Conflicting info.

The term "agent" really doesn't mean much in regards to intimate contact with the details within the story itself. What I mean by this is that an agent is just a middleman a great deal of the time. And as for copyright owner, this really doesn't much either as far as directly associating the copyright owner to his personal involvement with the actual writing of the work. Today agents represent all kinds of published works without actually having intimate association with the content. So it's a perfectly acceptable and reasonable proposition that Ward was both copyright owner and agent without his having any intimate involvement with the production of the pamphlet or its story.

Just depends on what role you want/need the agent to play?
 

Last edited:
Here's a few examples of very possible scenarios.....

John Sherman could have written the pamphlet story and given Ward the copyright for a number of reasons. Perhaps he owed Ward money and the copyright was to be some type of security against the debt.


Another reason could be to protect the publication from future financial stresses should Sherman encounter them, which he did. Since Sherman wasn't the legal owner of the publication it wouldn't be considered an asset of Sherman.


Sherman could have also given Ward the copyright to deflect attention away from him and his own history of writing dime novels.


So if Sherman was the author there are a number of reasons why he might have passed the ownership of copyright to Ward.


On the other hand, if there really was an unknown author then he might have passed the copyright to Ward as payment for his services, Ward benefiting from the sale of the pamphlet.


An unknown author might have also passed the copyright to Ward to deflect attention away from himself, this being required if he was truly desiring to remain anonymous, as is the claim of the unknown author.
 

bigscoop said:
Here's a few examples of very possible scenarios.....

John Sherman could have written the pamphlet story and given Ward the copyright for a number of reasons. Perhaps he owed Ward money and the copyright was to be some type of security against the debt.


Another reason could be to protect the publication from future financial stresses should Sherman encounter them, which he did. Since Sherman wasn't the legal owner of the publication it wouldn't be considered an asset of Sherman.


Sherman could have also given Ward the copyright to deflect attention away from him and his own history of writing dime novels.


So if Sherman was the author there are a number of reasons why he might have passed the ownership of copyright to Ward.


On the other hand, if there really was an unknown author then he might have passed the copyright to Ward as payment for his services, Ward benefiting from the sale of the pamphlet.


An unknown author might have also passed the copyright to Ward to deflect attention away from himself, this being required if he was truly desiring to remain anonymous, as is the claim of the unknown author.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...
 

bigscoop said:
The term "agent" really doesn't mean much in regards to intimate contact with the details within the story itself. What I mean by this is that an agent is just a middleman a great deal of the time. And as for copyright owner, this really doesn't much either as far as directly associating the copyright owner to his personal involvement with the actual writing of the work. Today agents represent all kinds of published works without actually having intimate association with the content. So it's a perfectly acceptable and reasonable proposition that Ward was both copyright owner and agent without his having any intimate involvement with the production of the pamphlet or its story.

Just depends on what role you want/need the agent to play?
Click to expand...

"Today, agents"... WHO CARES!
 

Old Silver said:
In an 1893 Roanoke newspaper, there is an account of the Beale story. But there are a couple of differences from what we read elsewhere.

For one, the newspaper writer says that the coded papers in the iron box were marked "1," "2," and "3," when Morriss broke into it. The teller of the original Beale story said it was HE who numbered the papers, according to their length.

Also, instead of the treasure being buried about 4 miles from Buford's, the newspaper article says, about 14 miles from Buford's. Were these simply typos, or has something in the Beale papers been changed?
Click to expand...

What?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Burr, Wilkinson, and a treasure buried in 1813

⬅️ Previous Thread

LETTERS written by TJB to RM, in the Beale PAPERS

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Steve's Detector Rods

Latest Discussions

Back
Top