So it appears Otto Frank, the father of Anne Frank and the man most responsible for getting his daughter’s diary to the public, will now be listed as the “co-author” of the book.

The reason?  So that the book retains its copyright status as Mr. Frank died in 1980 and European copyright for publications lasts for 70 years after an author’s death.  By having Mr. Frank listed as a co-author, The Diary of Anne Frank can retain its copyright status until 2050 versus ending this year (Anne Frank died in 1945).

Want to read a little more about this?  Check out the below link:

Thanks to Copyright Bullshit, Anne Frank’s Diary Now Has A Co-Author

There are many in the commentary sections, along with the author of the piece, Rachel Vorona Cote for Jezebel.com, who decry this move (as if the headline for the article didn’t clue you in on this fact!).

As an author myself, I find myself more on the side of those who want to retain copyright of their fictional/nonfictional works.  Sure, Anne Frank passed away a very long time ago and with the death of Otto Frank in 1980, all immediate family from that original time are gone.  The beneficiaries of the continued copyright will be the Anne Frank Fonds, or the Anne Frank Foundation, which I understand contributes quite a bit of the profits made from selling the work to charity.

I’m also aware that copyright/patent laws can have a decidedly negative impact on society.  In this case I’m referring to things outside of books, novels, and autobiographies.  There are technologies that could advance tremendously if other companies were allowed to make their own version of certain items and then try to expand/improve upon them.

Elon Musk, for example, should be commended for allowing the schematics for his electronic systems be available for other car manufacturers to use.  He did this because he knew that if the electronic systems were to take over for gas powered cars, he’d need all companies focused on what works and what does not.  By allowing others access to material which he could well have kept to himself, he offers to share the technology.

With medicines, copyright/patents have also become a very sticky issue.  A company can create and copyright/patent a medicine and are the sole company to release it.  What’s to stop them from charging crazy fees for their medicines?  Further, I suppose they may prevent other companies from modifying their medicines and making them more effective.

But with books and, especially, novels, we’re talking about an author’s creations. Unlike new technologies or medicines, I don’t see how the ownership by an author/authors or their offspring of their fictional/non-fictional work prevents society from advancing.

Quite the contrary, I’m bothered when modern authors use past author’s famous creations to make -and benefit financially- with “new” works.  These modern authors might take on famous characters like Sherlock Holmes or Tarzan or any other character which has slipped outside copyright control and make money off these past author’s works while the family (distant though they may be by that point) may not make a cent from these “new” works or the printing by others of their relative’s past works.

My hope is always that someone, even if it is a distant relative of the original author, is compensated for the work, even if they themselves had little or nothing to do with it.

Why?

Because as an author I’m painfully aware of the great effort I put into writing novels.  Each work takes so much from me and it is my hope that when I’m gone they will serve as my legacy for future generations of my family.

There’s not guarantee this will happen, of course.  There are literally tons of novels published each year and only a precious few achieve some kind of popularity/longevity.  Even those that do may do so very temporarily and not stand the “test of time”.

But if my works somehow beat the odds and prove popular to future generations, it is my hope my relatives can benefit from my hard work when I’m gone.