Comments on: old works, new copyrights

By: LQ

LQ — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 20:37:35 +0000

If the work was first published in the US in 1919, then it is in the public domain because all such copyright terms have expired. The support you're looking for would be in the statute setting forth the copyright term; and research that one might do to find out the original publication date and the author's date of death (if appropriate). It's the copyright-holder's burden to prove they have a valid copyright; so one wouldn't expect to find individual proofs or certifications of a work's public domain status. Of course, it can get a bit complex for works not clearly out of copyright term. (Certain music recordings, for instance.) The Copyright Office registry provides documentation of the copyright owners for registered works, so one could start there. Obviously, this is the problem that the recent Orphan Works hearings & proposal are addressing. If you want to know what's "clearly" out of copyright term, start here with one of these very good charts that set out US copyright terms. The Copyright Office has some relevant circulars on the topic (circulars 15, 15a, and 15t). And if you're feeling masochistic, go straight to the statutory source, and spend time in 17 USC § 300 et seq (especially 17 USC § 304 which is particularly tortuous).

By: Jon

Jon — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 20:42:30 +0000

It’s said that The Curse of Capistrano is a public domain work, but I have been unable to find anything that states that it is. I know is was published in 1919 and should be, but can’t find anything that supports that it is. Anyone have any information to state if it is indeed in the public domain.

Jon

By: Eric Fisher

Eric Fisher — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 05:00:55 +0000

it is important to remember that trademark and copyright are priveleges granted to a particular originator, publisher or author, by the body public. These priveleges are granted in order to encourage the production of works of cultural signifigance. The point to all this is that the true “owners” of this material are “the people.” After all, the cultural significance is created by the place given to a work by the people who watch, listen to, read, or otherwise adopt the product created by the originators.

The question we need to be asking, then, is whether our practice with older material encourages further creation, or compromises it. It seems to me that we have extended copyright beyond the point where it encourages creativity, to the point that it begins to discourage it.

In the case of the Zorro copyright, for instance, a lot of money and effort will be wasted in defence of so-called rights which could better be spent in trying to create more out of the widely known story.

I don’t know the finer points of the law, but I do know that the law should be a meams to an end.