From: Jim Carlile (email suppressed)
Date: Sun Feb 17 2008 - 02:45:07 PST
I believe that if the work was published, the registration and deposit
requirements were in effect until 1978. The '76 Act changed all that, of course,
and I think that a later revision also allowed 'creators' to go back and
retroactively register their published works if they had neglected to, as long as
it was still within the 28 year initial time period. Unpublished works didn't
need to be registered. Nowadays nothing does.
That means that a creator in 1967 would have been afraid not to register and
send in two copies of the published work, and have a C notice. After 1978,
registration wasn't required, which is why they can put those few optional
registrations online now.
Very sorry to hear about the Supreme Court loss. Except for two members,
this Court is clueless about copyright. They think infringement is theft, and
they treat the term "limited times" in the Constitution as synonymous with
'finite.' It's not. Limited means limited.
It's all about property rights-- that's the sad era we are in. I can see why
Lessig now sees the struggle as being much bigger than just taking on the
legal system--
Until then, it's probably time to go underground. I like the B&P method
(blanks and postage,) pioneered a few years ago for sharing the music of cool
bands. Easy, friendly, secret, and fun. And it gets the stuff out there-- which
is the goal.
In a message dated 2/15/2008 5:26:32 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
email suppressed writes:
I believe the 1992 law that abolished the need to renew copyrights and
extended all post-1963 copyrights to either life plus 50 (for works by individual
authors) or 75 years (for works for hire) also abolished the registration
requirement for post-1963 works. If a US work 1963 and later bears a copyright
notice in proper form, it's under copyright in the US, regardless of whether
the claim was registered.
With the Internet Archive, we sued to overturn the law abolishing renewal
formalities, and lost. Five weeks ago the Supreme Court decliined to review
the lower courts' decisions.
Rick
Rick Prelinger
Prelinger Library & Archives, San Francisco
Board President, Internet Archive
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.