which were then current to life of author+50 years, which means that under that law, it would have gone into the public domain in 2002, but the 1976 law was itself superseded by the 1998 act which extended copyrights to
"Life of the author+70 years" for works published after 1978 and 95 years for corporate owned works or for anything published before 1978. This peculiar provision, 95 years for anything published before 1978 is why works by authors like Aurthur Conan Doyle, GK Chesterton, HP Lovecraft and others remain under copyright despite the fact that it has been far more than 70 years after any of them died.

[Doom]

The only way I could see it being in the Public Domain would be if it were originally copyrighted in 1948 when it was completed not when it was published. I have no idea how to look that up.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

Copyright 1956 on the title page at the Internet Archive.

But, from the Wikipedia article on copyright law of the United States:

For works published or registered before 1978, the maximum copyright duration is 95 years from the date of publication, if copyright was renewed during the 28th year following publication. Copyright renewal has been automatic since the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992.

Copyright wasn't renewed.

[peregrinator]

Right, the 1976 Act wasn't retroactive, but it did extend the term for renewals from 28 years to 47. If a 1956 copyright wasn't renewed in 1984, it would expire. If it was renewed, the term would have been 75 years total under the 1976 Act but it would have been extended to 95 under the 1998 Copyright Extension Act.

[Doom]

It's A Wonderful Life has the odd distinction of being in the public domain and then inexplicably being put back under a copyright under a court order.

And the definition of “publication” is unclear as well, in 1978, the Supreme Court ruled that for music it means publication of sheet music so a ton of music from the 20s and 30s that everyone thought was public domain only gained a copyright a couple years earlier because it was the first time sheet music had been printed

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

It's a Wonderful LIfe got put back under copyright because the work of which it was derivative was still under copyright.

[Doom]

It's a Wonderful LIfe got put back under copyright because the work of which it was derivative was still under copyright.

But does that make sense? It's a separate entity. The idea that derivative works arr protected under the same copyright in this case seems arbitrary and capricious.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

101
...
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”.

and

103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works
(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.

[Doom]

There is no justice in allowing one person to piggyback on another’s copyright. That's yet another example of arguably unconstitutional copyright extension. Once a new work has been created a new copyright should exist as well.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

I don't think copyright of derivative works is a new thing. That's what TV/movie rights are all about, for example.