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

Allen W Thrasher athr at LOC.GOV
Wed Jun 3 22:14:12 UTC 2009

If anyone needs me to check the paper Copyright files here, I will do so. 

The LCCN is actually 52-12072 (or in the modernized form where there are always 6 digits after the year number, 52012069).

There is no online record of a copyright registration or renewal for this work, nor for Edgerton's other works, with the exception of the Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Reader, copyright in 1953 by Edgerton and renewed in 1981 by Mrs. Edgerton.  Since the reader was published simultaneously with the Grammar and Dictionary by Yale, this may imply that Edgerton had the copyright on the Grammar and Dictionary, but that the records for that have not been digitized yet.  


>>> Ronald Davidson <rdavidson at MAIL.FAIRFIELD.EDU> 6/1/2009 8:55:38 PM >>>

Dominik Wujastyk wrote:

> 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.

For some reason I ended up with an original copy of Edgerton.  Curious with
all the discussion, I checked in my copy.  Suffice it to say there is no
copyright notice in my copies of either the grammar or dictionary.  It
merely gives the editorial board at Yale, the title page of the grammar and
dictionary, the publisher of New Haven: Yale U. Pr, 1953 and a sub-publisher
of London: Geoffrey Cumberlege, Oxford University Press. On the reverse of
the title page, where the copyright notice is usually found, it simply
provides the Library of Congress cat. card no. (2-12072), Printed in
Denmark, Bianco Lunos Bogtrykkeri.

Not being an attorney, I really have no idea what all this means.  But if a
copyright notice is required in the book somewhere, it is simply not there.

Best wishes,
Ron Davidson

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list