Gertrude Moakley

[Moonbow]

Just to follow on from what Michael has said, the forum stance on this is posted in the Forum Rules, which I copy here:

Respect Copyright

You may post a short text excerpt only from articles by another author. Complete works may not be posted unless you have obtained written permission for its reproduction.

 

[Teheuti]

Get the book via interlibrary loan and photocopy the sections you need for your own research. Or, buy it for between $30-40 :
http://www.abebooks.com/

Mary

 

[Rosanne]

The first thing that would happen is that the post would be deleted by the moderators, and rightly so. Putting Kaplan's property, the entire text of an arguably valuable work, out in the public would clearly violate his copyright even if the work is out of print and there are no plans to reprint it. (BTW, currently, used copies of Moakley can be had online starting at about $30.)

Yes, I know about current copies available- you can actually get them cheaper- I am often giving books to the local library in what they call 'obscure' interest. It was more about the author having died and someone having copyright still- a bit like the cards of Pamela Smith. I find the withholding of things like this a bit bizarre. If you are not going to reprint because you will not make money, or it is not viable- whats wrong with it been on the web? The web is a marvelous information sharing device- almost like the mobile library always at your door- except not tactile.

The legalities of electronic file sharing are rather hotly debated, but mostly in connection with popular books (like Harry Potter), music, and movies, where huge amounts of money (and bandwidth) are at stake. However, even in the world of obscure books and journal articles for research purposes the matter is subject to some debate. Generally speaking, you can make a personal copy of any such texts for your own use, without violating copyright. Libraries have photocopy machines for that purpose.

Students have a way of getting around these things. If you have a book, that others need and cannot afford- you sell it on for 50cents and the next owner can copy what they need. It is like car pooling- everyone gets to ride.The guidelines from USA are much the same as here.

Thanks very much for your clear explanation on a hypothetical question.

Get the book via interlibrary loan and photocopy the sections you need for your own research. Or, buy it for between $30-40

Just as abruptly- some libraries do not have this book, and some people cannot stretch to buying it- something I have attempted to legally rectify-by buying copies.

I actually see nothing wrong with sharing the work after the author is dead.
Must be the communist within- I think the world of knowledge should be free- but of course I am not an author- or involved in an author's estate.
~Rosanne

 

[Bernice]

Rosanne said:

I actually see nothing wrong with sharing the work after the author is dead.
Must be the communist within- I think the world of knowledge should be free- but of course I am not an author- or involved in an author's estate.

If I were an author who had invested time and effort in a book - written for the public to consider or enjoy - I would be quite devestated to know that it was going to be withheld after my death purely on copyright grounds, and the desire to get money. I would hope my thoughts and work might find an appreciative audience in the future.

Bee

 

[Rosanne]

Hey Bernice- come join my Tarot political Party- if you are dead your works are free to anyone (a bit like Shakespeare)

The evil that men do lives after them;
The Good is oft interred with their bones:

It is a shame the good is being interred with Gertrude Moakley.
~Rosanne

 

[mac22]

Hey Bernice- come join my Tarot political Party- if you are dead your works are free to anyone (a bit like Shakespeare)

It is a shame the good is being interred with Gertrude Moakley.
~Rosanne

So true.... but perhaps Kaplan will grow a conscious....

Mac22

 

[Ross G Caldwell]

Most historically-oriented Tarot books tend to have only one printing or edition; perhaps most tarot books for that matter.

Moakley - one (1966).
Dummett - one (all of his tarot books).
(Depaulis (editor): Tarot, jeu et magie (1984) - one)
Shephard - one (1985)
(Berti & Vitali (eds.): Le carte di corte, i tarocchi (1987) - one)
Betts - one (1998)

Exception -
O'Neill - two! (recently reprinted by the Association for Tarot Studies; first editions are very expensive).

The market for them is very small. You *have* to be a collector of these first editions if you are going to seriously study tarot history or iconology - you can't wait around for reprints or new editions. Fortunately, the second-hand market seems to be fulfilling the need, *and*, with the exception of Dummett's books, the books above remain at reasonable prices (this is yet another indicator that tarot history books are not much in demand).

Unlike some areas of art history, getting seriously into Tarot history won't break the bank.

Intellectual property law is not only designed to protect the rights of authors while they are alive, but also after their deaths (for a certain amount of time). It would be absurd to suggest that all of a person's estate should be simply given away upon their death, since they won't be needing it anymore. Most people, at some point or another, designate heirs (where they are not apparent in law), and this is what Gertrude Moakley did with Stuart Kaplan - she designated him her intellectual heir. Her writings are *his* property, just as if he were her next of kin or whatever. There is nothing even remotely immoral about this arrangement.

But of course, although a person's actual *words* are their property, their *ideas* are not; and in intellectual works, the *facts* upon which those ideas are based are completely free to everyone. We can write a million words about ideas like the Popess Manfreda being the Tarot Popess, the 21 points of a die being related to Tarot, the Hanged Man being a "shame painting", the trumps being a parody of Petrarch's "I trionfi", the trumps representing a real parade of the battle of Carnival with Lent - Moakley came up with all (okay most) of these ideas and many others, and nobody owns them, or can ever own them.

Only the form they are expressed in, the very words used, are owned by those who make them or are entrusted with them.

We can complain all we like about Mr. Kaplan's handling of Ms. Moakley's intellectual estate, but unless we are willing to pester him personally the best way around lack of a new edition of The Tarot Cards is to buy a copy and write about it, a long review or critique, and to keep discussing her ideas, since in the end this is the main value of her work - the ideas, not the actual words.

Ross

 

[Rosanne]

Unlike some areas of art history, getting seriously into Tarot history won't break the bank.

yes you are right- it is the decks that is the killer

Intellectual property law is not only designed to protect the rights of authors while they are alive, but also after their deaths (for a certain amount of time). It would be absurd to suggest that all of a person's estate should be simply given away upon their death, since they won't be needing it anymore. Most people, at some point or another, designate heirs (where they are not apparent in law), and this is what Gertrude Moakley did with Stuart Kaplan - she designated him her intellectual heir. Her writings are *his* property, just as if he were her next of kin or whatever. There is nothing even remotely immoral about this arrangement.

I never suggested that all a person's estate should be given away after their death or that Kaplan was immoral.
I was suggesting that if it was not viable or worthwhile according to Kaplan- then there is nothing to lose about making it available on the web. Kaplan would lose nothing as there is no royalty in second hand books.

We can complain all we like about Mr. Kaplan's handling of Ms. Moakley's intellectual estate, but unless we are willing to pester him personally the best way around lack of a new edition of The Tarot Cards is to buy a copy and write about it, a long review or critique, and to keep discussing her ideas, since in the end this is the main value of her work - the ideas, not the actual words.

This is true. A thread "Gertrude Moakley wrote..." is a great idea. I did not think of that. Cuts to the chase of her ideas and research without the red tape.
~Rosanne

 

[Bernice]

Rosanne quoted:

The evil that men do lives after them;
The Good is oft interred with their bones:

This I have to agree with, notoriety appears to live on in the society we have fashioned for ourselves.

Ross said:

It would be absurd to suggest that all of a person's estate should be simply given away upon their death, since they won't be needing it anymore. Most people, at some point or another, designate heirs (where they are not apparent in law), and this is what Gertrude Moakley did with Stuart Kaplan - she designated him her intellectual heir. Her writings are *his* property, just as if he were her next of kin or whatever. There is nothing even remotely immoral about this arrangement.

Agreed - nothing immoral or illegal about this. But when a person is designated to handle anothers affairs, one would expect (indeed HOPE!) that they would do so with the deceased persons intentions in mind, rather than personal desires and commercial ideas.

If he, (Kaplan) were to insist on full credit and due recognition for Gertrude Moakley on the release of any works of hers, or any works derived from it, then that would make sense. It is only when someones' work is bandied about by others without clearly stating the source/originator that I would be up in arms! (I have more than one online presence. One of them is as a freeware software author. I would be - and have been... - livid if someone else 'steals' my work, or the original portions of it, and passes it off as their own, or has the cheek to ask money for it!)

....and to keep discussing her ideas, since in the end this is the main value of her work - the ideas, not the actual words.

And here is the crunch. if you're unable, due to lack of means, to see the book, then what is there to discuss? Ideas are valuable, and I'm with Rosanne here, shared ideas increase the value, often more than a hundred-fold, i.e: Shakespeare and the Bible. Large tracts of both are freely available.

Bee