6 ms·

Thanks for the link, the document says that the Court declared the song to be in the public domain. The ars article is a bit misleading then as it seems to impl

Thanks for the link, the document says that the Court declared the song to be in the public domain. The ars article is a bit misleading then as it seems to imply that Warner somehow placed it into the public domain. Also note that the Court only placed it in the public domain as of the final settlement date, rather than retroactively back to its apparently false registration.

kemayo 10y ago
Yeah, the way it works is that the court implements and enforces the agreement between the parties, using those fun legal powers -- that's why the judge had to approve the agreement. So a more accurate statement would have been "Warner agreed to have it placed in the public domain". Again, "apparently false registration" is something that the agreement carefully avoids making a determination on. There's a bunch of "this is not an admission of guilt" language in there, which is how settlements normally work.