I understand Rik, this is a discussion form, exchanging views, and disagreeing, is part of what the Café is about.

I know the clause you are referring to. Here is the one from my girlfriend's current book "Pretending to Dance" by Diane Chamberlain, published in 2015
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This book is sold to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise be lent, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thus, re-packaging is clearly a no no, but I see nothing there to prevent re-purposing the book.
I would appreciate a UK lawyers view, I know there are more than a few who perform magic.

If you agree that repackaging is a no-no how would you propose someone repurpose a book for resale without repackaging?

It may be that a small scale operation would 'get away with it' but if it became significantly profitable I think a publisher would call in the lawyers. I suspect that this is an area where most cases do not get as far as the courts because a threat of legal action would be enough. Like you I would be interested to hear from a lawyer or other knowledgabel person if there is any actual case-law in this area.

You folks may be interested in the First Sale Doctrine:

"The first sale doctrine, codified at 17 U.S.C. § 109, provides that an individual who knowingly purchases a copy of a copyrighted work from the copyright holder receives the right to sell, display or otherwise dispose of that particular copy, notwithstanding the interests of the copyright owner."

https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-re......doctrine

Would "otherwise dispose of" allow the sale of a modified copy?

Also the doctrine appears to apply to the first sale only after obtaining it directly from the copyright holder. Does that mean a book bought from a shop (therefore not the copyright holder) would not be able to be resold? Or maybe if obtained directly from the copyright holder you could sell it but then the person you sold it to could not later resell it?

I think the "First Sale Doctrine" is mainly designed to keep lawyers employed - as seems to be the case with most copyright and intellectual property related laws

Of course you can't make changes to a book - and sell it on.

Shades of Grey / Twilight

If you want to release a BT – you either use a title that is in the public domain [of course you have to design your own art/cover work] or you make up a book title

In terms of fair use – no chance

You would need to report him to Random House [whomever] and they will send a cease and desist – or he would need to make enough money for them to notice and do that off their own back <but then they would be taking him for all the money he made, and then some>

The idea that you can change a novel [even a few lines], is crazy

You can sell it second hand – as it is

You can make all the changes you want to your own copy…

But you can’t make any changes, and then sell it on with those changes

Fair Use:



There are several factors that a court will consider when determining whether an instance of infringement qualifies as fair use. Non-commercial use weighs heavily in favor of finding that the infringement is fair use. Violations often occur when the use is motivated primarily by a desire for commercial gain. The fact that a work is published primarily for private commercial gain weighs against a finding of fair use.

the following types of uses are usually deemed fair uses:
• Criticism and commentary: For example, quoting or excerpting a work in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment would normally be fair use. A book reviewer would be permitted to quote passages from a book in a newspaper column as part of an examination of the book.
• News reporting: Summarizing an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report constitutes fair use. A journalist would be permitted to quote from a political speech's text without the politician's permission.
• Research and scholarship: Quoting a short passage in a scholarly, scientific, or technical work for illustration or clarification of the author's observations would be deemed acceptable. An art historian would be able to use an image of a painting in an academic article that analyzes the painting.
• Nonprofit educational uses: When teachers photocopy limited portions of written works for classroom use, this is normally acceptable. An English teacher would be permitted to copy a few pages of a book to show to the class as part of a lesson plan. (Note that she would not be permitted to photocopy the entire book).
• Parody: Parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known, work by imitating it in a comic way. A comedian could quote from a movie star's speech in order to make fun of that star.

Duster - if this is the case, wouldn’t the recent release of The Great Gats y book test on theory 11 be a violation, as well? That book isn’t currently in the public domain (as far as I know it doesn’t do so until 2021), and was also edited/changed.

Great Gatsby has been in the public domain for 7 or more years

I know that it isn't in the USA [that's complicated - and the song 'Happy Birthday' was supposed to still be not in the public domain until that was recently challenged and won, so now is]

But if theory 11 were selling it outside the USA - than GG is public domain - and has been for almost a decade

Every time I see this thread I want to throw up ....

Thanks, duster. However, since it’s not in public domain in the US, wouldn’t this also be considered a copyright violation in the US? I’m just curious why I haven’t seen a multi-page thread vilifying Josh Zandman in the same way They are BB.

Mind you, I’m not saying they should. I’m just asking.

Just because something is not legal, or breaks copyright – doesn’t mean that they have or will be caught

I know that a lot of Children’s entertainers in the UK dress up and do Peppa Pig parties. They advertise that on their websites/etc. The company that owns Peppa Pig – are one of the companies that actively search infringements out and ‘sort it out’ – to start with just with a warning to stop.

I know two people who worked as such [they wouldn’t pay a license for Peppa as it’s something stupid like well above the price they can charge for a show, never mind them then making any money for working the shows] – one got away with it for almost two years, the others still hasn’t been contacted. And the company that does Peppa Pig has a whole department working on ‘protecting their brand’

If you were to call up a company [who owns the copyright] they should take action – but most won’t notice otherwise… unless you ‘make it big’

In the ideal world – you would make a BT for yourself [not sell it to anyone else] – as then it would be very unlikely you would ever have any trouble. As the whole point is you are telling the audience it is the real/normal book

Also for gatsby - being so close to the end of it's life [protected]

And only in the USA

They probably would have little motivation to do anything

All they would make money on now is if a new film was commissioned from the book - but a moive would be too soon to the last one, and would wait a couple of years and save $x

Also it's far more likely BB and JZ, didn't think

Or they did think, and came to the same misguided conclusion that many on this thread seem to have - that you are allowed to do this to someone else's work [and sell it on]

What I mean by didn't think - is they weren't being devious or naughty - it just didn't occur to them that they were doing something shady/wrong

It looks like it has been a while since anyone made comments about these book tests. Are they similar to MOABT ~ Pocket?

Yes.