Comic Book Plus Forum
Help And Support => Other Help => Topic started by: boodoc on December 30, 2009, 03:35:20 PM
-
I'm fairly new to the site. But I'd heard that copyrights had to be before 1924 to be in the public domain. I know on the site that many of the comics are later than that but I've also read that almost everything on the site is IN the public domain? Obviously, I don't know the whole story. Could someone explain this to me. I'd appreciate it. Thanks.
-
Short version, follow the chart here:
http://www.sunsteinlaw.com/practices/copyright-portfolio-development/flowchart.htm
Basically, copyright used to give you twenty-eight years of protection. During the expiration year, you could renew the copyright for another twenty-eight years, for a total of fifty-six years.
In 1978, the Copyright Act of 1976 went into effect and kicked this nice little system in the groin, extending copyrights, adding "Life+X" rules, and so forth. There was also a later extension (the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act) that kicks harder, but isn't relevant to anything here except the continued absence of DC and Marvel books.
Regardless, if you do the subtraction, you see that 1978 minus 56 says that everything published in or before 1922 has absolutely expired (with some weird exceptions--technically, 1909 is the only absolute date that doesn't require additional information), which is where your number comes from. However, some owners may have missed their renewal, so copyrights from as late as 1963 (don't ask) may have also expired. (There's also an extensive field, here, regarding the "standing" to renew--some renewals are made by people who don't have a legal claim to the original copyright, making those renewals suspect, but that's another story.)
Additionally, a valid copyright notice (in the form "Copyright 19xx Owner," where the word could be replaced by the circled-c or "Copr.") was required for a copyright as late as 1989, extending the public domain that way, as well.
(Well...Lastly, there are also cases where the copyright is valid, but the owner is gone with no heirs; technically, it would be infringement to carry such things, but nobody would have standing to sue for damages. But that's a far trickier situation, and not something really worth talking about, if one isn't up to hiring investigators.)
-
That was fabulous, John C. Thanks so much!
-
Yeah, very nice, John,
WHERE the HECK were you when I had to find out all that stuff MYSELF? You'd have been a boon to me then, and folks like boodoc are fortunate that we have you around now. Thanks.
Happy New Year.
Peace, Jim (|:{>
-
WHERE the HECK were you when I had to find out all that stuff MYSELF? You'd have been a boon to me then
Heh. To be fair, I've only picked this up in the last few years, when I got roped into a small publishing venture (that hasn't gone anywhere, and then one of my partners passed away). So I might have been less than useless prior to that. Heck, it's only the last few months that I finally got through my thick skull that renewals were needed for books published prior to 1964; I kept doing the "1978 - 28 = 1950" arithmetic, which is overly-restrictive, if still accurate.
Thankfully, it's not too hard to begin with (unlike, say, tax law, which I hear even top-trained IRS auditors can't keep straight), but tools like that flowchart make it easy enough for even me to follow.
Still, glad to be of help where I can. (And even where I can't, which is what makes me dangerous...)
-
I think one of the wonderful things about the last few years is that copyright renewal research has become more doable and the barriers to providing material have dropped to almost nothing. Even if nothing is entering the public domain with the recent changes the amount of available material has skyrocketed, as people figure out what wasn't renewed. It's a good time overall in that regard after our worries about no new public domain material when the Sonny Bono act was passed.
-
That's definitely true. The resources are amazing, though there's a part of me that's bothered by the fact that none of it has been provided by, y'know, the government we pay to be in charge of such things.
There is there, though, and what once was only possible by spending a hundred bucks (or more) an hour for a lawyer to physically dig through mountains of paperwork can now be handled (mostly, in a Pareto's Law, 80/20 kind of way) in a few minutes, from the comfort of your home Internet connection, and with seriously minimal training.
I'd also include (though it's surely an effect of the former) the growing number of people who "get it." It's not too long ago that people assumed "public domain" meant "publically available for free," and small publishers would almost shut their doors if a bogus cease-and-desist order came their way from a big company. Today, that sort of behavior is far less likely to fly, which is definitely an improvement.
Now if we can just get rid of the "property" metaphor with Intellectual Property rights. When people finally realize that a copyright (or trademark or patent) is a limited-term monopoly, rather than a physical object, we might make some intelligent traction.