The Diary of Anne Frank has been removed from Wikipedia sister project Wikisource due to a reassessment of when the work ceases to be copyrighted:
The Diary of Anne Frank has been removed from book repository Wikisource after the site became aware it had fallen foul of copyright law. The site briefly hosted a digital copy of Het Achterhuis, the first version of the diary compiled by Anne's father Otto, which was published in 1947. It had been put online in the belief that the copyright expired in January 2016, 70 years after Anne's death. However under US law it is protected until 2042.
Wikisource removed the book voluntarily. The Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia as well as Wikisource, said its action was "an unfortunate example of the overreach of the US' current copyright law".
[...] Anne Frank died in 1945, which suggests that her elements of the original Dutch language version of the diary is now copyright free. It is in fact in the public domain in some countries, including the UK. But since it was compiled and edited by Anne's father Otto Frank, who omitted much of the content in her original manuscripts, some people argue that he created a new version of the text which should be protected by its own copyright.
Otto Frank died in 1980, which would mean the copyright of the 1947 edition does not expire in many countries until 2050. Anne Frank Fonds, a charitable foundation founded by Otto Frank, told the BBC that it believes Anne Frank's full, unedited manuscripts, which were published in 1986, do remain under copyright. However the group added that it did not believe Mr Frank should be considered a co-author of his daughter's work.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by janrinok on Sunday February 14 2016, @08:28AM
Perhaps the book should be hosted in a country that takes a more reasonable view of copyright law. It only has to be removed because it is hosted in the US - many places in in the remainder of the world don't seem to follow the US in this regard.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Nuke on Sunday February 14 2016, @02:13PM
Perhaps the book should be hosted in a country that takes a more reasonable view of copyright law.
Perhaps in a cases like this, a historical document, it should be hosted on thousands of websites in dozens of countries, too many to pursue and beyond the reach of stupid US copyright laws. The Internet has the power to stop this nonsense.
Personally, as I tinker with cars, I host on a website of mine the full workshop manual for my car and make it known to fellow enthusiasts of the marque. Probably infringing US copyright but f- that; I come from an industrial engineering background where it goes without saying that if you buy some plant you get the right to access all the information that the manufacturer has on it, should you require it.
(Score: 3, Informative) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday February 14 2016, @03:41PM
Seeding! Magnet link [magnet].
Yeah, that's right, take that copyright cartel! They're only marginally better than Daesh destroying history. At least they're willing to charge a fee, goodness know what that will be, for them to allow you to view for a limited time a copy of history.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @03:52PM
Also seeding: Anne Frank - Het Achterhuis - Dagboekbrieven (E-Book)NLT-Release [magnet].
I also have Het Achterhuis - Anne Frank.pdf [magnet] up, but no seeders to be found.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Sunday February 14 2016, @11:38PM
many places in in the remainder of the world don't seem to follow the US in this regard
That's one of the things the TPPA is supposed to fix.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday February 14 2016, @08:32AM
So the copyright has been extended by the fact that he removed content? So if I take the collected works of Shakespeare, remove some parts (say, the less popular plays) and publish the rest, I suddenly own the copyright on those works?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Tork on Sunday February 14 2016, @08:35AM
But since it was compiled and edited by Anne's father Otto Frank, who omitted much of the content in her original manuscripts, some people argue that he created a new version of the text which should be protected by its own copyright.
Look... I get that copyright law exceeds its bounds, but let's not act like compiling and editing someone's diary is the sort of thing that's only worthy of a fart noise. If you have *ever* enjoyed a documentary, consider that the two hours of footage you watch came from, more than likely, 100 or more hours of recordings. Somebody's job was to wade through all of that and tell you a story that fit within a much more manageable chunk of time.
Even if all he did was skip a few pages of the diary, he still made a unique bit of work. That specifically should not be an issue, here. Is the term length excessive? Maybe. Does the time the diaries were written matter? No.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 14 2016, @09:04AM
I sorta agree with you. Maybe not entirely, but the work that Anne's father did is indeed a separate work from Anne's writings. So, there is a simple solution here. Digitize and publish Anne's own writings, and forget about Daddy's edited work. Specifically, as well as more generally, people are far more interested in the young woman's thoughts, than they are interested in Daddy's constricted views of his little princess.
Can't remember when I read her diary - maybe 7th grade? I read it straight through, it was so interesting. I guess I read it twice again, once for class, once for myself. And, I had no idea that I was reading the censored version. It was years later that I heard about Daddy removing important bits about the developing young woman. It's like we were all cheated.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @12:15PM
Daddy's constricted views of his little princess.
Disclaimer: Anne Frank's diary is genuine and I am not a denier.
The diary is real and totally true. It was written by Anne Frank's father after the war. It is real because it shows what Anne Frank went through, as felt by her father. And if Anne Frank had written a diary, it would be this.
The original version also contains some fantasies by Anne Frank's father about his 12 year old daughter. For example:
"There are little folds of skin all over the place, you can hardly find it. The little hole underneath is so terribly small that I simply can't imagine how a man can get in there, let alone how a whole baby can get out!"
"In the upper part, between the outer labia, there's a fold of skin that, on second thought, looks like a kind of blister. That's the clitoris."
"When you're standing up, all you see from the front is hair. Between your legs there are two soft, cushiony things, also covered with hair, which press together when you're standing, so you can't see what's inside."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @12:36PM
wat
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday February 14 2016, @04:20PM
Ok… umm… MikeeUSA?… Is that you? I can't believe I'm saying this, but I can confirm those quotes do exist in my first magnet link above. I certainly don't remember reading that passage in school! I'll leave it as an exercise for the curious to grab that torrent, seed it, and find the March 25, 1944 entry.
Do you have any evidence that the diary was not written by Anne Frank?
I was going to quote the relevant passage, but I'd simply like to comment that at first glance, it appears to be similar to descriptions found in several male-to-female magical transformation stories I've read. This leaves the question of inspiration: were those descriptions inspired by this one, or does the relevant entry shed some doubt on the authorship of the Diary given that it would seem strange that Anne would feel the need to describe body parts over half the planet has? Then again, The Vagina Monologues exists.
Also I'd like to appeal to any Dutch readers to help me out here. I'm seeding a Dutch language (presumably original) copy of the Diary as an e-book (posted the magnet link above as AC). Out of morbid curiosity, what would be the relevant Dutch anatomical terms I should grep for?
(Score: 2) by AnonymousCowardNoMore on Sunday February 14 2016, @05:02PM
I don't think the AC is trolling. It looks to me like a legitimate (if perhaps imperfect) satire of the ridiculous troll logic used to justify further copyright extension. Regarding the embarrassing parts of the books, I seem to recall reading years ago about the father editing them out of earlier editions. If that is right and if it does justify copyright extension (screw that, it doesn't), then I still don't see why a more complete edition should be under copyright in the US.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday February 14 2016, @05:43PM
Ah, ok. That makes sense.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @09:07AM
Look... I get that copyright law exceeds its bounds, but let's not act like compiling and editing someone's diary is the sort of thing that's only worthy of a fart noise.
They're not. Perhaps the truth is that the story is a complete fabrication, like other war propaganda [imgur.com].
"The victors write the history." Every historian agrees this is true. Then when I point out this is true for WW2, suddenly I'm a Nazi.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @05:18PM
Another A.C here.
There is a book that debunks the Anne Frank diaries fraud. The book which is frequently used to give the Holocaust myth (and industry) legitimacy:
http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres2/DFAnneFrank.pdf [vho.org]
Author: Ditlieb Felderer
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @08:48AM
Original post at Wikimedia blog: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/02/10/anne-frank-diary-removal/ [wikimedia.org]
Techdirt coverage: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160211/18083433583/wikimedia-takes-down-diary-anne-frank-uses-it-to-highlight-idiocy-dmca-rules-copyright-terms.shtml [techdirt.com]
To clarify the reason for removal (emphasis mine):
TL;DR: someone emailed Wikimedia about the copyright still being valid in the US, which means Wikimedia is legally liable if they don't remove the text.
Also, the sheer unbelievable insanity of a hundred-year copyright term. Because she won't write any more if the term was any shorter, and could barely be bothered at the current length so we should lengthen it to encourage her to write more!
Yes, I get a bit vitriolic and cynical in cases like this. It's bad enough with usual works of literature, music etc, but when work of such historical importance is kept away for so long so a few deep pockets can get a little bit deeper... Exploitative bastards.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 14 2016, @09:07AM
"Exploitative bastards."
You missed one word there. "Ghoulish". They are exploiting the dead, after all. Ghoulish exploitative bastards.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @09:08AM
Torrents fix copyright, right? Right? Just torrent it.
Oh. This is the Diary Of Anne Frank we're talking about here. It's some dusty old book that teachers make ya read in school.
Not the Game Of Thrones.
So nobody gives a shit.
And so, to all you torrent freaks, FUCK. YOU.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @09:31AM
https://kat.cr/the-diary-of-a-young-girl-the-definitive-anne-frank-epub-t10820269.html [kat.cr]
https://kat.cr/the-diary-of-anne-frank-pdf-t8943081.html [kat.cr]
It's available on the torrents. That doesn't make it legal. Torrents don't fix copyright; they circumvent it... under the risk of someone bringing the full weight of the law down on you for torrenting a few books - then you and your family are gonna be broke for five generations. Of course, the copyright on those books will still not be out by then.
And so, to all you copyright freaks, FUCK. YOU.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @09:45AM
Yeah! That's right! Torrents don't fix copyright; disclaimers fix copyright!
No copyright intended. No copyright intended. No copyright intended. No copyright intended. No copyright intended. No copyright intended. No copyright intended. No copyright intended. No copyright intended. No copyright intended. No copyright intended. No copyright intended. No copyright intended. No copyright intended. FU FU FU FUCK. YOU.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday February 14 2016, @05:41PM
It's called civil disobedience fyi, though the risk posed by posting a magnet link under a login that the legal process could trace to my front door be small.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 14 2016, @10:07AM
I have just downloaded 'The Diary of a Young Girl: The Definitive Edition'. Open it up in an e-book reader, and begin reading the foreward. Imagine my surprise as I read this:
"When Otto Frank died in 1980, he willed his daughter’s manuscripts to the Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation in Amsterdam. Because the authenticity of the diary had been challenged ever since its publication, the Institute for War Documentation ordered a thorough investigation. Once the diary was proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to be genuine, it was published in its entirety, along with the results of an exhaustive study. The Critical Edition contains not only versions a, band c, but also articles on the background of the Frank family, the circumstances surrounding their arrest and deportation, and the examination into Anne’s handwriting, the document and the materials used."
Apparently, Otto Frank's estate holds no right or title to Otto's copyrighted material. The proper authority to ask for permission to use his works is the Netherlands Institute for war documentation.
Not being a lawyer, or a European, it kinda looks like the Diary enjoys some legal status resembling public domain. Again, the ultimate authority regarding the use of the Diary would be the institute.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @11:35AM
Once the diary was proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to be ...
One finds what one wants to find. There is also the threat of prison, so people can be persuaded to find things a certain way. Not question authority and just obey.
People do see Jesus in clouds, don't they?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:43PM
The Diary of a Young Girl: The Definitive Edition
The Definitive Edition? That one sucks, you need the Collectors Edition: Directors Cut.
I hear the sequel is good too, Diary of a Young Girl 2: Electric Jewgaloo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @03:27PM
Screw em... Pirate6ay probably has it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @03:43PM
Copy protection laws were not meant for the authors. They give distributors and publishers more protections [techdirt.com] than authors.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Sunday February 14 2016, @06:08PM
Without 70 tears of copyright young girls won't hide in the attic evading maurauding murder gangs to give them something to write about. I bet she spent every day thinking how much money her relatives would get if any of them survived the apocalyptic conditions affecting her and her family.
She was probably thinking "people should read my story. But only if they pay. They'd better not tell anyone else about it either!
I still don't understand why shows like Family Guy depict Jews as money grabbing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @10:17PM
Without copy protection laws there would be no wars to write about. After all who is going to start a war so they can write about it later.