Thanks.
JK
Not everything you think is in the public domain really is. FACTOID: For instance, the song, "Happy Birthday To You" is still copyrighted. While no one will send the copyright infringement police to bust your birthday party, commercial use of that song requires royalties to be paid to the copyright holder.
http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.htm
Michael Jackson.
The article in Elan's post above is 3 years old, so apparently Mikie bought it fairly recently. I think I remember reading it.
Here's a link that explains copyright law in the US in a quick little chart. Current law is 70 years after the death of the copyright owner if he hasn't legally transferred ownership before that time.
Actually, copyright abuse, I mean law, has an interesting history. I believe the Walt Disney corporation is to blame for much of the changes that have occurred this century. They didn't want to let go of Mickey.
I understand that Disney wants to get it changed to eternity so that nothing (meaning Mickey and friends, of course) will ever go into the public domain.
quote:
How long does a copyright last?
The term of copyright for a particular work depends on several factors, including whether it has been published, and, if so, the date of first publication. As a general rule, for works created after Jan. 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. For works first published prior to 1978, the term will vary depending on several factors. To determine the length of copyright protection for a particular work, consult chapter 3 of the Copyright Act (title 17 of the United States Code). More information on the term of copyright can be found in Circular 15a, Duration of Copyright, and Circular 1, Copyright Basics.
What I'd like to know is how to find out who is administering the copyright for a work by an author who hasn't been dead for 70 years.
Is the copyright law perfect? No, but no law perfectly applies to each and every instance. Law can only provide broad guidelines. The interpretation of how that law applies to a specific case may require the individual attention of a judge/lawyer/jury.
I agree that Disney has gone bad... Walt must be spinning in his grave. Witness the violent cartoons (Atlantis) that pass as kiddie fodder. I am aware of child-care centers who have had Disney lawyers descend on them for having pictures of Mickey and Minnie painted on their walls. The centers have to paint over the images or be sued. I also spoke with a costume rental shop. They couldn't advertise their "mouse" costume as a Mickey Mouse costume. Disney lawyers have been known to call costume rental places and ask, anonymously, if the shop has a "Mickey Mouse" costume to rent. If the shop owner says "yes" then they are hit with a hefty fine for copyright violation. But this is Disney twisting the law, not a fault of the basic law In My Humble Opinion.
-Susan
[This message has been edited by Elan (edited July 27, 2005).]
If the author registered their work with the US Copyright office, they might have that info on file.
I fear it may not be in the US copyright office because he wasn't a US citizen.
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited July 27, 2005).]
Contact for T. H. (Terence Hanbury) White Copyright:
David Higham Associates Limited
London
Harold Ober Associates, Inc.
New York
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited July 27, 2005).]
However, since it is not yet 2048, that rule hasn't really taken effect yet, except for works by authors who died between January 1, 1933, and July 26, 1935, if those works were not published prior to December 31, 2002 and were not copyrighted prior to January 1, 1978.
For works published or copyrighted before January 1, 1978, the rules regarding who owns the copyright after 28 years are more complicated, but it really boils down to a simple number: 95 years from the original copyright date.
But it went corrupt. That means that rich people paid off senators and representatives to look after their own interests in this matter. They went and extended copyrights past the lifetime of the artist in question, which has no purpose except to make more money for certain individuals who wanted that money. People who are not artists, writers, or musicians. People who do not create but make money off the people who do.
Original idea fine. Current implementation corrupt.
[This message has been edited by Christine (edited July 27, 2005).]
No. The original copyright term was 28 years. The renewal term was for 67 years (and under the act, the renewal occurs automatically for works in their first term on January 1, 1978.) That means that for things published or copyrighted before 1978, the maximum term is 95 years from the original date of publication or copyright. It's also possible that the copyright expired after only 28 years, if it was not renewed before 1978.
If it's been 95 years since publication, you can safely assume it's in the public domain. Less than 95 years, and you have to investigate.
Here's a web page that lays it all out pretty clearly: http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/duration.html
Think about this. What if someone wealthy did rip off your work, and you could prove it? What would you do? You don't have the options (army of lawyers, friendly senators, substantial media access) that are normally associated with defending a copyright in this day and age. Basically, you can become a sideshow crank--the person that claims to have created X--or you can get over it.
We can agree that this is not how copyright law is supposed to work, but it is how it works now.
Me, I don't have a problem with it. But I can see how it hurts a lot of artists and hurts creativity.
By the way, there is a third option. If someone is trying to steal your material, you can provide it free to everyone in the world. It would make an interesting test case. You'd be more than a crank, at least. You might end up being a criminal. Just because you can prove that you are the original creator, that doesn't necessarily mean that you can distribute material that someone else has claimed as intellectual property. Just because the accused is presumed innocent, that doesn't give the accused the legal right to publicly claim to be innocent. Particularly if the prosecution can't prove guilt. You can go to prison for that sort of thing.
Do the same rules apply to poetry? If I start a chapter with 2 lines of a poem, name the poem and give credit to the author, would I still need to pay the origional publisher for the right to do so?
Brian
Here you're getting into the question of how much use is "fair use," which is a rather different topic.
If you do use a translation more than 95 years old, then you're safe as far as U.S. copyright law. You can quote the entire King James Bible without paying a royalty to the British monarchy. You can quote entire Shakepeare sonnets without paying any royalties. Anything published over 95 years ago is in the public domain now.
Theoretically, what copyright is concerned with is that the artist/author/musician has sole right to make money off of their creation. Copyright enforcement is concerned, mainly, with people using the work for profit. So, when you write a novel and quote someone else's song lyrics therein, if you sell the novel and make money off of it you owe the songwriter some money for that. But if you're not making money, if you're just using it as a referenc ein an academic paper, saw, then that's fair use.
In Australia it is illegal to make copies of songs even from those CDs you have legally purchased. You can't buy music MP3s legally here either. When you go to iTunes and other providers you get a 'Due to copyright laws, we do not service your country' sort of dialogue box.
If you want to legally play music publicly you need a license. Even shopping centres need to purchase one of these licenses for the music they pipe through the aisles.
Now, if you happen to want to legally run a dance and the DJ turns up with just a hard-drive...
That's true in the U.S., too.
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited July 27, 2005).]
And yes, hoptoad, the laws are the same in the US. If you are playing music on your 'hold' music, you are SUPPOSED to be paying royalties and can be fined if you are caught.
Another challenge with using the CD boom box with the multiple disk changer to play illicit music for your customers on "hold"... a friend of mine worked for a company that was using CDs that the staff brought in for their hold music. I called to talk to him one day and got put on "hold." The music playing was a James Taylor LIVE CD, and I'm sitting there listening to the music and suddenly I hear the singer sing, "You mother f***ers!"
I was, to say the least, stunned. When my friend got on the phone I told him he'd better check his music source. Good thing I wasn't a customer! But a better story I've heard is someone who's boss called into the office and the hold music was "Take This Job and Shove It."