Diana Manister send some email regarding information about
Bartleby.com, "The Waste Land" and copyright. I'm sorry but I
cannot respond to Diana's mail by including it.
In Diana's email note that Bartleby.com is claiming copyright. It
is not claiming copyright to the poem. It is claiming copyright
to the way the poem is presented via HTML and CSS and to
additional notes that it might include on its webpage. This is
valid and legal if the work is in the public domain. Note also
that Bartleby is saying, in essenace, that the presentation is
a work for hire. This gives the copyright a different status
under U.S. law.
Bartleby is claiming copyright on "The waste land," not "The Waste
I recently checked a website containing information about Eliot's
U.S. copyright renewals. TWL was not listed but "Collected Poems
1909-1935" was. I have a copy of this book and it claims:
Copyright 1930 by T.S. Eliot
Copyright 1934, 1936 by Harcourt Brace and Company
The book doesn't say who owns the copyright on what poems. I
suspect that Eliot owns the copyright to the poems and Harcourt to
the presentation (the specific way that the poems are arranged.
But, interestingly though "Burnt Norton" was first published in
this book in 1936. Eliot couldn't have a 1930 copyright on that
unless he submitted a copy to the U.S. copyright office that year
and withheld publication. So it looks as if Harcourt held the U.S.
copyright to "Burnt Norton." But LOOKS is the word. Who does