Recently I printed a booklet from a document I downloaded from the Pocket Watch Database website. The cost of printing such a document by a printer is pretty much the same price for 10 copies as it is for a single, so now I have 9 extra copies. I'm considering selling these on eBay for a reasonable price 1) to recoup some of my costs, 2) others may want the booklet. I wonder if there are ethical, legal, etc. aspects of doing so. Is there a copyright protection on this document that might solicit a legal response? It was originally created by Hamilton in 1946.

 

Maybe write Hamilton for permission?

 

That's going to be Swatch group now. Not sure they would be too pleased with this, but you never know...

 

Based on the responses in this thread, does it imply that the Pocket Watch Database need to ask permission to show the online document?

 

What irritates is when people take public domain documents, sell them on ebay, and then try to claim copyright on what they are selling.

 

This could be in the public domain due to age. This is one of those things that it might be better to 'act now and ask forgiveness later'. I doubt Swatch Group is going to get up in arms over 9 copies being sold for a few bucks, but you never know.

 

Was it that expensive to print? Seems like a lot of energy to recoup a few dollars

 

I am not a lawyer but I got a little bit of training in copyright as part of working in large library system. There are a lot of unknowns here - Did they file for copyright at all? Did they renew it when it was up for renewal? Works created now have copyright even if copyright is not filed, but filing for copyright allows the copyright holder to receive punitive damages as well as actual damages. I'd have to check about the situation in 1946, though.

Fair use is a multipart test, with no one part being an absolute justification for abridging copyright:

- What is the purpose of the use? If it's education it leans toward more excusable than if it's to make money.
- What kind of work is it? Was selling this work their business, or is it a biproduct of their business?
- How much of the work are you using? Is this a few pages out of a book, a complete chapter, or the complete work?
- How much impact on the market are your copies going to have? Are they still selling this booklet, are you satisfying a large percentage of the demand for it, or very little?

All parts must be considered, not just one.

It sounds like putting it on the internet was probably a violation in the first place, if Hamilton did not give permission.

Selling them means you've lost point 1, and by reproducing the complete book you've lost point 3, and point 4 is hard to determine since it's already on the internet.

If it was me, frankly, I'd just keep my copy. Or write to Hamilton asking permission. Maybe you'd motivate them to start selling copies of their pamphlet

 

The cost of just asking the lawyer is probably more than the booklets. Keep the copies for personal use to keep you out of any lawyer's crosshairs. Just the cost of a filing fee in small claims type courts ($100-$500 USD) is more than the cost of the books and that cost would be expected to be reimbursed as part of any legal settlement. Attorney fees for bringing the claim could also apply and potentially, you could be responsible for their attorney fees as well. Others costs could be applicable as well depending on your jurisdiction and even the country of lawsuit. It can get sticky quick. Message me if you have more detailed questions as my legal advice (TN-USA lawyer) is very broad given the limited facts presented. Could also be issue with download license as well.

As an aside, that looks like an excellent job in printing the book.

 

There is a difference between displaying it and selling it. I'm no lawyer, but fair use doctrine might allow one but not the other. Making money off of something will definitely raise a higher level of scrutiny. Legal or illegal, sometimes the copyright owner might let things slide if nobody else is making money off of something. Especially if it gives them a little PR. However, once someone starts making money off of someone else's copyright, that's crossing a different line.

 

Interesting discussion.

It was $30 to make the 10 (32 page) booklets. The printer did a really nice job.

It certainly is not my intent to sell these to supplement my retirement fund. I feel that the booklet would be interesting for those who own a Hamilton Marine Chronometer. I would basically charge my cost + postage to interested parties. Look at it as "Hamilton Chronometer Fan aiding the Hamilton Chronometer Community".

Having said this, it is clear that involving paid lawyers would be equivalent of using a grenade launcher to kill a fly.

As @kkt mentioned, it could be there is no copyright in the original document (I don't see any copyright mark in the downloaded pictures of the pages - although there is a watermark of the Pocket Watch Database website). It may be the original Hamilton document was never sold as an item since it was probably a document that came with the clock - speculating here.

 

You could ask for a “silver collection” sort of payment, and refrain from actually putting a price on the booklet. That way, you are not offering it for sale. Just “making it available”. Is there an ISBN number showing it as registered with the library of Congress? Is there any information printed in the booklet about copying or reproducing being illegal? I though a copyright was like a patent, with a finite life expectancy. If a copyright is only in effect if is renewed, what are the chances that Swatch even bothered?

 

Isn't copyright for only 70 years unless renewed? If so, then it is already expired.

 

In the US, prior to March 1989, a copyright notice was required on any published work for it to be protected. If no notice was given, the work was in the public domain.

 

I gather this is a facsimile copy of an original document from 75 years ago. How the original document was marked may or may not still apply as regards reprints.

 

Give them away for free and just charge $10 shipping. Problem solved

 

I thought that also; I don't see anything "wrong" with it...

 

The Library of Congress doesn't assign ISBNs, Bowker's assigns publishers' ranges and individual numbers are assigned by the publishers (in the U.S.). The 1946 version of this booklet wouldn't have one anyway; the first ISBNs were used starting in the early 1970s. In general, there's not a great way to find out if a copyright was filed. Significant parts of the copyright files have not been put online, so you have to pay the Copyright Office more than these copies would be worth to search their paper files.

Copyrights used to be for 28 years with an optional renewal possible for a second 28-year term. Now the renewal is not required, and the term is life of the author plus 70 years, or 95 years for works for hire or anonymous works. But the longer term was applied retroactively to anything that was still within copyright when the changeover happened.

If you just keep one for yourself and give them away to a few friends, it seems unlikely that Hamilton will care. Start selling them, however, and they could get testy.