Samuel Clemens circa 1871, by Matthew Brady Just over 100 years ago, Samuel Langhorne Clemens, better known as Mark Twain, passed away as Halley’s Comet passed in the sky. He left behind him a 500,000-word autobiographical manuscript, under strict instructions that it was not to be published until at least one hundred years after his death.

As to why such a long delay, it’s not entirely clear. Perhaps he wanted to avoid embarrassing friends, or near descendents of friends, with some of the harsh things he had to say. Perhaps the controversial Clemens simply enjoyed the knowledge that, a century after he had passed on, he would cause one final ruckus in a society whose nature he could not even hope to imagine.

Regardless, one thing is clear: the complete manuscript has never been published in full. Excerpts ran in magazines before Clemens’s death, and parts were published in three previous “autobiographies” with the estate’s permission, but over half of the work has not been seen by anyone other than researchers who visited Berkeley’s Bancroft library in person.

"There are so many biographies of Twain, and many of them have used bits and pieces of the autobiography," Dr. [Robert Hirst, who is leading the team at Berkeley editing the complete text] said. "But biographers pick and choose what bits to quote. By publishing Twain’s book in full, we hope that people will be able to come to their own complete conclusions about what sort of a man he was."

The manuscript is going to be published as a trilogy starting in November. It’s unclear whether there will be an e-book edition—I can’t even find an official page on Berkeley listing its publication date, though I may not be looking in the right place.

Of course, given that copyright is currently life of author plus 50 years, or plus 70 years in the case of unpublished manuscripts, a hot discussion topic going on over at BoingBoing is whether the work would be in the public domain.

One commenter thinks that the parts of the work that were published during Clemens’s lifetime and the parts have never before been published would be, and the parts published in the printed biographies that were published in 1924 and afterward would not, but I think it’s a lot simpler than that.

I’ve been told that when a work is edited, the edited edition of the work is considered an entirely new work for the purposes of copyright. I expect it will be considered to be authored by a corporation. Thus, in the best case scenario, it would be under copyright for 20 more years, since the current copyright term is

70 years after the death of author. If a work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first

Though, again, if the editing makes it an entirely new work, it could be under protection for 95 more years. Conversely, if someone snuck the manuscript out of Berkeley and published it unchanged, it could theoretically be in the public domain now (that “life + 70” thing). Of course, neither I nor the person who told me about this are copyright lawyers, so we could be entirely off-base. make of that what you will.

In a way, the confusion is a bit ironic—Clemens was one of the first strident advocates for perpetual copyright. During a speech he gave in 1906 on the occasion of congress considering a life + 50 copyright term, he said:

When I appeared before that committee of the House of Lords the chairman asked me what limit I would propose. I said, "Perpetuity." I could see some resentment in his manner, and he said the idea was illogical, for the reason that it has long ago been decided that there can be no such thing as property in ideas. I said there was property in ideas before Queen Anne’s time; they had perpetual copyright.

Clemens might well think that the confusion was our just dessert for not doing the sensible thing and implementing perpetual copyright!

Of course, the question has to be asked: what would Clemens think of e-books?

I think he’d be fairly enthusiastic about them. Clemens had a love for science, technology, and gadgets, sometimes to his own detriment—he invested most of his fortune and his wife’s inheritance in an early prototype typesetting machine that was obsolete a few years later. He was a friend of Nikola Tesla, was visited by Thomas Edison the year before his death, and even patented three inventions.

I think Clemens would be tickled pink to get to play around with a Kindle. Of course, he’d probably strongly insist on DRM for any new book he wrote (and would be upset that his works were all in the public domain by now).

6 COMMENTS

  1. I’m not sure that the Boing Boing discussion is “hot” with just 20 comments.

    The “writer friend” of a poster who says that a newly edited work is considered a new, copyrightable work is not entirely correct. You can certainly register it at the US copyright office, but it won’t (and never has) increased the length of copyright on the original text.

    I briefly looked into the situation in the US, Canada and the UK earlier today when the topic came up at Mobileread. I hadn’t realised at that point that any of it had been published before 1959 (which is the entry I found at the US copyright office)

    For the previous unpublished sections, the situations seems to be this:
    USA: Public Domain
    Canada: Public Domain
    UK: Copyright until 2040
    .
    For the parts published before 1923
    USA: Public Domain
    Canada: Public Domain
    UK: Public Domain
    .
    For the parts published 1923 and later:
    USA: Copyright until 2019 or later
    Canada: Public Domain
    UK: Public Domain
    .
    So we have the curious situation that the unpublished bits are Public Domain in the US, but Copyright in the UK, and the bits published 1923 and later are Copyright in the USA and Public Domain in the UK!

  2. Even if the copyright on the original work isn’t affected, does it matter if the original work remains unpublished? If only the edited version, which is under a new copyright, is available, you can’t make public-domain use of it as if it were the original, can you?

    Or can you?

  3. IANAL, but I believe that merely editing a text doesn’t give a new copyright in the text, only in any added material.

    Hmm… investigating further, I find that in the EU there is a “publication right”, which gives 25 years protection to the publisher of the first edition of out-of-copyright, unpublished material. However, since all unpublished material is copyright in the UK until 2040, this right won’t have any effect until then.

    In the UK there’s also a “typographic right” in the ‘typographic arrangement’ of a printed work. So in the UK, you’re not allowed to reproduce a facsimile of someone else’s edition of a public domain work for the girst 25 years after publication. You are free to produce your own arrangement of the text.

    I don’t know if it’s ever been tested, but I suspect the Corel Corp. case http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/36_FSupp2d_191.htm might apply here. If the intention is to reproduce an accurate copy of the original, and there is no creative input, then no new copyright is created:

    “skill, labor or judgment merely in the process of copying cannot confer originality . . . .”

    I would argue that while transcribing a manuscript for publication might well be a task requiring skill, labour and judgement, it does not need the originality required to confer a completely new copyright to the finished work.

The TeleRead community values your civil and thoughtful comments. We use a cache, so expect a delay. Problems? E-mail newteleread@gmail.com.