Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Another interesting possibility would be a use-it-or-lose-it provision. If there has been no properly authorized publication of a copright work in the last 10 years, any reprinting is fair use.
Wasn't copyright originally intended to be blanket 25 years, regardless of how alive or otherwise the author was?
Less than that, or slightly more depending on how you look at it. It was originally 14 years from the time of publication, with a one-time right of renewal for an additional 14.
--Michael Snow
On 2/4/06, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
Less than that, or slightly more depending on how you look at it. It was originally 14 years from the time of publication, with a one-time right of renewal for an additional 14.
I always think it's a shame the renewal requirement was dropped in copyright law. It ensured that stuff that nobody cared about enough anymore fell into the public domain quicker. I guess it did make things a lot more complicated, though.
-Matt
On 04/02/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/4/06, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
Less than that, or slightly more depending on how you look at it. It was originally 14 years from the time of publication, with a one-time right of renewal for an additional 14.
I always think it's a shame the renewal requirement was dropped in copyright law. It ensured that stuff that nobody cared about enough anymore fell into the public domain quicker. I guess it did make things a lot more complicated, though.
It did, however, mean that even stuff which people did care about slipped through the net, often through no fault of the copyright owner.
You may remember, back in summer 2004, a popular flash cartoon which parodied "This Land Is Your Land". The copyright owners demanded it be pulled, on the grounds that it was first copyrighted in 1956 and renewed in 1984. The legal wrangling which ensued then ran across a copy of it from 1945 (it was first written in 1940) with a copyright notice on the end... meaning that the copyright actually expired in 1973, and wasn't renewed. Ooops.
(Personally, I'm happy it's in the public domain - it's what the author probably wanted! - but it does serve as a good example...)
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 04/02/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/4/06, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
Less than that, or slightly more depending on how you look at it. It was originally 14 years from the time of publication, with a one-time right of renewal for an additional 14.
I always think it's a shame the renewal requirement was dropped in copyright law. It ensured that stuff that nobody cared about enough anymore fell into the public domain quicker. I guess it did make things a lot more complicated, though.
It did, however, mean that even stuff which people did care about slipped through the net, often through no fault of the copyright owner.
You may remember, back in summer 2004, a popular flash cartoon which parodied "This Land Is Your Land". The copyright owners demanded it be pulled, on the grounds that it was first copyrighted in 1956 and renewed in 1984. The legal wrangling which ensued then ran across a copy of it from 1945 (it was first written in 1940) with a copyright notice on the end... meaning that the copyright actually expired in 1973, and wasn't renewed. Ooops.
(Personally, I'm happy it's in the public domain - it's what the author probably wanted! - but it does serve as a good example...)
Woody Guthrie!
I appreciate the renewal difficulties that arose. The key rationale given for its repeal was to conform with the treaty requirement that registration is not a prerequisite to a valid copyright. That's fine. The US now only requires registration if you are going to take action against an infringer. This is why I put reprinting unmaintained copyrights in terms of fair use rather than total loss of copyright. A copyright could be recoverable by a simple act of republication. My 10-year suggestion was involved an arbitrary time period, but anything published after that time elapsed would be fair use, but this would not apply to any usage after a new publication had reset the time limit.
Ec