4632Re: [medieval-leather] copyrights...
- Jul 3, 2001At 07:29 AM 7/3/01 +0100, Mel wrote:
>>I'm pretty sure things that weren'y copyright came back into copyright as IThat is the final *ahem* arbiter of such things. I don't know -- it doesn't sound like
>>remember being horrified at that :) But I'll try &b remember to check with
>>my sister. Either way I'm not sure it has been tried in courst so it might
>>not stand anyhow.
anything that English Common Law would support any more than it's American
OTOH, for a long time, International Copyright was not recognized in this country, and
with the acceptence of the BC in 1988, many things that were in the Public Domain,
may have been taken out of it. However, under the United States Code, Section 17,
once something's in the Public Domain in the US, it tends to stay there. New copyright
laws (as a rule) have only protected newer materials, or changed events that could be
occuring in the future (for example, if two items were to fall from copyright protection within
a year of each other, and after the first one did, a law was passed extending the time
of protection, the second would benefit from the added time, the first would not)
>Agreed the risk of action being taken though will still most likly be aThere is also the difference between what the law says, and what people are allowing
>commercial one rather than pure law based
to happen. For example, companies like "Deja.News" that archive and broadly
rebroadcast archives of old newsgroups are violating copyright (on this discussion
group, we have the option of making the archives closed), just like I would be if I started
publicly started presenting a videotape of some recent movie -- even if I were doing it
>>...onto tape for your car was not pursued but CD copying en mass is . Both areWhich means that (under the old rules interpretation) that the owner could be construed as
>>EXACTLY the same in law, as I understand it, but it is the scale & intent
>>that differs, if you wanted to sue the one copy man you would probaby get
>>the cost of the tape, but it would cost far more to do so.
abandoning copyright. Under the newer rules, that means that the one copier is probably
still stealing, even if he's just lucky enough that no one wants to prosecute. Running a
stoplight is still illegal, whether you strike a pedestrian or not.
>>>In short, if it was published before 1923, its in the public domain.That's correct. Generally, British books, in the US, that were published before 1923, are public domain
>>ONLY in the US
in the US - unless you go with a strict interpretation of the Millenium Act (and over-ride the US Code) then it's
1905. So, international materials printed between 1905 and 1923 are, well, fuzzy -- and will stay that way until
the courts fix it, or until 2017 when the two dates merge (isn't that one of the dates predicted for the end
of the world?)
>>Not here, I'd cite the Ciba reviews which I'd love to copy for acedemic useThat just means that you shouldn't share it.
>>for all, but should not under law (at least not for another 30 years, sorry
A really good example of a very frustrating work is: Baker, Oliver. Black Jacks and Leather Bottells, 1921.
In the US, it's in public domain, and I'd *love* to turn it into a web-site or an ebook, since it's so hard for people to find.
But no. Since the 'Net covers more than the borders of the US, I'd be happier if I knew some other things, like when he died,
and who currently owns those rights under the most conservative interpretation of things (since he used a number of private publishers, we can be pretty sure the rights stuck with the author).
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>