"The Diary of Anne Frank" provides readers a glimpse into the experiences of a teen girl living in World War II-era Europe but now it's getting a co-author: Frank's father.
Doreen Carvajal wrote for The New York Times that Otto Frank maintained the book mostly included his daughter's words in a prologue for its first release. Now, the Swiss foundation owning the copyright has alerted publishers he both edited and co-wrote the book.
The Times noted the move's "practical effect."
"It extends the copyright from Jan. 1, when it is set to expire in most of Europe, to the end of 2050," according to the Times. "Copyrights in Europe generally end 70 years after an author's death. Anne Frank died 70 years ago at Bergen-Belsen, a concentration camp, and Otto Frank died in 1980. Extending the copyright would block others from being able to publish the book without paying royalties or receiving permission."
The change doesn't affect the diary's copyright in the U.S., which still ends in 2047, according to the Times.
Michael Harthorne wrote for Newser the Anne Frank Fund's decision drew ire from many.
The foundation which donates proceeds from "The Diary of Anne Frank" sales to charities stated the copyright proves necessary to "protect her work from unchecked commercial exploitation," according to Newser.
Opponents of the fund's measure argue among other issues, the change shows dishonesty, Michael Schaub wrote for the Los Angeles Times.
"If you follow their arguments, it means that they have lied for years about the fact that it was only written by Anne Frank," the Times quoted French intellectual property attorney Agns Tricoire as saying.
So does the addition of Anne Frank's father as co-writer only have financial implications?
Not even close: It's just as much about people having access to the diary, Adam Epstein wrote for Quartz. The landmark work "would enjoy a much larger readership" in public domain.
"The public domain was created precisely so that works like Franks diary could eventually be read and owned, collectively, by everyone," Quartz's piece read. "For instance, last year, the music of Sergei Rachmaninoff, the writings of Franz Oppenheimer, and the research of Nikola Tesla all entered the public domain, 70 years after the authors deaths."
The Times detailed another possibility to push the work's entry into public domain back even longer involving another editor.
Mirjam Pressler revised Anne Frank's diary for a "definitive edition" in 1991, according to the Times. Pressler still lives, which could give the foundation "copyright ownership from the date of her future death for at least another 70 years."
Karen Bartlett wrote for Newsweek of how the diary has sold 31 million copies and the international exhibition "Anne Frank A History for Today" features over 40 language translations.
However, constant revisions and adaptions downplay Anne Frank's faith and experiences with family, focusing on the "icon" aspect of her, Newsweek reported.
"Critics of the diarys success, and its representation, claim that the same themes of universal humanity that have touched readers around the world have also removed Anne from her family, religious and historical contexts rendering her legacy devoid of its true meaning," according to Newsweek's piece.
Doreen Carvajal wrote for The New York Times that Otto Frank maintained the book mostly included his daughter's words in a prologue for its first release. Now, the Swiss foundation owning the copyright has alerted publishers he both edited and co-wrote the book.
The Times noted the move's "practical effect."
"It extends the copyright from Jan. 1, when it is set to expire in most of Europe, to the end of 2050," according to the Times. "Copyrights in Europe generally end 70 years after an author's death. Anne Frank died 70 years ago at Bergen-Belsen, a concentration camp, and Otto Frank died in 1980. Extending the copyright would block others from being able to publish the book without paying royalties or receiving permission."
The change doesn't affect the diary's copyright in the U.S., which still ends in 2047, according to the Times.
Michael Harthorne wrote for Newser the Anne Frank Fund's decision drew ire from many.
The foundation which donates proceeds from "The Diary of Anne Frank" sales to charities stated the copyright proves necessary to "protect her work from unchecked commercial exploitation," according to Newser.
Opponents of the fund's measure argue among other issues, the change shows dishonesty, Michael Schaub wrote for the Los Angeles Times.
"If you follow their arguments, it means that they have lied for years about the fact that it was only written by Anne Frank," the Times quoted French intellectual property attorney Agns Tricoire as saying.
So does the addition of Anne Frank's father as co-writer only have financial implications?
Not even close: It's just as much about people having access to the diary, Adam Epstein wrote for Quartz. The landmark work "would enjoy a much larger readership" in public domain.
"The public domain was created precisely so that works like Franks diary could eventually be read and owned, collectively, by everyone," Quartz's piece read. "For instance, last year, the music of Sergei Rachmaninoff, the writings of Franz Oppenheimer, and the research of Nikola Tesla all entered the public domain, 70 years after the authors deaths."
The Times detailed another possibility to push the work's entry into public domain back even longer involving another editor.
Mirjam Pressler revised Anne Frank's diary for a "definitive edition" in 1991, according to the Times. Pressler still lives, which could give the foundation "copyright ownership from the date of her future death for at least another 70 years."
Karen Bartlett wrote for Newsweek of how the diary has sold 31 million copies and the international exhibition "Anne Frank A History for Today" features over 40 language translations.
However, constant revisions and adaptions downplay Anne Frank's faith and experiences with family, focusing on the "icon" aspect of her, Newsweek reported.
"Critics of the diarys success, and its representation, claim that the same themes of universal humanity that have touched readers around the world have also removed Anne from her family, religious and historical contexts rendering her legacy devoid of its true meaning," according to Newsweek's piece.