3 ms·
But i thought that in legal terms, "maintenance" is not a test for validity of copyright claim. For a non-software example: if Disney refused to apply any updat
by mxuribe 4y ago
But i thought that in legal terms, "maintenance" is not a test for validity of copyright claim. For a non-software example: if Disney refused to apply any updates to their art, does that invalidate their copyright claims? I think one test is time of registering said copyright, and at least in the U.S., the mere moment that you publish a work, the clock starts on your copyright claim/holding (assuming there is no prior art). So, nah, i kind think that having art be "maintained" is not needed to be a valid copyrighted material....Of course, i am not a lawyer. ;-)
- JohnFen 4y agoThis is all in the US... For works made after 1978, copyright begins when the work was created. Updating the date on copyright notices doesn't actually change that, and there's no such thing as a "renewal". For work made before 1978, copyrights can be renewed, but you can't just update a copyright notice and call it "renewed". You actually have to file something with the copyright office. If you want to start the copyright clock over again, you have to change the work enough that it is considered a new copyrightable work. How much of a change that has to be is a bit of a gray area.
- mxuribe 4y agoThat's a good clarification; my comments were referring to more modern work such as after 1978.