5 ms·
I believe the 1922 citation is relevant because it contains specific licensing information for "Happy Birthday", which the source you cite lacks. So the one you
by agf 11y ago
I believe the 1922 citation is relevant because it contains specific licensing information for "Happy Birthday", which the source you cite lacks. So the one you cite could have been printed without permission, and wouldn't constitute the Hill sisters abandoning copyright.
- chc 11y agoEven if it were being used without permission, the fact that it could be used at all in 1911 suggests that it is too old to be covered by copyright, doesn't it?
- josteink 11y agoCopyright is supposed to be limited, but eh you know, somebody who descends from someone who around the 1911s wrote a one song, honestly, really, still very much deserves money for their hard work. Otherwise those guys back in 1911 will go back in time and undo what they've done, because it was clearly not worth it. Back in the real world, modern copyright is pretty messed up.
- matthewbauer 11y agoThat would make a fascinating scifi novel.
- your_ai_manager 11y agoOr an episode of Rick and Morty.
- spb 11y agoDan Harmon has said he doesn't want to do time travel plots in Rick and Morty.
- zhte415 11y agoOr sub-plot line in a Bill & Ted adventure.
- decode 11y agoI assume you're referring to the rule that works from before 1923 are all in the public domain. Apparently the rule is all works that were copyrighted before 1923 are in the public domain. A work is considered to have been copyrighted before 1923 if it was published: * in an authorized publication * in the United States * before 1923 * and had a proper copyright notice The sticking point here is that the purported owners of the copyright claim that the 1911 publication of Happy Birthday to You was unauthorized. Therefore, since the first authorized publication was in 1935, the copyright should run from that date. http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2009/07/the-myth-of-the-pre1923-public-domain.html http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2009/07/the-myth-of-th...
- leni536 11y agoI'm not a lawyer but what you say contradicts with the following source: https://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm https://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm It clearly states that all works from before 1923 are all in the public domain.
- papercrane 11y agoI think the key here is the table heading is "Works Registered or First Published in the U.S", I assume they mean that the first publication is authorized.
- leni536 11y agoI don't think so, it really is just registered or published. There are cases where the copyright notice matters, but they are handled with care in this listing.
- decode 11y agoThe first footnote in your linked page contains a link to an explanation of the charts by their original author: http://www.infotoday.com/searcher/sep12/Hirtle--When-Is-1923-Going-to-Arrive-and-Other-Complications-of-the-U.S.-Public-Domain.shtml http://www.infotoday.com/searcher/sep12/Hirtle--When-Is-1923... On this page, in section 4, "The myth of the pre-1923 public domain", there is an explanation about authorized publication: "For publication to have occurred, the work must be issued with the authorization of the copyright owner. A “pirated” copy of a work published in 1922 without the copyright owner’s authorization is, for the purpose of copyright, considered to be unpublished. If a copyright owner subsequently authorized publication in, say, 1970, the work received a 95- year term starting on that date. Reproducing or otherwise using the 1922 work in a way that implicates one of the rights of copyright would infringe on the copyrights established by authorized publication in 1970." It goes on to specifically reference Happy Birthday to You as an example of this principle.