Can I get in trouble for printing a book (public domain)

[ki4jgt]

Can I legally get in trouble for printing and selling books which are under public domain. There is a bible in another language which falls under the public domain. Just the bible itself cost $70 on ebay ($90 on Amazon) (This one is just a bible with no fancy addons) I can get it printed for cheaper and the author is long dead. The book is marked published in 1926, although I know for a fact the texts have been around since the 1800s. I also wanted to add the fancy addons that normal bibles have.

[t0p]

If a work is in public domain, that means no one "owns" the intellectual property rights (because they've lapsed, or the "owner" has specifically passed them to public domain). So you can reproduce to your heart's content.

What's more, if you make substantial additions/revisions, I think you will own copyright to that. So your work will not be in the public domain - you will "own" the intellectual property rights. I would suggest you use a Creative Commons license to cover your work, but of course that's up to you.

[SeijiSensei]

I'd do a little more research myself. Is there a copyright assignment in the 1926 edition? To whom? Has the copyright been renewed? Perhaps the offspring of the original owner still retain the rights. Have you looked to see whether there are more recent editions or reprints?

With the recent extension (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act) of copyright terms, it's certainly possible that this book is protected by copyright. "Copyright protection for works published prior to January 1, 1978, was increased by 20 years to a total of 95 years from their publication date." So it's possibly still protected until 2021.

[t0p]

With the recent extension (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act) of copyright terms, it's certainly possible that this book is protected by copyright. "Copyright protection for works published prior to January 1, 1978, was increased by 20 years to a total of 95 years from their publication date." So it's possibly still protected until 2021.

I believe it was Cher's ex, Sonny, to blame for that. Or maybe Mickey Mouse. I'd have to look into it to be sure, but I can't be bothered. :p

[ki4jgt]

I believe it was Cher's ex, Sonny, to blame for that. Or maybe Mickey Mouse. I'd have to look into it to be sure, but I can't be bothered. :p

It has an ISBN number, where can I search copyright information from that?

[donkyhotay]

I believe it was Cher's ex, Sonny, to blame for that. Or maybe Mickey Mouse. I'd have to look into it to be sure, but I can't be bothered. :p

What you're thinking of is the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_Mouse_Protection_Act) which is often called the "mickey mouse protection act" because disney was such a big supporter and it's kept early mickey mouse cartoons out of the public domain. To get back to the OP's issue if in doubt talk to a copyright lawyer. Copyright law (especially in the USA) is pretty messed up, complicated, and liable to get you sued by a company with a team of better lawyers then you can afford if you do something wrong. Be aware that the USA know has some of the longest copyrights in the world according to wikipedia. This article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries%27_copyright_length) shows that it can pontentially be the longest in the world at 120 years from creation (if not published), and the 2nd longest (at 95 years) if going by the shorter published time (even then it's only a 4 year difference).

[forrestcupp]

This web site (http://*******ooks.library.upenn.edu/renewals.html) is pretty informative on searching to see if something is public domain. Unfortunately, it looks like for something that old, you'll have to either actually go to the Library of Congress and search through the microfilm, or hire someone to do it.

[SeijiSensei]

It has an ISBN number, where can I search copyright information from that?

A Google search for "isbn search" brings up a lot of alternatives.

[dh04000]

I hope the OP just plans on making copies for him, family, and community. It doesn't feel good to me for him to try to make a business out of a bible....... (yes I know the irony in that)

[Muffinabus]

On second thought, I shouldn't go there, ha.

[forrestcupp]

I hope the OP just plans on making copies for him, family, and community. It doesn't feel good to me for him to try to make a business out of a bible....... (yes I know the irony in that)

While looking into this, I've found that there are actually a lot of people who are in the business of looking for obscure public domain works, creating a good book cover, slapping an ISBN code on them and selling them as their own.

It's just wrong sounding, but it's legal and people do it.

[dh04000]

While looking into this, I've found that there are actually a lot of people who are in the business of looking for obscure public domain works, creating a good book cover, slapping an ISBN code on them and selling them as their own.

It's just wrong sounding, but it's legal and people do it.

Oh, its perfectly legal..... but the moral issues abound.

Sometimes re-branding a book can be a good thing. Who wants to print out a 400 page book and read it on printer paper? But I think the re-brander should at least inform you that the original is available in the public domain and where to find it.

[dh04000]

On second thought, I shouldn't go there, ha.

Probably for the best. ;)

[mkendall]

I believe it was Cher's ex, Sonny, to blame for that. Or maybe Mickey Mouse. I'd have to look into it to be sure, but I can't be bothered. :p

As pointed out above, Sonny had a big part in it. What's worse, Sonny actually wanted copyright to be held in perpetuity.

"And the beat goes on...."

[Dry Lips]

While looking into this, I've found that there are actually a lot of people who are in the business of looking for obscure public domain works, creating a good book cover, slapping an ISBN code on them and selling them as their own.

It's just wrong sounding, but it's legal and people do it.
I partially agree with you. Actually some of the companies
that is in this business don't even bother to create decent covers,
but publish stuff that just looks awful and is difficult to read
as well... I think that is pure speculation.

On the other hand, I think re-publishing books that is in the
public domain is essentially a good thing. Books that are long
out of print could literally cost a fortune to buy at antiquarian
bookshops, so why shouldn't these obscure works once more
be printed and sold again?
Even though the authors are long dead, their words should be
allowed to live on.

[forrestcupp]

On the other hand, I think re-publishing books that is in the
public domain is essentially a good thing. Books that are long
out of print could literally cost a fortune to buy at antiquarian
bookshops, so why shouldn't these obscure works once more
be printed and sold again?
Even though the authors are long dead, their words should be
allowed to live on.

True, as long as they're not taking credit for it. Some people do that.

[ki4jgt]

I don't believe in the whole religious money market, but as I said, it sells for $70 on ebay and $90 on Amazon. I can't say, I wouldn't let the money get to my head and I would feel very bad about that one (maybe I should give the profits to charity) but I would like to offer the book to people without requiring them to pay an arm and a leg for it.

[Dry Lips]

True, as long as they're not taking credit for it. Some people do that.

Really? I had no idea... That sounds not only morally wrong,
but also quite stupid. I mean, first trying to impress someone
with a book that you haven't written, and then being exposed
as a cheater....

[Pougnet]

IS my opinion, there is nothing wrong with making money off it. If there is a huge profit margin as you have depicted, go for it.