3 ms·
technically its not in the public domain, it's an orphan work, since the ruling says warner had no grounds to claim ownership of the copyright on the famous arr
by linksbro 11y ago
technically its not in the public domain, it's an orphan work, since the ruling says warner had no grounds to claim ownership of the copyright on the famous arrangement. someone can still come forward and present the evidence that secures them the copyright until the end of its term
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works
- ubernostrum 11y agoThere are multiple issues, and today's ruling only seems to have covered one of them (namely, whether the Warner/Chappell copyright covers the song, or just an arrangement of the song -- the judge ruled it was the latter, which leaves Warner/Chappell without a copyright claim to the song). The next important step is a piece of evidence unearthed during discovery in this lawsuit: a songbook, whose fourth edition from 1922 contains the lyrics of "Happy Birthday". Since the lyrics had been published in 1922, and the melody is known to date to the 1890s, there is no way for either to currently be protected by copyright in the United States, as all copyrights dating from prior to 1923 are conclusively known to have expired.
- noobermin 11y agoOff by just a year, what a crazy coincidence.
- ubernostrum 11y agoGiven that 1922 was the fourth edition, it's likely that the lyrics were actually published earlier. It's just that you don't need to go back further, since once you reach a date earlier than 1923 you know it's public domain.
- Natsu 11y agoWell, unless they decide to retroactively extend copyright and bring works that were once open back under copyright... See also: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2611311 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2611311
- e12e 11y agoI read that in Micky Mouse's voice.
- gnaritas 11y agoIs it, or is that just the most likely year anyone would start their search for prior art?
- josteink 11y ago> someone can still come forward and present the evidence that secures them the copyright until the end of its term You mean with the current copyright regime, whoever manages to produce good enough forged evidence, can collect on this forever? Because it's well known that copyright no longer expires. And that means there's no end of term either.
- mtgx 11y agoDoes that mean Warner infringed on copyrights and should probably be punished for it?
- jotux 11y ago>that secures them the copyright until the end of its term Practically, once you are granted copyright it's secured until Disney goes out of business thanks to the Mickey Mouse Protection Act[1] and inevitable future Disney lobbying. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act