《安妮日記》非安妮一人所著?

When Otto Frank first published his daughter’s red-checked diary and notebooks, he wrote a prologue assuring readers that the book mostly contained her words, written while hiding from the Nazis in a secret annex of a factory in Amsterdam.

奧托·弗蘭克(Otto Frank)首次出版女兒的紅格子封面日記與筆記時，在前言中向讀者保證，這本書裏大部分都是她的原話。這些日記是弗蘭克一家在阿姆斯特丹一處工廠的密室裏躲避納粹迫害期間寫下的。

But now the Swiss foundation that holds the copyright to “The Diary of Anne Frank” is alerting publishers that her father is not only the editor but also legally the co-author of the celebrated book.

但是如今，擁有《安妮·弗蘭克日記》(The Diary of Anne Frank)一書版權的一家瑞士基金會通知出版商，她的父親不僅僅是這本名著的編輯，而且從法律上亦應當被列爲這本書的合作作者。

The move has a practical effect: It extends the copyright from Jan. 1, when it is set to expire in most of Europe, to the end of 2050. Copyrights in Europe generally end 70 years after an author’s death. Anne Frank died 70 years ago at Bergen-Belsen, a concentration camp, and Otto Frank died in 1980. Extending the copyright would block others from being able to publish the book without paying royalties or receiving permission.

這個做法產生了實際的後果：這本書的版權將於明年1月1日在大部分歐洲國家到期，把安妮的父親列爲作者之後，版權期可以延長到2050年年底。在歐洲，書籍的版權保護期一般是在作者去世70年內有效。安妮·弗蘭克70年前死於貝爾根-貝爾森集中營，奧托·弗蘭克則於1980年去世。延長版權期可令其他出版社無法不付版稅或不經許可就出版這本書。

In the United States, the diary’s copyright will still end in 2047, 95 years after the first publication of the book in 1952.

在美國，這本書的版權仍將延續到2047年年底，也就是這本書自1952年首次出版的95年後。

While the foundation, the Anne Frank Fonds, in Basel, signaled its intentions a year ago, warnings about the change have provoked a furor as the deadline approaches. Some people opposed to the move have declared that they would defy the foundation and publish portions of her text.

該基金會坐落在巴塞爾，名爲“安妮·弗蘭克基金會”(Anne Frank Fonds)。一年前，基金會表示出這個意向，隨着日期臨近，這個改變激起一片憤怒之聲。反對此舉的人宣佈抵制基金會，並自行出版安妮日記的若干部分。

Foundation officials “should think very carefully about the consequences,” said Agnès Tricoire, a lawyer in Paris who specializes in intellectual property rights in France, where critics have been the most vociferous and are organizing a challenge. “If you follow their arguments, it means that they have lied for years about the fact that it was only written by Anne Frank.”

法國知識產權律師阿格尼絲·特里格爾(Agnès Tricoire)說，基金會官員應當“慎重考慮其後果”，目前，法國的批評者是最激烈的，他們正在組織抗議活動。“如果你接受他們的說法，就等於說他們多年以來說了謊，這本書並不完全是由安妮·弗蘭克寫的。”

The decision has also set the foundation on a possible collision course with the Anne Frank House museum in Amsterdam, a separate entity that for years has sparred with the Anne Frank foundation over legal questions, such as ownership of archives and trademark issues.

這個決定還有可能令基金會與阿姆斯特丹的安妮·弗蘭克之家博物館( Anne Frank House museum)產生衝突。該博物館是一個獨立機構，多年來就檔案的所有權和商標等法律問題與基金會爭吵不斷。

The museum has been working for five years with historians and researchers on an elaborate web version of the diary intended for publication once the copyright expires. The research is still progressing with a historical and textual analysis of her writing, including deletions, corrections and stains.

這家博物館已經同歷史學家和研究者合作了五年，建立一份安妮日記的詳盡網絡版本，只等版權期一到期就公佈。對她的日記進行歷史與文本闡釋的研究工作還在進行中，包括研究日記中的刪改和塗抹。

“We haven’t decided yet when or how the results will be published,” said Maatje Mostart, a spokeswoman for the Anne Frank House. “Any publishing will always be done within the legal frameworks.” She added pointedly that neither “Otto Frank nor any other person is co-author.”

“我們還沒有決定何時或以何種方式公佈這些研究成果，”安妮·弗蘭克之家的發言人馬特耶·莫斯塔特(Maatje Mostart)說。“所有發行計劃都會在法律框架內進行。”她尖銳地補充說，“奧托·弗蘭克或任何人都不是合作作者。”

One of Anne’s own astute diary entries seemed to anticipate the disputes: “Why do grown-ups quarrel so easily?”

安妮本人一篇敏銳的日記似乎預見到了這些紛爭：“大人們爲什麼那麼愛吵架？”

Anne was 15 when she died at Bergen-Belsen. She had been arrested after someone alerted the authorities that the family had been hiding in the secret annex of a pectin factory on the Prinsengracht, or Prince’s Canal. Otto Frank was the family’s only survivor.

安妮在貝爾根-貝爾森去世時年僅15歲，有人向當局告密說這家人藏匿在王子運河一家膠質工廠的密室裏，安妮一家遭到逮捕，奧托·弗蘭克是全家唯一的倖存者。

After arranging for her diary and notebooks to be published, he tried to secure Anne’s legacy. In 1960, he and the City of Amsterdam helped save the building where the family had hidden. (It became the Anne Frank House.)

出版她的日記和筆記本後，他一直保護着安妮的遺作。1960年，他與阿姆斯特丹市協助保存了這個家庭曾經藏身的建築，就是後來的安妮·弗朗克之家博物館。

Three years later, he set up the foundation in Switzerland to collect the diary’s royalties and distribute them to charities such as Unicef, children’s education projects and a medical fund that today supports about 50 gentiles who saved Jews during the war. He left her actual diaries and notebooks to the Dutch state.

三年後，他又在瑞士成立了該基金會，它將得來的安妮日記版稅捐獻給聯合國兒童基金會、各種兒童教育項目等慈善組織，以及一家醫療基金，它支援着大約50個曾在戰爭期間拯救猶太人的非猶太人。他把她日記和筆記的原件留給了荷蘭。

“Effectively, Otto split up the legacy of his daughter, which one could say has created a bit of a nice mess ever since,” said Gerben Zaagsma, a historian of modern Jewish history at the University of G in Germany who is working on a scholarly edition of the diary backed by the foundation and Germany’s culture ministry.

“奧托實際上是把女兒的遺產拆分開來了，可以說從那以後就造成了一點麻煩，”德國哥廷根大學現代猶太史學者格本·扎格斯瑪(Gerben Zaagsma)說，他一直在基金會與德國文化部的支持下，致力於這本日記的學術編輯版本。

The foundation does not publish yearly reports about its finances. But in recent years, it said it had donated about $1.5 million annually to hundreds of charitable organizations.

基金會並不公佈自己的年度財報。但是近年來，它聲稱自己每年向幾百個慈善團體捐助150萬美元。

“The longer they can claim copyright protection, the longer they can ask money for publication of the works,” said Stef van Gompel, a professor at the University of Amsterdam who specializes in copyright law.

“只要他們擁有版權，就能憑着版權向出版社索費，”阿姆斯特丹大學版權法教授斯蒂夫·範·格姆佩爾(Stef van Gompel)說。

Six years ago, the foundation asked legal experts in various countries for advice on its copyright, according to Yves Kugelmann, a member of the foundation’s board. They concluded, he said, that Otto “created a new work” because of his role of editing, merging and trimming entries from her diary and notebooks and reshaping them into “kind of a collage” meriting its own copyright.

基金會董事會成員伊夫·庫格爾曼恩(Yves Kugelmann)說，六年前基金會曾向各國法律專家就版權問題徵求意見。他說，專家們得出結論，奧托對安妮的日記和筆記做了編輯、合併和修飾，從而“創作了一部新作品”，讓它們重新形成“某種拼貼合集”，因此也應當擁有版權。

Merely declaring Otto the “co-author” on copyright filings extends the copyright, legal experts said, though such a stand could be tested in the courts. Readers would not see any changes on the books themselves, foundation officials said.

法律專家們說，僅僅是主張奧托是版權意義上的“聯合作者”，就可以延長保護期，儘管這還需要經過法庭檢驗。基金會的官員們說，讀者不會在書籍上看到任何變化。

The foundation’s officials said that their aim is to “make sure that Anne Frank stays Anne,” Mr. Kugelmann said, by maintaining control and avoiding inappropriate exploitation of the work. “When she died, she was a young girl who was not even 16. We are protecting her. That is our task.”

基金會官員們說，他們的目標是通過保持對安妮日記的控制權，避免對這部作品的不當利用，以此“確保安妮·弗蘭克依然是安妮”，庫格爾曼恩說。“她去世時還是個不滿16歲的小女孩。我們在保護她，這是我們的職責。”

Critics, he said, are wrongly looking at the intended change as a financial matter. “It is not about the money,” he said.

他說，批評者們錯誤地認爲這個改變是爲了經濟利益。“這不是爲了錢，”他說。

But Mr. van Gompel, the copyright lawyer, said extending the copyright runs counter to the intention of the laws.

但是版權律師範·格姆佩爾說，延長版權期違背了相關法律的本意。

“There is a good reason that copyrights are limited, so that people can freely use” written materials, he said. “It doesn’t mean that they need to be protected for all eternity.”

“版權保護期有時間限制，這是有充分理由的，這樣人們就可以免費使用書面素材，”他說。“這項法律並不意味着它們需要被永久保護。”

Copyright protections vary from country to country. The classic novella “The Little Prince” fell into the public domain this year in much of the world but remains under copyright in France because of an exception that grants a 30-year extension to authors who died during military service in World War I and II.

版權保護的規則在各個國家都不同。今年，經典中篇小說《小王子》(The Little Prince)在很多國家進入公共版權領域，但在法國還在版權保護期內，因爲該國有一項例外條款，規定在“一戰”和“二戰”期間，在軍隊服役時犧牲的作者的版權期可以延長30年。

Some critics of the foundation have already tested its resolve by posting bootleg copies of the diary online.

有些批評基金會的人已經在網絡上發表一些未授權的日記片段，以此來測試基金會的解決方案。

Olivier Ertzscheid, a lecturer in communications and researcher at the University of Nantes, received a warning letter this month from a French publisher of the diary after he started circulating a copy online in protest. He removed it, but he and a French politician, Isabelle Attard, said they were waiting to see what happens in January before pressing forward with a plan to encourage publication of the original manuscript more widely online.

南特大學傳播學講師與研究者奧利維爾·恩茨希爾德(Olivier Ertzscheid)在網上傳播一份安妮日記，以示抗議，本月，他收到了安妮日記法國出版社的警告信。他刪除了網上的日記，但他和法國政治家伊莎貝·阿達爾(Isabelle Attard)說，他們已經有計劃，促進安妮的原稿在網上更廣泛地傳播，在此之前，他們要看看一月份會發生什麼。

“The best protection of the work is to bring it in the public domain, because its audience will grow even more,” said Ms. Attard, who noted that her own Jewish relatives were hidden or deported during the German occupation in France. “What is happening now is a bluff and pure intimidation.”

“對這部作品最好的保護就是讓它進入公共版權領域，因爲這樣讀者纔會愈來愈多，”阿達爾說，她指出，在德軍佔領法國期間，她的猶太親屬亦曾藏匿起來，或被驅逐出境。“現在發生的事只是虛張聲勢，是純粹的威脅。”

The foundation insists that by issuing an early warning of its intent to extend the copyright, it is acting ethically to prevent publishers from pursuing a course that might be unproductive and costly.

基金會堅稱，他們已經發表早期警告，聲稱基金會有延長版權保護期的意向，這樣做是在道德上防止出版社追求任何可能沒有效果、耗費資金的目標。

But if the foundation succeeds, publishers may wind up waiting even longer than the 70 years allowed after Otto Frank’s death.

但是如果基金會勝利了，出版社到了奧托·弗蘭克去世70年後，可能還要繼續等待。

A second editor, Mirjam Pressler, revised, edited and added 25 percent more material from Anne Frank’s diary for what was called a “definitive edition” in 1991. She qualified for a copyright for her creative work, and the rights were transferred to the foundation, said its lawyer, Kamiel Koelman.

1991年，該書的第二編輯米爾亞姆·普萊斯勒(Mirjam Pressler)修改、編輯了安妮·弗蘭克的日記，並增添了25%的新素材，因此這個版本被稱爲“最終版”。基金會的律師卡米爾·科爾曼(Kamiel Koelman)說，她也應當因爲自己的創造性工作贏得一份版權，這份權利目前已經被轉移到基金會。

She is still living, he added, giving them copyright ownership from the date of her future death for at least another 70 years.

他說，她目前還在世，這樣，到她未來去世70年內，基金會都將擁有安妮日記的版權。