The Amsterdam court ruled that the original texts of the “Diary of Anne Frank” could be copied for purposes of scientific research by the Anne Frank House and the Dutch Academy of Sciences, are we learned this Wednesday. The judgment does however not concern the duration of copyright in which the issue is being debated.
The “Diary of Anne Frank,” written by the Jewish teenager 13 years between June 1942 and August 1944 while she was hiding with her family in Amsterdam, was published for the first time Dutch by his father, Otto Frank, in 1947. It has been translated in over 70 languages.
The legislation provides a work falls into the public domain on January 1 following the seventy years since the death of the author “or the last surviving author.” Anne Frank had died in 1945 at the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp (Germany), the text should become duty free in 2016. But the Anne Frank Fund, located in Basel, founded in 1963, is not of this opinion.
Why it gets stuck
The copyright holder believes that the text is a “posthumous work”, published long after the death of the girl. Before the publication of the text, the father of Anne Frank has eliminated passages considered too personal for the Swiss foundation thus became co-author which would fall “The Diary of a Young Girl” in the public domain only in 2051 .
Olivier Ertzscheid, Lecturer in Information Science, was moved early October on his blog that the Journal is not within the public domain. He also released the full text, which is illegal. An initiative followed by other personalities, but that the Fund did not miss, putting his lawyers instantly. The lecturer maintains its position and underlines that while the symbol that represents “Mein Kampf” into the public domain on January 1.
Does exchange Judgment things?
“The Fund and the Foundation agreed before the trial,” said one of the members of the Board, Yves Kugelmann: “Some text has been published in the Netherlands for the first time in 1986, so they are protected until 1 January 2037 or 50 years after publication initial, as provided by the Dutch legislation. “
The Anne Frank Fund asked the court to prevent the Anne Frank Foundation, which runs the museum in Amsterdam in particular, publish the texts in the context of a Scientific Research. “In its decision, the court took into account two fundamental rights: the interests of the Fund for the maintenance of intellectual property rights and freedom of scientific research”, explained the judges in their decision, taken several days before publication on the Internet.
The foundation and the Dutch Academy of Sciences, they are “happy that the Copyright Act could be used to thwart scientific research”.