[Roger Slater]

Although there may be some questions that are unresolved in this thread, I would respectfully suggest that Allen now has quite enough information to conclude with confidence that he may proceed with his Cavafy translations.

Specifically, all the poems that were published before 1923 are in the public domain in the United States. In the European Union, those poems could have remained under copyright had Cavafy lived longer, but the EU uses a life-plus-70 standard. Since Cavafy died in 1933, his poems have lost their copyright since 2003.

While I agree with Bill that you should want to act ethically, not just legally, I can't see any conflict between those two impulses here. The copyright terms that have now expired are quite generous. Indeed, in my opinion they are far too generous due to the relative political influence of large publishers and corporations compared to individual readers. In the United States, the Constitution specifically says that copyrights (and patents) should be for a "limited" period, just long enough to promote the arts and sciences. ("To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.")

No author ever decline to write a book because he was dejected at the notion that his copyright would only survive him by, say, 50 years. Dickens never said, "Why should I bother writing David Copperfield unless my heirs can enjoy the revenues for at least 70 years after my death?" Terms that are significantly longer than needed to "promote" the "useful [sic] arts" have the opposite effect, discouraging people like Allen from promoting poetry by discouraging him from working on translations that may, for all we know, be the best we'll ever see.

It's perfectly appropriate that copyrights should expire at some point. And Cavafy, who hasn't given a damn for over eighty years now, is not being wronged if Allen does him the honor of translating his poems without tracking down his great-great-great grandnephews to make sure they receive their piddling share of the munificent royalties.

So Allen now has the legal and ethical right to proceed.

[Janice D. Soderling]

Maryann, you are smarter than the average bear!

What I'll do is, I'll take that post and put in in the translations forum where Adam can lock it and mark it as a sticky.

Thank you for thinking for the entire collective!

[Jennifer Reeser]

An acquaintance of mine by the name of Ian Parks translates Cavafy -- and is in fact, publishing a book soon, The Cavafy Variations. I would be happy to put you in touch with him. Please PM me, if you would like. Here is a page, with a bit about Mr. Parks:

http://www.mptmagazine.com/author/ian-parks-5519/

[Adam Elgar]

A very informative discussion. I've stickied and DISCd Janice's interesting post as suggested by wise Maryann. If there is other material members would like archived at Trans, I could do that too. Or we can just recall this thread in the future, as some of our cleverest and best-informed members do - ie. not little-brained bear me.

[Janice D. Soderling]

Dickens never said, "Why should I bother writing David Copperfield unless my heirs can enjoy the revenues for at least 70 years after my death?"

I'm mentioning simply as a curious aside, that this above reminded me of the woes Dickens had because of lack of copyright protection in the US.

Struggles For Copyright Laws
In January 1842 Charles Dickens and his wife, Catherine, traveled to the United States. Dickens wanted to see the sites, learn about the country and do research for a future series of articles.

While on tour Dickens often spoke of the need for an international copyright agreement. The lack of such an agreement enabled his books to be published in the United States without his permission and without any royalties being paid.

This situation also affected American writers like Edgar Allan Poe. Poe's works were published in England without his consent.

Dickens first realized that he was losing income because of the lack of national in international copyright laws in 1837 when The Pickwick Papers was published in book form. At times the novel was reprinted without his permission and sometimes even imitated.

Some of Dickens's struggles with copyright laws made it into his fiction. In this scene from Nicholas Nickleby, Nicholas is speaking to a man "who had dramatised in his time two hundred and forty-seven novels as fast as they had come out--some of them faster than they had come out . . ."
Continue reading at http://www.perryweb.com/Dickens/work_copy.shtml

[Roger Slater]

Interesting, Janice. I know the US copyright laws were terrible in the olden days. It wasn't just a lack of international standards, but even in the US the federal government largely left it to the states, so there was a patchwork of weak and inconsistent protection. Just the other day I was listening to Bob Dylan's radio show in which he commented about how bold Stephen Foster was when he decided to try to make a living as a songwriter, since in those days one enjoyed scant legal protection for one's work.

Yet whatever the injustice you might perceive, and of course there is one, Dickens might have wanted more but the state of the law, overall, provided him with enough of an incentive to keep writing.

As for me, if they shortened the copyright term so that my heirs could not profit from my poems and translations more than forty years after my death, I think I would just quit writing. I mean, what's the point?

[Janice D. Soderling]

I'm mentioning simply as a curious aside,

that this above reminded me of the woes Dickens had because of lack of copyright protection in the US.

I meant nothing more, Robert.

[Roger Slater]

Nor did I suggest otherwise. I was commenting on your curious aside.

[W.F. Lantry]

Originally Posted by Roger Slater

As for me, if they shortened the copyright term so that my heirs could not profit from my poems and translations more than forty years after my death, I think I would just quit writing. I mean, what's the point?

Good one, Roger!

I think we can all agree that no-one wants to return to the days of Cervantes, and all he went through. But perhaps we can also agree that U.S. copyright law, especially since the 90's, is not intended to protect writers. It's there to protect media companies, especially Disney (there's a reason it now goes back to the 20's) and others. Rights of writers were so peripheral to the process it was laughable.

And yet here we are, wondering and worrying about details and implications, even though the DMCA was mostly designed to protect Mickey Mouse!

Thanks,

Bill

[Allen Tice]

Originally Posted by W.F. Lantry

Allen,
Well beyond the legal problems are the ethical ones. You wouldn't want to think of yourself as someone who skirted best practices in working on the corpus of an admirable author. Perhaps worse, you wouldn't want other people thinking of you that way. Honor dictates that you take the time to discover the exact answer to your question. Then you'll be able to proceed with a clear conscience, and your reputation intact.

That is priceless advice, Bill. Thanks.
I, for one, would never want to force myself or my practices on a deceased gay genius. I recall a ride with my wife on the Athens Metro in 2002 in a sparsely populated Μετρό carriage traveling above ground to the posh northern suburb of Kifisia. Before we reached Maroussi we passed the construction site for the 2004 Olympics, and there I saw a graffito in white paint in Roman characters, which read 'Fock (so-and-so)'. I pointed it out to my spouse, and wondered aloud whether the spelling reflected the impact of school katharevousa or the regnant dimotiki.

Cavafy (who used both forms, purist and popular) and who spoke Greek with a slight British accent, would never have doubted: dimotiki!

Thanks, again to all !!