here, here (was: Re: What Devanagari text would you most like as an e-text_

[Dominik Wujastyk]

I would certainly assume that Yale kept the copyright and sub-licensed
MLBD to publish.

Furthermore, even if Yale printed in the book "(C) Yale Univ." etc., it
doesn't go without saying that they actually own the copyright, unless
they can produce documentary proof that Edgerton actually transferred his
automatically-assigned authorial copyright to them.  Being a big
professional outfit (?), YUO probably does have documentation.  Still,
it's worth asking, if you're getting in touch.

Publishers sometimes assume and print copyright assertions when they don't
have them.  This happened to me, with my Metarules book.  I was clear from
the start that I wished to retain copyright, and I never licensed it to
the publisher, but when the book came out, the publisher added a line
claiming copyright, even though he doesn't have it.  (I have a good
relationship with the publisher, there's no animus here, but it was a bit
of a fast one.)

-- 
Dr Dominik Wujastyk
International Institute of Asian Studies
http://iias.nl

long term email address: wujastyk at gmail.com




On Sat, 30 May 2009, Stefan Baums wrote:

> Regarding Andrew’s comments on BHSD, let me add that I would be
> happy to commit further resources to a complete digitization if
> and only if we are legally clear. Maybe somebody with connections
> at Yale could politely inquire? The Motilal reprint on my desk
> says “By arrangement with Yale University Press, New Haven,” so
> that seems to be a licensed print for the Indian market, not a
> transfer of copyright.
>
> Cheers,
> Stefan
>
>