Maybrick..where are we?

[Chris]

Caroline Morris

You are trying to confuse people by giving them the impression that there is something complicated about this. There is not. It is extremely simple.

I'll say it yet again. There are only two ways in which someone can own the copyright in a work: (1) by being the author of the work or (2) by having been granted it by the previous owner of copyright.

That is fundamental to the whole concept of copyright. It is extremely well known, and I am amazed that you seem to be disputing it.

[Chris]

As for your confusion about orphan works and your predictable attempt to drag in the irrelevant question of when the diary was written, let me try to make it very simple for you. There are two possibilities:
(1) Copyright had already expired by the early 1990s, in which case Robert Smith clearly cannot hold copyright now.
(2) The work was still protected by copyright in the early 1990s, in which case the situation is as described in the information I directed you to.

In either case it would be quite impossible for Robert Smith to appropriate the copyright in the diary in the way you are suggesting. It is absolute nonsense.

[Chris]

And, just as a matter of interest, I believe that in British law as an unpublished manuscript the diary would still have been protected by copyright in the early 1990s, regardless of when it was written and who wrote it.

But that question is entirely irrelevant to the one we're discussing, for the reason I have just explained.

[DirectorDave]

"You admit that you stated you did not care one iota about it and here you are still posting to this thread. And it's still totally fine."

I may posting on the thread but I am not talking about "The Subject".....I am just discussing the minutia of our interaction.

I have no idea what the etiquette v rules comment means in the context of anything I've posted. Is it important I should know?

Importance is relative I guess.....if you knew it wouldn't knock the financial crisis off the front pages or anything.

[caz]

I'll say it yet again. There are only two ways in which someone can own the copyright in a work: (1) by being the author of the work or (2) by having been granted it by the previous owner of copyright.

Goodness, it’s like arguing with a bag of marbles.

Christopher Phillips

Have you established, by any faint chance, how many years make up the ‘full term of copyright’ for the published work, according to Robert? If it’s 25 years from 1993, when Smith Gryphon first published the diary, then I suspect that the following Intellectual Property Office link may be relevant:

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-otherprotect/c-publication.htm

But the best way to sort this out would be for me to ask Robert when I next see him.

And, just as a matter of interest, I believe that in British law as an unpublished manuscript the diary would still have been protected by copyright in the early 1990s, regardless of when it was written and who wrote it.

In what way ‘protected’, Chris? From being published by someone other than its original author, or his/her heirs? From the same website the information is clear that copyright protection runs for the life of the creator plus 70 years, during which time the holder would be whoever had inherited the work. In publishing a diary claiming to be the work of a man who was buried in Anfield Cemetery in 1889, and whose two known children had both died childless, Robert presumably wasn’t imagining that a creator, an heir or a spare would ever come out of the woodwork to prove that copyright had not expired and they were the current holder. [There’s also a bit about authors waiving their ‘moral rights’ to their creation, or choosing not to exercise them, which sounds deliciously apt in the case of a Jack the Ripper confession, regardless of when it was created and who was doing the ‘confessing’.]

As for the two fanciful notions that tickle your fancy: (1) Mike proving he was the author/legitimate copyright holder in 1992 and conveying it to Robert, or (2) Robert knowingly publishing a copyright protected “orphan work” without permission and claiming to be its new copyright owner, I’m not sure whose intelligence you are insulting, your readers’ or Robert’s, in your efforts to make him look bad in his absence. But as usual you only manage to make yourself sound petty and spiteful, and not as well informed as you’d like people to believe.

Have you enough backbone to put your two notions to Robert in person, if you truly believe one of them must apply? I’m sure he could have explained it for you very simply in about four seconds, saving us all from your tedious walk down another diary dead end.

Love,

Caz
X

[Chris]

Have you established, by any faint chance, how many years make up the ‘full term of copyright’ for the published work, according to Robert? If it’s 25 years from 1993, when Smith Gryphon first published the diary, then I suspect that the following Intellectual Property Office link may be relevant:

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-o...ublication.htm

That relates to publication right, not copyright.

It now applies when material whose copyright has expired is published for the first time. But it wasn't introduced in the UK until 1996, so it didn't exist when the diary was first published.

[Chris]

From the same website the information is clear that copyright protection runs for the life of the creator plus 70 years, during which time the holder would be whoever had inherited the work.

Again, that describes the situation for works created now. But it has been the case only since 1989. As I understand it, unpublished works created before 1989 are normally protected at least until 2039. But copyright in unpublished works is quite a complicated subject.

Fortunately, it's irrelevant whether or not the diary was still protected by copyright in 1993, for the reasons I've already given.

[Chris]

As for the two fanciful notions that tickle your fancy: (1) Mike proving he was the author/legitimate copyright holder in 1992 and conveying it to Robert ...

Just to be clear, I have never said I find that a plausible notion.

I have simply pointed out that the logical implication of Robert Smith's statement that Barrett granted the publication rights to Shirley Harrison et al. is obviously that Barrett owned the copyright.

[doris]

This thread was an interesting read. Thanks.

The 'JTR diary' was the thing that, nearly 10 years ago, got me interested in JTR.

Iam utterly convinced that the diary is fake, not because of any physical evidence, or the diaries contents. But simply because the 'diary' doesent 'feel' right.
I would love to hear a believable account of the books creation.

No offense to liverpudlian scrap merchants, but I think that the creation of the diary is beyond the scope of Barret's talents.

I know that it apparantly mentions some details which weren't known until recently, and yet seems to have been created some time ago. This I think is the thing which diary fans use to argue its authenticity.

But the internal errors, and handwrititng issues are massive problems for the 'diaries' authenticity.

However one of the anti-diary camps main arguments seems to me to be pathetic. They say that why would Maybrick take a book and remove the first few pages and then use the book.

I cannot begin to remember how many times that I have bought a note or scrap book. Started using it for one reason, and they some time later changed my mind about the books use, ripped the used pages out and then used the book for another reason.

That particular argument seems to hold little water.

ANd I recall that the ion migration test seemed to indicate that the 'diary' was of some considerable age.

But, those few arguments in the 'diaries' favour go no way in my mind to establishing the diaries credentials.

The internal evidence has huge holes in it-

The farthings
The rings
The letters, and on. and on



So to sum up.

I think the diary is fake, old, and jolly interesting.

I would love to know who wrote it.

doris

[caz]

Lovely post, Doris.

Balanced, sensible, polite and non-judgemental.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

That relates to publication right, not copyright.

It now applies when material whose copyright has expired is published for the first time. But it wasn't introduced in the UK until 1996, so it didn't exist when the diary was first published.

Hi Chris,

I think I'm right in saying that it was not until 1997 that Robert Smith personally acquired the publication right (which gives the same protection as copyright). But inside Shirley's 1993 hard back, it does say:

Copyright © original diary and facsimile and
transcript of the diary, Smith Gryphon Ltd 1993
Copyright © narrative and commentary,
Shirley Harrison and Michael Barrett 1993

So, as I say, I don't claim to understand all the legal ins and outs.

But copyright in unpublished works is quite a complicated subject.

Er, I think you'll find I said that first. You were the one who insisted it was all very simple and uncomplicated.

Fortunately, it's irrelevant whether or not the diary was still protected by copyright in 1993, for the reasons I've already given.

I wish you'd make your mind up, Chris. You complicated things by introducing the idea of the diary being copyright protected in 1993, either because Mike Barrett owned the copyright then (ha ha ha ha ha - my sides are splitting etc etc) or as an "orphan work", so you could sneeringly imply that Robert a) knowingly published a modern fake (how else could Mike have acquired copyright in the work itself prior to publication in 1993?) or b) published some unknown faker's protected fake and got it protected all over again in his own right, without the faker's express permission.

If it wasn't still protected in the run up to its first publication, what exactly would Robert's unpardonable sin be then?

I have simply pointed out that the logical implication of Robert Smith's statement that Barrett granted the publication rights to Shirley Harrison et al. is obviously that Barrett owned the copyright.

It seems to me that Robert's only sin was to word things in such a way that gave you an excuse to infer something that very obviously does not reflect the reality of the situation as we both know it. Mike simply made a legal commitment not to take his old scrapbook off to any other publisher. That's it.

What publication 'right' do you suppose Mike would have had to grant anyone in 1993, in a legal sense, and why would that 'obviously' make him the owner of the copyright? I thought you were making a distinction between the two in the first quote at the top of this post, to imply that if Robert owns the publication right, it's not equivalent to owning the copyright.

As Robert was generous enough to send you a copy of the Leeds report on the diary ink, I assume you have contact details for him and could have 'pointed out' the logical implication of his words to him directly, if you had any genuine interest in clarifying the reality behind them.

Love,

Caz
X

[doris]

Lovely post, Doris.

Balanced, sensible, polite and non-judgemental.

Love,

Caz
X

Thanks.

Since I wrote that post I read Paul Feldman's The final chapter book again.

He seems to place a great deal of importance on people looking like other people. Could he not simply ask the involved parties to undergo DNA testing to establish a relationship?

I would love to hear the results of that, as I said earlier I think the diary is fascinating.

When I first became aware of it ages ago, by watching Michael Winners film I knew nothing about JTR and the film caused shivers to recreate the grand national up and down my spine.

It was the film and diary that inspired my interest in JTR.

I would dearly love to be convinced by the diary.
Imagine how great it would be to go to bed every night knowing that the mystery had been solved?

But Iam not, unfortunatly.

Recently, after I had read 38 of the most popular JTR books (which I obtained by a huge slice of good fortune) I read Mr Feldman's book again, reading the diary book after I had learned a little bit about JTR reminded me how many interesting co-incidences and odd 'facts' there were surrounding the 'diary'.

The other thing which I failed to mention in my previous post is why the devil has the author not revealed himself?

Surely the only reason someone would have spent such a great amount of time and effort learning about JTR, the maybrick case, arsenic addiction, liverpool society in the late 19th century, and all the other things neccesary to write the diary would be to profit from it. In which case why has noone either made a fortune from it or revealed what he/she did?

doris

[Chris]

I think I'm right in saying that it was not until 1997 that Robert Smith personally acquired the publication right (which gives the same protection as copyright). But inside Shirley's 1993 hard back, it does say:

Copyright © original diary and facsimile and
transcript of the diary, Smith Gryphon Ltd 1993
Copyright © narrative and commentary,
Shirley Harrison and Michael Barrett 1993

So, as I say, I don't claim to understand all the legal ins and outs.

Well, quite.

Suffice it to say that - as I have been telling you all along - there is no way that Robert Smith could own the copyright unless the authorship of the diary were known. But thankfully that claim seems to have been dropped now.

And in fact, there's no way at all that he could own the publication right. As I have already pointed out, this was introduced into UK law with effect from 1 December 1996. The relevant clause reads as follows:
"A person who after the expiry of copyright protection, publishes for the first time a previously unpublished work has, in accordance with the following provisions, a property right ("publication right") equivalent to copyright."

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1996/Uksi_19962967_en_3.htm#mdiv16

It applies only to previously unpublished works. So obviously it cannot apply to any publication as late as 1997. And just as obviously it cannot apply to the first publication of the diary, because this provision didn't exist when the diary was first published.

And in any case, copyright protection had certainly not expired at the time the diary was first published. Under the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, as an unpublished manuscript the diary would remain protected by copyright until at least 2039. That is true whoever wrote it and whenever it was written. You can find the relevant provisions here - 12(3) and 12(4):

http://tinyurl.com/y9vfnqa

[doris]

Why must people be so unpleasant when discussing the 'diary'?

I understand that people have wildy divergent opinions upon the book, but it seems to generate an amazing amount of ill will and rudeness.

As i have mentioned earlier Iam very interested in the 'diary' and read anything about it with avidity.

Pontius dear boy I would love to learn who wrote the 'diary', who was it and what evidence do you have?
If the only evidence you can proffer is the confession of a deeply unhappy piss-pot I fail to see why you set so much score by it.

I refuse to believe that a scrap merchant could knock up such a fascinating document with no asistance.

As I have said before I do not think the 'diary' was written by JTR, and Iam fairly sure it wasn't written by Maybrick.
But who wrote it?

And what about the watch, where did that come from? And who managed to implant the aged brass particles?

So many questions to be answered, and for some reason so much unpleasantness.

doris

[spyglass]

Doris!
Well put...and I am in full agreement with you.
Although the diary has polluted JTR studies since it arrival in the 90's, I still have to admire the person/persons behind it. I would love to be able to pull something like that off. ( thats of course if it is a fake)
It is a great mystery and intresting sidebar in its self,and if one day JTR is finally named once and for all, and with no doubt, then at least we have another mystery to explore.