Talk:The Wizard of the Emerald City

Copyright theft?
"Generally, people in the former Soviet Union seem aware that their beloved fairy tale is the product of copyright theft"

Whoever added this part about "copyright theft" and people "generally being aware of it" (and previously that "few are aware of it") didn't bother to back it up. Sounds like original research or POV to me.

Iamvalentine (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that. I distinctly remember that I'm was told that the series resulted from a bet with a writer colleague, that he is able to write a best selling book in 6 months. Unfortunately he hadn't had a good idea, so he just stole the story of the Wizard of Oz. This was so successful, that he decided to develop the story further, which led to the other books of the series.

So if even I knew this as a child, I doubt that there was any illusion about the originality of the work.

--93.133.66.143 (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying the work was original. I'm sure the readers know it's an adaptation/loose translation; the article does say Baum was credited in the first books (AFAIR it was noted in the book I used to read as a child).

I'm just bothered with wording like "their beloved tale is a product of copyright theft". "Their beloved tale" almost sounds like the post-Soviet readers should feel ashamed of themselves. Can't see any legal decisions regarding theft either. No proof in the Links section. Anyway, Wizard of Oz is public domain now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamvalentine (talk • contribs) 15:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, none of Western authors of children's books published under their own names in 'legitimate' translations received any royalties throughout most of the Soviet history. Just because USSR did not have laws for doing it. So Volkov personally did not steal any copyright and did not specifically profit from publishing a Baum-based book as his own. If he had formally identified the publication as a translation, this would make absolutely no difference for Baum's heirs - they would not have received anything in any event. 176.15.77.168 (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Baum receiving royalties
The article says that Baum didn't receive royalties. Would be kind of hard for him to do so, considering he died in 1919 and the book wasn't published until 1939. Maybe it should say something about how his heirs never received royalties, but in any case it's lacking a source. Searched Google Books but didn't find anything about any attempts to sue or collect royalties.--Larrybob (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Jus
According to Volkov's diary, „Jus“ origins from „Jealous“. But being actually rather „Envious“ than „Jealous“, „Urfin Jus“ is not a Meaningful Name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.195.19.41 (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)