Can We Use Author Photos and Quotes?

Dear Rich: We're designing a website for our business, and are in need of some basic guidelines to avoid copyright and trademark violations. Specifically, can photos be used that show up in Google Image searches? Also, can I post a picture of an author and/or quote him/her? What about a company logo -- what is the least expensive way of creating one? We're looking for a little excitement today, so we'll answer your questions in reverse order.
Creating a logo inexpensively. Have you tried typing "create company logo" into your search engine of choice? You should find many businesses that advertise this service for under $50. Our caveat is to avoid using a logo that resembles a competitor's trademark. Learn more about trademarks here.
Can you post a picture of an author and/or quotation? The quote will be fine (read more here) but you may run into problems if the photo of the author is protected by copyright (see below).
Can photos be used that show up in Google Image searches? Copyright law -- we're going to assume you're not familiar with the principles -- enables the copyright owner (often the photographer) to stop others from using the image without permission. So, if you use an image that shows up in Google Image Search and it is protected by copyright, the owner can hassle you and possibly seek compensation for the unauthorized use. (You'll note that when you click on an image in Google Image Search, you may see the message "Images may be subject to copyright.") You don't need to ask permission for images that are in the public domain, a status achieved by old age (or related factors -- for example, if the copyright owner has dedicated the work to the public domain). Alternatively, the owner may retain ownership but permit commercial uses under a Creative Commons license (attribution is typically required). In either case, the rules are complex and often confusing. Some sites offer a wealth of public domain materials and others claim to offer "copyright-free" materials although the pedigree is sometimes difficult to verify. Usually the safest route is to pay for photos at a site such as istockphoto.com. For more specific information, we suggest you hop on your favorite search engine (or pick up our book on permissions).

Copying Dragnet: Risk v. Public Domain

Some readers were SSCD (shocked, surprised, concerned, and disappointed) over our entry about whether episodes of the Dragnet TV Show are in the public domain. One reader cited Steve Fishman's public domain book as evidence that we got it wrong. "[Fishman] suggests that, because broadcast does not constitute publication," wrote the reader, "and because federal trial courts have decided that syndication doesn’t equal “publication” for copyright purposes, 'the conservative course of action is to assume that programs syndicated before 1964 are not in the public domain, even if they were not timely renewed.'" A similar sentiment was expressed by an attorney who suggested that the first question to ask was "[W]hen did Mark VII productions, the presumed copyright owner of Dragnet, start selling copies of the program?" Readers also warned us about relying on unsupported assertions in Wikipedia or the Internet Archive. All good points (and we hope our previous answer doesn't result in the loss of our license to blog). In our answer, we asserted that some (or all) of the 1951 Dragnet series episodes "appear to be in the public domain" because they've been offered for sale by public domain DVD vendors, because of a claim in Wikipedia, and because of the presence of the material on the Internet Archives. We should have mentioned that relying on the Internet Archives as a standard for the public domain can be risky, and we should have added that unsupported assertions in Wikipedia are not sufficient to ward off liability from copyright owners. The only way to guarantee public domain status is to research and prove publication and then research Copyright Office records and confirm a failure to renew (or some other basis for PD status). In addition, as we indicated in our linked entry, use of the Dragnet theme music may trigger objections from Dragnet Music Company, publishers of the theme tune (and which may explain why some public domain vendors have removed the theme).
Proving publication ... Steve Fishman, author of The Public Domain (of which we are the editors) does recommend a conservative course of action when using TV series from the 1950s and 1960s. That view is based on the confusion as to whether syndicating television shows is a "publication," triggering the renewal requirement. Two courts have ruled that syndication agreements where there is no copying does not amount to publication. (Broadcasting the original shows is not considered publication.) Fishman writes that "[T]he riskier course of action is to rely on the assumption that programs syndicated in 1964 and earlier have been published for copyright purposes. Therefore, if they were syndicated before 1964, they had to be renewed 28 years later or they entered the public domain."
That Said Dept. We respond to a lot of queries regarding the public domain and often we respond based on a risk analysis -- how likely it is that we think the reader will run into a problem. We believe these Dragnet episodes fall in a middle-world between public domain and copyright-protected -- a place where orphaned works live or where rights are not clear, and as a result, where owners don't appear to enforce copyright claims. We must add that the fact that many people distribute these episodes without apparent consequence is not a guarantee of future behavior (nor can we comment on the moral consequences of these uses) but the risk of copying the Internet Archive episodes or those duplicated by public domain vendors seems substantially lower than copying those episodes legitimately licensed by the copyright owner.

Dragnet: PD or not PD?

[See our update on this entry] 
Dear Rich: Who owns the rights to the Dragnet TV series from the 1950's? I understand it was owned by the Jack Webb estate after he passed away in 1982. I am trying to find out if the original prints or negatives of these shows are available to be put on DVD or Blu-ray. I know that the copyright for some shows has run out but the copies available are old 16mm TV prints, I am interested in the 35mm originals. Some (or all) of the 1950's series episodes of Dragnet appear to be in the public domain, probably because of a failure to renew the copyright. According to our friends at Wikipedia, "Most, if not all, episodes of this [1951] series have become public domain, and fifty-two episodes have been released by many DVD labels." The public domain status is reinforced by the fact that 64 episodes of the 1951 series are available at the Internet Archive. Because there were 276 episodes in the 1951 series, its not clear why the remaining episodes aren't available. Either: (1) they're not in the public domain, (2) Mark VII Limited (the production company that owns the shows) has never released them for distribution, or (3) copies of the episodes don't exist anymore. (BTW, the 1967 series is under copyright.) (Previously, we wrote about the public domain status of the Dragnet theme song and radio show. )

Can You Really Protect a Cartoon Character with Copyright?

Dear Rich: In response to your recent post on whether you can patent a cartoon character ... You can trademark a cartoon character. However, you can't actually copyright a character. You can copyright a story (either prose or illustrated) or an illustration featuring the character. A number of companies have discovered to their sorrow that unless stories featuring the characters have their copyrights renewed, those stories (even with trademarked characters) fall into the public domain. Examples of this are the first Superman novel, Adventures of Superman by George Lowther, the Fleisher Brothers' Superman, Betty Boop, and Popeye cartoons, and the Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers movie serials among many others. We think you are on the right track -- You can register text describing the character or an image of the character but you cannot simply register the copyright for a character. However, regardless of whether you can register the character per se, copyright law will protect the character separately from the underlying text or story from which it evolved. So, even when an underlying work falls into the public domain, the copyright for the character may not. For example, when several strips of the Superman comic fell into the public domain in a 1952 case, a court ruled that the character of Superman did not. On the other hand, if all of the works embodying an author's character have fallen into the public domain, for example -- The Grimm Brothers' Snow White character -- then the character is free for all to use. Things get confusing when there is a dispute as to whether all of the author's works are in the public domain as is the case with Sherlock Holmes.

More Gray's Anatomy

Question #1: Dear Rich: I was trying to find out whether Gray's Anatomy is copyrighted as I wanted to published some of the images in a scientific publication, when I came across the posting in your blog. I live in Canada, and was wondering whether I could use these without obtaining permission. Otherwise, who would I contact for permission?

Question #2: Dear Rich: I am a visual artist from Germany, living in the U.S.A. A few years ago I inherited Gray's Anatomy, the 22d Edition. It has beautiful engravings, and I fell in love with one or the other, and combine them with my own work. I would like to use some of the engravings which are in public domain, but scan the ones from my book for a better resolution. I also would like to remove the text. So, my question, is, am I allowed to use the engravings on bartleby.com without getting in trouble? Although we've already answered a similar question, we'll summarize the rules one more time.

• The 20th edition is public domain in the U.S. because it was published prior to 1923. 
• It's likely that the 20th edition is public domain around the world. (That would not be the case if some illustrators of the 20th edition were not anonymous and lived past 1942. PS -All works by Henry Vandyke Carter are in the PD). 
• You can freely copy, scan or reproduce images that are in the public domain whether on Bartleby.com or wikimedia.org.
• The current owner of rights and publisher of the 40th edition is Elsevier. (Here's information about their rights and permissions policies.)

Can I Avoid Infringing By Making Book Public Domain?

Dear Rich: An author writes a book about a band – we’ll call it ROC STAR. The author sells the movie rights, to a studio. The studio makes a movie – which carries the same name as the book and the band – but from THEIR screenplay, which differs from the original book, in that they change the names of the characters. The original author – who apparently still owns the rights to the story, the title, and the name of the band – writes a sequel to the original book. A second author writes a book, inspired by the movie, and which is blatantly a ‘derivative work’. It is about six different characters who form a different band, which is discovered by the members of ROC STAR (the band from the original story). While it is a 100% original story, the second author does mention the original band by name, as well as the original characters, but by their names in the MOVIE. It also quotes a few lines of lyrics from a song ROC STAR performed in the movie, which of course is owned by the studio. Assuming the second author (of the derivative work) is considering publishing his story, what permissions will he need, and more importantly, who does he need to request them from? My final question would be, what are the ramifications - if any - of simply putting the story into the public domain (posting it and giving it away), should I decide not to jump through all the hoops I expect are going to be presented if I try to publish it. If you don't have the rights to all the material  -- you're creating an infringing derivative work -- you don't have the legal power to dedicate it to the public. Only the copyright owner (either the movie company or the initial author) can dedicate the work to the public domain.
Does your book infringe? Possibly. You probably remember when a Swedish author was prohibited from publishing a sequel to Catcher in the Rye (even though the lead character's name -- Holden Caulfield -- never appeared in the "sequel.") We could point to other cases as well but the takeaway is that any success you may achieve will be short-lived because it's likely that once the author or movie company learn of your work, they'll try to shut it down (and you probably can't afford to fight over it). On the other hand, if the book stays low on the radar -- for example, it's posted on a fanfiction type site -- the owners may consider it "non-threatening" and allow it to remain posted in obscurity.  Because your work overlaps with fanfic, you should check out the Chilling Effects FAQs  on the topic.

Railway Enthusiasts Disease

Dear Rich: I saw a humorous vintage metal enamel sign [not itself vintage or antique; a modern version/copy] with humorous references to 'railway enthusiasts disease'; it lists causes for the affliction and suggests silly remedies. Very amusing if you're keen on steam trains! Well, I help out at a steam railway and the question is could we create and sell a poster using similar phraseology to this? The wording might be similar but not the same; we might like to use the phrase 'railway enthusiasts disease' though. The sign itself does not bear a copyright notice.  We've found some examples: this t-shirt at the Thomas the Tank store, this one at the Ian Allan Bookshop, and this one at National Road Transport, and this enameled sign, and this one on eBay. We're not seeing any notice of copyright or a statement of license. That doesn't mean nobody claims ownership, but it feels like this content is in a category you could call free-range copyright. If owners exist, they don't enforce rights. It's also possible that the content is public domain, but determining that would take some digging into railroadiana.
Can I use the title? Even if the sign's content were protected, you can use the phrase "railway enthusiasts disease" without infringing. We don't see any evidence that it's being used as a trademark and short phrases are difficult to protect under copyright law.
P.S. As you've noticed, all of the examples are from British sites, so we're going to assume you're British as well. In that case, we issue our typical disclaimer: our answer is based on U.S. copyright law, which although derived from British law, is not the same.

Who Owns Rights to Spanish Painting?

Dear Rich: I am a documentary filmmaker working on a documentary about a Spanish artist. I want to use a painting he completed in 1962 that was commissioned by an American organization and delivered to them by the artist himself. If the copyright on this painting was not renewed, is it in the pubic domain? Remember, he is a Spanish artist. To complicate things, he may not have completed it until he was here in the United States. We consulted with public domain expert Steve Fishman and concluded that there are two possible scenarios:
Scenario #1: The American organization acquired copyright under work for hire rules. If the American organization commissioned the painting, it may be considered as a work for hire under the old copyright act (1909 Act). That act was a lot less friendly to independent contractors than the current law (1976 Act) and works were often ruled to be "made for hire" simply because they were created at the hiring party's "instance and expense." (Alternatively, there may have been a written agreement in which the artist transferred copyright to the organization.) In either of those cases, the American organization would have acquired copyright. If it was not timely renewed, it would have fallen into the public domain (assuming the painting was published with copyright notice and the work was registered).
Was the painting published? If the painting was never published, the copyright might still exist. Unpublished works that are "made for hire" are protected for 120 years from creation. A painting is published when copies are distributed to the public, or when the work is offered for sale to the general public, or when the painting is publicly displayed with no restriction on copying or photographing the work. There is no publication if the painting was never offered for sale and was displayed with restrictions on copying.
Scenario #2: Spanish painter retains copyright as a Spanish national. Under this scenario, the American organization did not acquire copyright under work made for hire rules -- perhaps because the arrangement did not meet legal requirements --  and the Spanish painter retained copyright. (BTW, it shouldn't matter where the work was completed.) As a Spanish national, the painter's rights would originate under Spanish copyright laws, and ultimately would receive protection in the U.S. as a result of copyright treaties, most notably the Berne Convention. Under this scenario, even if the painter's agents had registered the work in the U.S. and it had fallen into the public domain due to a failure to renew, the copyright could be restored under the GATT treaty and the Spanish artist would retain copyright most likely for a term of life plus 70 years.

Wants to Publish "Digger" Cover Songs

Female digger by Van Gogh

Dear Rich: I saw your post about changed song lyrics and I had a question which takes a step in a different direction. I have sung lots of songs with my young son about diggers, one of his obsessions. They are set to popular tunes, with the lyrics all or mostly changed. I think it would make a good book for children. Would my lyrics changes be considered a parody, like Weird Al Yankovic, and thus be free to be printed? Or because I am not recording or performing these songs would these songs be exempt? Most of the tunes I am using are from before 1922, traditional children's tunes like Twinkle Twinkle Little Star which changes into Twinkle Twinkle Little Truck (... How I wonder if you're stuck etc) However I have several songs that are after 1922, for example -- "The Digger Game" (Digger Digger Bo Bigger, Banana Fanna Fo Figger... set to the tune of The Name Game) or "You Say Excavator, I Say Digger" (set to the tune of Let's Call The Whole Thing Off). If you do not have time to answer, would you recommend a lawyer? Do intellectual property lawyers exist in every city? We noticed that you live in Canada so we'll preface this by explaining that our answer is based on U.S. copyright law which is fairly similar to Canadian law, but not exactly. For example, Canada does not have fair use, it has "fair dealing," a slightly more restrictive concept that does not excuse parodies. Not that we're sure that your lyrics are parodies (some argue that a parody of a song makes fun of the underlying subject matter), and in any case not all such parodies are okay under fair use principles (Weird Al Yankovic pays for the right to rewrite the lyrics -- this article provides more details).
Your book. Just so we're clear ... you plan to offer a book with new "digger lyrics" for existing songs. For example, you would state, "Sing these lyrics to Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" and then include your new lyrics but not the musical notation or original lyrics, right? You are definitely okay to do so with any songs published in the U.S. before 1923 or any that otherwise fall into the public domain for other reasons. We think you'll be okay with non-public domain songs, too, but we can't guarantee safe passage. That's because lyrics are separately copyrightable and if you're borrowing too much from the originals, you would create an infringing derivative. That said, we kind of doubt that the copyright owners are going to care enough to do something about this project so we're inclined to think you can proceed as planned.
Do intellectual property lawyers exist in every city? Probably, check one of the many Canadian legal directories (type "canada legal directory" into your search engine).

Can Site Sue For Downloading Photo?

Dear Rich: I'd like to follow up on the "Can I use Louise Brooks Photo?" question. Your answer was (basically) that it was likely public domain because it probably was not renewed, so the artist could use the image without (much) fear of repercussion from a copyright holder. But what about the site hosting the image from which the artist obtained the image? Would the artist have to worry about the site hosting the image claiming some sort of copyright? I know about Corel v. Bridgeman, but that doesn't stop many websites from claiming copyright to the PD photographs that they have scanned and posted. Does that have any validity, or could the artist freely download and use the photo? Does the ubiquity of the image impact this at all -- an image that's all over the place would be okay, while an image scanned onto one site be off limits? You can almost always download a public domain image without consequence. The only exceptions are if the work has been modified and a separate copyright exists in the derivative (the "moustache on the Mona Lisa" situation), or if you affirmatively consented to a site's terms and conditions (for example, you clicked "Yes to Accept"), and those terms and conditions prohibited downloading. The latter, by the way, is not a copyright violation, it's breach of a contract (a license agreement). Otherwise, you're free to download a public domain image. We've addressed this issue -- where somebody claims copyright over their copy of a public domain work -- in a previous post about Gray's Anatomy (not the TV show) and in another post about the Crystal Bridges Museum. In almost all cases, these claims over ownership over a public domain image are a mixture of wishful thinking and legal bluster.

Can I Use Louise Brooks Photo?

Dear Rich: I'd like to ask your advice on whether I'm able to use a photo I've seen on the internet of the 1920's actress Louise Brooks for my art work which I would then sell online and through shops on the high street? The photo in question is the one in this link (2nd photo in along the bottom). There is no named photographer attached to it so I assume that no one knows the photographer??? I've seen the same picture on other sites in a better quality so other's have made improvements via photoshop or other software I'm guessing. Any help would be appreciated. We used Google's "Search by Image" feature and found over 600 reproductions of the Louise Brooks image, which either means that the the owner of copyright isn't policing the use -- in which case you're probably fine -- or that the work is in the public domain. Although works published before 1923 are in the public domain, the photograph in question most likely was published after that date as Brooks' film career did not really get going until 1925 when she was signed to a movie contract and began her "degrading enslavement." The photograph also may have fallen into the pubic domain if the copyright was not renewed -- for example, only seven percent of all book copyrights were renewed. Regardless of the PD status, so many reproductions have been published -- and so many of them are by poster merchants -- we assume that you won't be pursued for your reproduction.

Trying to Clear Pre-1923 Artwork for Film

Dear Rich: I work in the film industry and often experience frustration and confusion around the use of art work supposedly in the public domain. When I am trying to clear a piece of pre-1923 work (let's say published in the U.S. for practical purposes) I am often told that the rule is 70 years after the death of the artist (or sometimes 100 years). Many works published before 1923 have authors and illustrators that died significantly later. Does the "work for hire" or commissioned work by a corporate entity rule come into play here? In other words, because the piece was commissioned (or written by an employee) does that make the creator's copyright subject to the pre-1923 law? Any work first published in the U.S. before 1923 is in the public domain regardless of the lifespan of the author or authors, and regardless whether it was made by an employee or contractor under work for hire principles. Only works published after 1977, or unpublished works, (or unpublished works that were later published) are contingent upon author lifespans. When in doubt, check this handy public domain chart, or download a copy of Steve Fishman's excellent public domain book.

Is Darwin's Book in the Public Domain?

Dear Rich: Is Origin of Species copyrighted? I would like to use a short extract in a piece of artwork which will be for sale. Do I need permission and where from? No permission required. The text and illustrations from Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species were first published in the U.S. in 1860 (and don't you wish you had one of those first editions!) The publication date places the work safely in the public domain and is free for anyone to use.

Can I Create Raggedy Ann or Peter Rabbit eBook?

Dear Rich: I want to make and sell an interactive ebook for iPads and tablets using Johnny Gruelle's Raggedy Ann Stories book and Raggedy Andy Stories book. The books were published in 1918 and 1920. I plan to use the original text and illustrations. The interactive part will include moving the characters in the scene, combining parts of one illustration with another, adding sounds, and adding new drawings to existing illustrations. For example, children would be able to touch Raggedy Ann to make her arm move or touch the sky to make snowflakes fall.  I also want to .... Also, what about Beatrix Potter's Tales of Peter Rabbit published in 1902? What if I made an interactive counting or alphabet ebook with new text but used the original illustrations or parts of the illustrations from the copyright expired books. However, there are trademarks on Raggedy Ann and Raggedy Andy and Peter Rabbit. Would that infringe on the trademark? We'd like to greenlight your projects, but we think the trademark owners of Raggedy Ann and Peter Rabbit take a very narrow view of what's in the public domain. If you go beyond what they consider tolerable -- for example creating derivative works -- they may try to roadblock your work. For example, Peter Rabbit's lawyers claimed in one case that a collection of public domain Peter Rabbit stories with various juxtaposed graphics violated the Peter Rabbit trademarks. Citing the overlapping powers of trademark and copyright a federal court ruled that Peter Rabbit's lawyers could go ahead with their lawsuit. 
Turf protection. There's a lot of money riding on the proposition that trademarks can protect these public domain franchises -- for example, Disney's proprietary approach to Cinderella, Pinocchio, Snow White, Little Red Riding Hood, Sleeping Beauty, and the Little Mermaid. Peter Rabbit's lawyers are internationally active and we assume the Hasbro and Simon & Schuster legal teams for Raggedy Ann (and BFF Andy) are also vigilant.
Bottom Line Dept. We don't want to discourage your use of public domain materials and we like your book ideas. We also think that there's some case law that supports your position -- for example, the Supreme Court prohibited the use of trademarks to create a "mutant" copyright regime and the high court also liberated titles of public domain works. There's simply no bright line test to determine when (or whether) fictional characters from public domain books can be used to limit public domain reproductions.  For that reason, proceed with care. As a general rule the further you stray from the original public domain publication, the more likely you are to trigger a cease and desist letter. And if you plan to proceed with your projects, include prominent disclaimers stating that the works are not associated with the various trademark owners.

Emily D's Copyright Issues

Dear Rich: Can I quote four lines of Emily Dickinson's poetry in my novel without penalty? She lived approximately 139 years ago. We wish we could say that Emily's poetry is in the public domain but the definitive unedited versions of Dickinson's poems are said to have first been published in 1955 (even though Emily died in 1866). The 1955 edition was renewed and is under copyright until 2050 (95 years from the date of publication). (BTW, a 1998 edition -- scroll to bottom of this article -- of her poems is said to be the first version to correctly preserve Dickinson's punctuation.) Earlier edited works of Dickinson were published before 1923 and are in the public domain, so if you use these versions, you're home free. You can read more about Harvard University's claims to copyright over Dickinson's works, here. Regardless of whether the poetry is in the public domain, you have a good chance of success with a fair use argument because you are using such a short segment and for fictional purposes. You can review other fair use cases, here.

Folsom Prison Diary Blues

Dear Rich: I've read your response on the publishing of Great Uncle's diaries and appreciate that. I have possession of a Folsom prisoner's diary that goes from about 1911 - 1915. It was given to me by a friend and local historian about 30 yrs ago. I've found "his last name" in the diary, but I know he was never a prisoner, so am figuring he was given it by a relative. I don't remember years ago him mentioning a familial connection, but it's logical (and not a very common name). The man who gave me the diary has been dead over 20 years now. His wife has been gone close to that long too. The diary writer is not identified. There is a short poem inside the cover though that was written by a man who's not referred to anywhere else in the book so I've wondered if he might have been its author. I haven't taken it to Folsom yet because I'm wondering if I shouldn't work too hard to know who the author really is? Am I allowed to publish a "diary by an UNKNOWN prisoner at Folsom"? Can I get a copyright to do that? The diary is either (1) in the public domain -- in which case anybody can reproduce it and nobody can claim copyright -- or (2) it is protected by copyright -- in which case ... well, read on.
Is it PD? Probably the biggest issue is whether the work is considered anonymous or not. Under copyright law (scroll down), an author's contribution to a work is “anonymous” if that author is not identified on the copies of the work. We're not sure if that's the case with the diary, but if the author is not identified, the copyright lasts for 120 years from the date of creation which is unlikely to make it public domain. If it's not anonymous and you can identify the author by perusing the diary and the author died before 1942, you can claim public domain status and freely reproduce the diary. Sound confusing ... but wait there's more. You may want to take a look at a rarely used section of copyright law, 17 U.S.C. § 302(e), which states:

(e) Presumption as to Author’s Death.— After a period of 95 years from the year of first publication of a work, or a period of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first, any person who obtains from the Copyright Office a certified report that the records provided by subsection (d) disclose nothing to indicate that the author of the work is living, or died less than 70 years before, is entitled to the benefits of a presumption that the author has been dead for at least 70 years. Reliance in good faith upon this presumption shall be a complete defense to any action for infringement under this title.

Bottom Line Dept. The lineage for this publication seems so distant (and tangled) that you may decide to proceed with publication regardless of copyright law. After all, the only way someone can stop you is to demonstrate that they are the copyright owner which -- based on your info -- seems like a difficult task. If the chances of being hassled are slim, you may wish to risk it for the sake of popularizing this historic document.

Wants to Reproduce 1890s Diary

Dear Rich: I have an unpublished diary from the late 1890s that is chock full of material of real interest to historians. It contains not a whiff of scandal or impropriety, but the owners of the copyright for this work (the diary writer's children) have no interest in publishing it themselves and will not grant permission for anyone else to publish it. If, for educational purposes, it were to be transformed into a free searchable online blog, with added photos and links to explanatory information, do you think that would pass the fair use test? We just started keeping a eDiary and we can't wait to write in today's entry that today we answered a question about somebody else's diary. Actually, we never realized how much work it is to document daily life.  And we have to say it's a little disappointing sometimes to re-read it and realize that our life is basically a series of meals interrupted by commentary. (Good meals, BTW).
Right, you had a question.  If the author of the diary died before 1942, then nobody owns copyright. The work is in the public domain. If the author died after 1941, the diary would still be under copyright and republication as you describe would most likely be an infringement, and not a fair use.

Night of the Living Kids Book

Dear Rich: I work for a children's publisher and one of the things we periodically produce are young reader editions of horror classics, such as Dracula and Frankenstein. In the last decade, another horror favorite has risen (from the grave) in popularity: the zombie. Now, the ur-text for the zombie, as people today think of them, is the 1968 film 'Night of the Living Dead'. Famously, the original film is in the public domain owing to some error made by the production company. So my question is, does that mean the story itself is public domain, too? For example, would it be legitimate to produce a book using the same name, character names and plot? Or, failing that, would it be legitimate to produce a book that copied the story but went under a slightly different name (e.g. 'Night of the Zombies'), and changed the character names? Copyright experts agree that the 1968 film, Night of the Living Dead, is in the public domain in the U.S. and -- thanks to a case involving a 1962 John Wayne film -- so is the underlying screenplay. That would leave others free to duplicate the story, plot and dialogue and create derivatives.  The characters such as Ben, Barbra, Harry, Helen, Tom, and Judy, would also fall into the public domain, as this case has indicated. Finally, the title of the work has also passed to the public domain as the Supreme Court has held that the title of a work that enters the public domain cannot be protected as a trademark. Which means that a children's re-telling, as you propose, would not violate U.S. copyright law. However, your derivative work could only be protected to the extent of any new or "incremental" material added to the original.
Muddy waters. Although the story, title, plot, dialogue, and characters are in the public domain, the original screenwriters (George Romero and John Russo) went gone on to create copyrighted sequels and remakes of the original using the same characters. (The two screenwriters couldn't agree on a sequel and Romero acquired the right to movie sequels using "Of the Dead" and Russo acquired rights to "Living Dead" movie sequels. Russo also went on to create a series of Night of the Living Dead comics using the characters and plot from the original.) No trademarks have been federally registered for "Night of the Living Dead" for books but the comics publisher has a reasonable claim that the term is used as the trademark for the series. All of this adds to the confusion surrounding copyright (and explains why a squadron of would-be and oft-bogus enforcers swoop down in opposition whenever the film is loaded on YouTube).
Bottom Line Dept. We think the coast is clear for a young reader's edition in the U.S. but you may want to get an opinion letter from a copyright/trademark lawyer, if possible. You have a good chance of prevailing on copyright claims but we think your activity may possibly attract lawsuits, anyway. In addition, we can't confirm copyright status of the film in the U.K. (where you're located).
BTW ... For those interested in "monetizing" the film, it's also unclear whether certain "separable" elements of the film are also public domain -- for example, the music (credited at different times to William Loose and Fred Steiner and to Scott Vladimir Licina), and the trailer for the film.

Wants to Use Quotes About God

"God the Father" by Pompeo Girolamo Batoni

Dear Rich: Question No. 1 - If one is writing a book on quotations arranged by topic/subject, does the author need to get the permission for the quotations. Question No. 2 - I am writing a non-fiction book about the variety of human thoughts on God. My book will contain a lots of quotation from old and new ages about God. Do I need to get permission to use the quotations from different people.  Question No. 3 - My book has a section on how children think about God and I want to use about six independent short quotes from a book called "Children's Letters to God." I am referencing this book and other books on the same topic and using 4-5 quotes from each book as illustrative examples for my chapter on how children think about God. We sought divine advice on your questions but none has arrived as of time of our publication. So, we're forced to spout some time-honored copyright rules. Your ability to use quotations and short phrases is partially based on fair use, partially based on the fact that copyright doesn't protect short phrases, and partially based on the fact that many quotes are so short as to qualify as being "trivial" or "de minimis" uses. In addition, you don't need to worry about using quotes that were published before 1923 (see this chart for more details). As for using several quotes culled from a book that features quotations from children's letters, the rules may be a little different, depending on how long the quotes are, how many are taken, and whether your use qualifies as a fair use. In addition you need to avoid taking so many that you are stepping on the other author's compilation copyright.

Wants to Use NYT Rotogravures

Library of Congress WWI Rotogravure Collection

Dear Rich: Could you tell me the copyright laws regarding the duplication of imagery from the Rotogravure pictorial section of the New York Times and other U.S. Papers dating from the 1910's to the 1940's. There is vast diversity of imagery from advertisements to images of the New York skyline, Gandhi and Presidents to day to day people. Is the paper covered by copyright? Can I retail the original images individually? Can I duplicate the images to retail. Is there a restriction on copying advertisements. Are there restrictions using the New York Times fonts? You can safely use rotogravures published before 1923 (public domain) and you may be able to use rotogravures published after 1923 (and before 1964) if the issues comprising the rotogravures weren't renewed (a statistical probability, considering that only 15% of works were renewed). You can most likely use pre-1940s advertisements as it is unlikely the companies that owned those ad copyrights will object, assuming the ads ever had copyright protection. (The ads wouldn't be protected under the NYT's copyright; they would only be protected if they had a separate copyright notice.) It's possible, but unlikely that you will risk a trademark claim for reproducing an old ad. So summing up, you can use a work if it is in the public domain (the rules are explained in this timeline) or if your use qualifies for a copyright exception -- such as fair use or under the first sale doctrine (for example, you cut up New York Times and sell it as wallpaper).  As for the New York Times font (Old English aka Blackletter), it's not subject to copyright protection but we would recommend against using the New York Times trademark, or the font, in conjunction with the promotion of your products. You want to avoid creating the impression that your products are endorsed by or associated with the New York Times.