From: Hassan Said (email suppressed)
Date: Mon Jun 30 2008 - 22:45:14 PDT
Hey guys
I was wondering if any of u have kerris contacts?
- Original message -
Having long researched the copyright status of scores of ..
On 6/30/08, Jim Carlile <email suppressed> wrote:
>
> Having long researched the copyright status of scores of old film and
> photography books and journals, I'm amazed at the fact that so many (most)
> works
> pre-1964 are NOT in copyright any more-- and some never were in the first
> place,
> particularly foreign works that sought U.S. protection.
>
> I won't go into it all right now, but in a nutshell:
>
> 1) Pre-1964 works are easy to verify. They had to be copyrighted
> originally-- correctly-- and then renewed the exact year they were due, in
> order to
> continue protection. If they were not, they are in the public domain. There
> are
> no if, ands or buts.
>
> 2) The burden of proof is on the part of the alleged holder of the
> copyright, not the possible "infringer."
>
> 3) Establishing standing or ownership of a copyright is incredibly
> difficult
> for most 'plaintiffs' to do for pre- 64 works. The evidence trail has long
> dried up, no matter what the grandkid, lawyer, or "literary executor" wants
> to
> claim.
>
> 3) The Copyright Office's web page about renewal is incredibly inaccurate,
> and makes it seem like protection is afforded merely by a copyright symbol
> or a
> notice on pre- 64 works.
>
> 4) Many foreign works that thought they were in American copyright pre-1970
> are not, because they violated the then legal requirement that ALL books and
>
> journals be published in the U.S. of American manufacture, including the
> printing plates.
>
> 5) Many registrations lacked the accompanying 2-copy deposits that were
> REQUIRED by the LC
>
> 6) In general, it's a myth that copyright status is difficult to verify, or
> that "you're taking a chance, etc." if you dare claim that an older work is
> in the PD. In fact, most of these fears are pure propaganda, designed to
> scare
> people into leaving someone else's phony property claims alone.
>
> One thing though-- the new Google database should not be totally relied
> upon
> right now-- better verify it with he hard copies of the renewal records.
> Also, somewhere the specific year-by year copyright laws are on the web---
> THESE
> are the criteria by which copyright was granted for those years, not the
> claims of some property attorney somewhere.
>
> The older copyright laws were VERY stringent with many conditions and it is
> amazing to see how many people failed to comply with them and thus
> completely
> voided their claims from day one.
>
> Also, the newer NAFTA "extensions" that put some foreign PD works back into
> copyright-- supposedly-- have never been tested in Court and they seriously
> conflict with not just US law but the Constitution as well regarding
> "limited
> terms."-- AFAIK there has never been a court decision that allows a work to
> be
> removed from the PD.
>
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 6/30/2008 10:11:36 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> email suppressed writes:
>
> My understanding had been that in the U.S. you automatically have copyright
> to your own work. The problem is proving it...if you don't register.
> BB
>
>
> On 6/30/08 8:10 AM, "Freya" <email suppressed> wrote:
>
>>> None of these resources are complete, and none list works
>>> of non-US origin. And copyright status of a work depends
>>> on many factors, including manner of publication and
>>> presence or absence of a copyright notice in legal form.
>>
>> The U.S. has a very different copyright history to the rest of the world.
>> Here in Europe for example it's long been the case that copyright is
>> yours
>> when you make the work and you didn't have to register or renew the
> copyright.
>> Until the U.S. joined the berne convention it was all messier and fuzzier
>>
> than
>> that and even since joining there are legal concessions to try and
>> justify
> the
>> existance of the U.S. copyright office.
>>
>> Works outside of the U.S. aren't registered and don't need to be in order
>>
> to
>> be protected (same with modern U.S. works). Best to assume that non-US
> works
>> are covered by the Berne convention.
>>
>> Hope that helps. I would go into detail, but as usual lately I'm in the
> middle
>> of being somewhere else. ;)
>>
>> love
>>
>> Freya
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________
>> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> **************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
> fuel-efficient used cars.
> (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
>
-- Hassan M. Said (845) 597-9468 email suppressed www.HassanSaid.com __________________________________________________________________ For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.