Copyright question

[Johnny L.A.]

As you know from this thread, I'd like to make an underwater housing for a camera. Interestingly, I was able to obtain a booklet called How to Build Your Own Underwater Camera Housing. How convenient!

The booklet has 72 pages, and contains general instructions for construction of the housing and its controls. There are photos int he back that show various cameras in housings: 16mm, 8mm, Polaroid, 35mm. This might be a good book for people to see.

It's © 1962 by Mart Toggweiler, and it was published by Dive-Rite Products in Long Beach, California. I've found very little about Toggweiler online. I e-mailed Dive-Rite to ask if they were the same company that published the booklet. "No, That was before our time."

If Toggweiler is dead (which I assume he is) and Dive-Rite no longer exists, is it permissable to reproduce this out-of-print booklet on a webpage so that others can benefit from it?

[Scarlett67]

You may find this circular from the U.S. Copyright Office helpful.

[InTransit]

Not necessarily. Since the book was published w/ copyright notice in 1962, the first term is 28 years. (The life or status of the author didn't matter back then.) That takes you to 1991. But if the author renewed his copyright, he would get another 67 years. You can check with the Copyright Office to see if the registration is still good. I believe they have an electronic database available on-line.

www.copyright.gov

If the copyright was not registered, then the book has been in public doman since 1992 and you can use the text.

Check for revised or updated editions, however. Those may still be protected.

[InTransit]

Clarification: I meant 1990 above.

The circular Scarlett67 refers to is very good.

[Johnny L.A.]

Thanks, Scarlett67.

Under the law in effect before 1978, copyright was secured either on the date a work was published with a copyright notice or on the date of registration if the work was registered in unpublished form. In either case, the copyright endured for a first term of 28 years from the date it was secured. During the last (28th) year of the first term, the copyright was eligible for renewal. The Copyright Act of 1976 extended the renewal term from 28 to 47 years for copyrights that were subsisting on January 1, 1978, or for pre-1978 copyrights restored under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), making these works eligible for a total term of protection of 75 years. Public Law 105-298, enacted on October 27, 1998, further extended the renewal term of copyrights still subsisting on that date by an additional 20 years, providing for a renewal term of 67 years and a total term of protection of 95 years.

Okay, the booklet was copyrighted in 1962, which is before 1978. So the copyright wouldn't have expired until 1990. If the copyright was not renewed, then the booklet should be in the public domain. Right?

[Johnny L.A.]

InTransit: I used your link to look up "Toggweiler" and the title. There was one "Toggweiler" returned when I searched for that text, and it was not Mart; nor was the book HtBYOUCH. The title search did not turn up this title.

[RealityChuck]

Originally Posted by Johnny L.A.

Thanks, Scarlett67.

Okay, the booklet was copyrighted in 1962, which is before 1978. So the copyright wouldn't have expired until 1990. If the copyright was not renewed, then the booklet should be in the public domain. Right?

No. The opposite is true. Since the copyright was still in effect in 1978, the term was automatically increased.

The key phrase is this: "The Copyright Act of 1976 extended the renewal term from 28 to 47 years for copyrights that were subsisting on January 1, 1978." The copyright did subsist (i.e., exist) on 1/1/1978, so it was automatically extended at that time.

[Fuji Kitakyusho]

Originally Posted by Johnny L.A.

As you know from this thread, I'd like to make an underwater housing for a camera. Interestingly, I was able to obtain a booklet called How to Build Your Own Underwater Camera Housing. How convenient!

The booklet has 72 pages, and contains general instructions for construction of the housing and its controls. There are photos int he back that show various cameras in housings: 16mm, 8mm, Polaroid, 35mm. This might be a good book for people to see.

It's © 1962 by Mart Toggweiler, and it was published by Dive-Rite Products in Long Beach, California. I've found very little about Toggweiler online. I e-mailed Dive-Rite to ask if they were the same company that published the booklet. "No, That was before our time."

If Toggweiler is dead (which I assume he is) and Dive-Rite no longer exists, is it permissable to reproduce this out-of-print booklet on a webpage so that others can benefit from it?

I would be very interested in seeing that book. I'm using an old Sony MPK-TRA housing with a cheap Hi-8 sony knock-off camera, but would like to get something more akin to the simple cylindrical housings made by Halcyon, etc. Incidentally, one other book you should look into is Vince Harlow's "Dive Light Companion" (www.airspeedpress.com).

Housings by themselves are very simple devices. The complex part is creating controls which will interface correctly. This may not be necessary, though. I can use a newer digital camera in my housing, but the LANC codes are incompatible. No matter - just turn the camera on, set the focus to infinity and use it like that. I don't really find a need for zoom and other functions, but them I am not a practiced videographer.

-FK

[Johnny L.A.]

RealityChuck: I'm reading it differently. The text says "extended the renewal term", not that it's automatically renewed. In any case, it was not eligible for renewal until 1990. Here's some more text:

Public Law 102-307, enacted on June 26, 1992, amended the 1976 Copyright Act to provide for automatic renewal of the term of copyrights secured between January 1, 1964, and December 31, 1977.

So copyrights that were enacted between January 1st, 1964 and December 31st, 1977 would automatically be renewed; but this booklet was published in 1962.

So the way I'm reading it is this: The copyright existed on 01-Jan-78, which made it eligible for a 47-year renewal; but the copyright was not automatically renewed.

[Cliffy]

Originally Posted by RealityChuck

No. The opposite is true. Since the copyright was still in effect in 1978, the term was automatically increased.

Wrong. Johnny L.A. reads it right. Anything copyrighted under the '09 Act needed to be renewed after the first 28 year term expired. The '76 Act (and, since then, the Bono Act of, um '98 IIRC) simply extended the length of the second term, iff the creator decided to invoke it.

The fact that the writer is dead has no effect on the status of the copyright. Like any other property, intellectual property can pass by gift, devise, or sale (within certain limitations). The author may have mentioned the copyright in his will, for instance.

--Cliffy

[Garfield226]

You'll also note, from the circular:

What is NOT protected. . .

Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration.

In other words, the procedure and process of constructing this housing is not protected, only the man's description is. If you were to rewrite the booklet, you'd be in the clear.

NOTE: I'm not a lawyer, but this is the same concept that applies to recipes. Lists of ingredients and the procedure for cooking them aren't protected under copyright, only the descriptions accompanying them are...

[commasense]

So you've made some reasonable good faith efforts to determine the copyright status of the work with no hard results. It's a small work of limited commercial value but some historical interest (which, of course has no bearing on the legal issues at stake).

IANAL, but I'd say put the thing on the Web, reproducing the copyright statement, and with a disclaimer explaining your efforts to track down the work's status and assurances that if the copyright holder contacts you with objections you'll remove the work immediately.

If the work is not in the public domain, you will, technically, be violating its copyright, but IMO the chances of any serious action being taken against you is pretty small. The worst that's likely is that you'll get a cease-and-desist letter from a lawyer for the copyright holder. And even that's not terribly likely.

If you want to be safer, only reproduce a few of the more interesting pages, as opposed to the whole book, which should give you a reasonable "fair use" claim. But remember, IANAL!

[Exapno Mapcase]

commasense, I've got to step in whenever I hear the argument, "hey, it's illegal, but you won't get caught, so just do it, man."

Back in the world of adults, I've got to disagree with Cliffy as well.

Take a look at this Public Domain Dates page.

Older works
Created/registered - 01 Jan 1950–31 Dec 1977
Conditions - Published with notice
Copyright Status - P + 28 + 67 (§ 304(b))
Termination Status P + 56 (§ 304(c))

The pamphlet was published with notice, i.e. with the copyright symbol. P is date of publication, 1962 in this case. P + 56 means that it will stay in copyright until 2018.

Johnny L.A., you're reading the act incorrectly. Note endnote 6 on the government's Copyright Law page about the 1992 amendments:[/quote]Copyrights secured before January 1, 1964, shall be governed by the provisions of section 304(a) of title 17, United States Code, as in effect on the day before . . .[enactment on June 26, 1992][/quote]

The issue of making copyrighted but out-of-print works available comes up all the time. It would be wonderful if many of these works were once again available, but the fact remains that for the OP to do so is completely illegal, no ifs, ands or buts.

[Johnny L.A.]

Exapno Mapcase
I'm still not seeing where I'm reading it incorrectly. From your link:

(a) Copyrights in Their First Term on January 1, 1978. —

(1)(A) Any copyright, in the first term of which is subsisting on January 1, 1978, shall endure for 28 years from the date it was originally secured.

Since the booklet was copyrighted in 1962, according to § 304 its copyright would have expired in 1991 (28 years after the next January 1st after the copyright was granted). I don't see where copyrights gtranted in 1962 are automatically renewed. I only see that works are eligible to be renewed.

Which is suggested in your other link:

Relatively few works actually were properly renewed; estimates range from 6% to 17%.

Since this booklet is of limited interest, and since technology advanced significantly between 1962 and 1990, I think it's doubtful that this booklet was "properly renewed". If it was not (and as I said, I could turn up nothing on it at the link provided by InTransit), then it seems to me that it is in the Public Domain.

[Johnny L.A.]

Also from Exapno Mapcase's Public Domain Dates link (endnote 6):

Although the mechanics of renewal and length of renewal after the initial 28-year term provided in the 1909 Act were completely changed in the 1976 Act, works that were registered during this period still need to be renewed during the 28th year after registration or they fall into the public domain...

IANAL, but it looks like Public Domain to me (unless the copyright was renewed in 1990).

[Walloon]

A work whose copyright was secured before January 1, 1964, needs to have its copyright renewed after 28 years, otherwise the work enters the public domain. The copyright is not automatically renewed for a second term.

A book whose copyright was first secured in 1962 would be eligible for a renewal in 1990. The U.S. Copyright Office's website has a database of all registrations and renewals from 1978 onward. There is no Mart Toggweiler listed as an author, nor the title How to Build Your Own Underwater Camera Housing. Therefore, the work is in the public domain.

Works whose copyrights were secured between January 1, 1964, and December 31, 1977, automatically have their copyrights renewed for a second term.

As for Mart Toggweiler, he may be the Martin Toggweiler who was born in Pennsylvania circa 1917, and who lives today in Signal Hill, Los Angeles Co., California. Especially likely because the book was published in nearby Long Beach.

[PhilAlex]

I'm constantly impressed with the thoroughness of Walloon's approach, but I've got something to add:

If it's really PD in the states, and you put it up on the Web, and I, who lives in Canada download it.... it's an interesting thing.

See, Canada is Life + 50. Always has been. Most other countries are like that too.

So. If the guy is still alive, I >can't< download it.

You put it up free, you could be in a heap of trouble.

Of course, it's interesting that there are a bunch of authors who died, pre 1953 who had spectacular books that I can re-print. (Since I'm in Canada).

[Johnny L.A.]

As for Mart Toggweiler, he may be the Martin Toggweiler who was born in Pennsylvania circa 1917, and who lives today in Signal Hill, Los Angeles Co., California. Especially likely because the book was published in nearby Long Beach.

I thought it likely he was dead, since he looks like he was in his 40s in the booklet and that would put him, today, near 90. But he may still be alive? Where did you find that information?

[Walloon]

Johnny L.A.: According to Ancestry.com's all-name index to the U.S. census taken in April 1930, there was only one Mart— Toggweiler living in the U.S., and he was a 12-year-old who was born in Pennsylvania. I did not find him in the Social Security Death Index or the California death index, so I guessed he was still alive. The Ultimate People Finder at KnowX.com had two Martin Toggweilers living in the U.S., one in Redwood City, California, and the other in Signal Hill, California. The search engine at US Search told me that the Martin Toggweiler in Redwood City was 39 years old (too young), but that the Mart(in) Toggweiler in Signal Hill was 86 years old.

A glance at Signal Hill's location at Yahoo Maps confirmed that it is next to Long Beach, where the book in question was published. If you want his address and telephone number, look up Mart Toggweiler in an on-line telephone directory like Switchboard.

PhilAlex: My understanding of international copyright conventions is that no country is obligated to recognize a copyright for a longer term than it exists in the work's original place of publication (assuming that no Canadian edition of the work was published). My brother is an intellectual property lawyer, and I will ask him.

[PhilAlex]

Walloon:

I didn't mean that the US was required to respect Canada's longer copyright. Fr'instance, Peter Pan has an eternal copyright in the UK, but it's PD in other countries... the US being one of them.

So, someone could run off a few copies in the US. But, if someone bought a copy and hoofed it for England, who is at fault?

The real problem is with a lot of people who are republishing stuff of questionable Public Domain status on the net. So, if someone in England bought an E-book of Peter Pan on the net, ONLINE, they would be breaking the law.

Now. to what level is the "republisher" required to go? Block all England IP's? England Credit Cards?

It's an interesting question. Oh, and BTW: Disney's Peter Pan has a "NOT FOR SALE IN ENGLAND" stamped on it. That may be enough, but I don't have Disney's Law department.

Didn't explain myself there, fully.

Still, if the author wanted to make your life, ah, troubling, he could.

[commasense]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

commasense, I've got to step in whenever I hear the argument, "hey, it's illegal, but you won't get caught, so just do it, man."

Rather than let Harpo get away with implying that I'm in favor of breaking any law you can get away with, I thought I should clarify my position.

First off, I am not one of these music-downloading teenagers who thinks that "information wants to be free," and that no one is harmed by copyright violations. In fact, I'm a publisher, and thus intimately concerned with copyright and other intellectual property issues. If I learned that anyone was egregiously violating my copyrights, I would not hesitate to threaten or file a lawsuit.

However, that said, I don't believe that "illegal" and "wrong" are in every case synonymous. In the present case, the facts strongly suggest that the work is in the public domain. The OP seems to have done reasearch to indicate that both the author and publisher are defunct. There is no clear evidence that the copyright was renewed.

So if the work is in the public domain, then clearly reproducing it is legal, and we have no dispute.

But let's consider the following theoretical case: an accomplished scientist, working alone, discovers a miraculous cure for cancer, and copyrights a description of the process. Then he dies, without having told anyone about the cure, and leaving no heirs.

Someone finds his papers (for the sake of this argument, I am stipulating that the finder has not bought the estate, or otherwise established an ownership claim) and discovers the cure, but notes that it is copyrighted. By Exapno's lights, we can't do anything with this cure until the copyright expires, even though the author is dead and there is no one to benefit from exploitation of the copyright.

This, in my opinion, would be a rather mindless (and clearly counterproductive) adherence to the letter of the law.

From the facts presented, I feel that the present case may be analogous to my hypothetical. If the work is still technically under copyright but has effectively been abandoned, there may be no harm in reproducing it, and some benefit to society in general may accrue. In such circumstances, in my opinion, it becomes a matter of intent. If the OP is acting in good faith without intending to improperly benefit from the publication, and is willing to remove the material if the owner objects, I think publication is justified. Under a strict reading of the law it may be illegal, but I don't feel it's wrong.

[Walloon]

Originally Posted by PhilAlex

I didn't mean that the US was required to respect Canada's longer copyright.

Nor was I saying that. I am saying that unless an edition of the work was also published in Canada, Canadian courts are not obligated to recognize the copyright of a work originally published in the U.S. for any longer than the work is protected in the U.S. itself.

Article 7, Section 8, of the Berne Convention states:

In any case, the term [of copyright] shall be governed by the legislation of the country where protection is claimed; however, unless the legislation of that country otherwise provides, the term shall not exceed the term fixed in the country of origin of the work.

As the interests of no Canadian author, publishing house, or distributor are being affected, why would Canadian courts consider this case to be under their jurisdiction? It's is a principal of copyright law: someone's local interests must be affected by the violation.

[Walloon]

Originally Posted by commasense

But let's consider the following theoretical case: an accomplished scientist, working alone, discovers a miraculous cure for cancer, and copyrights a description of the process. Then he dies, without having told anyone about the cure, and leaving no heirs.

This would not be a copyright case. A copyright does not cover ideas, only the specific expression of an idea. A new and original process, on the other hand, is covered by a patent.

[Johnny L.A.]

The OP seems to have done reasearch to indicate that both the author and publisher are defunct.

Walloon has done a better job of researching than I. I've never heard of Ancestry.com. It seems that Mr. Toggweiler may still be living in Southern California. But from what I've read on the links people provided, it looks like his works are in the Public Domain.

If you want his address and telephone number, look up Mart Toggweiler in an on-line telephone directory like Switchboard.

I should try that. If he's the author, it would be nice to see if I could get his "blessing".

[Exapno Mapcase]

commasense, you did well in restating your argument, so I retract any suggestion that you are one of the idiot kids who often post on this subject.

However, as Walloon already has pointed out, your analogy simply has no relevance in this discussion. Remember, only the specific expression of facts or ideas can be copyrighted, not the facts themselves or the underlying ideas.

And I still refuse to accept the position you take in your last paragraph. If the work is still under copyright, then the disposition of the work lies entirely in the hands of the copyright owner or the estate or heirs. He (or they) may not want the pamphlet published, for some reason. Or he might want to republish the pamphlet and make money off of it but cannot for some reason. In either case, it is not your call to decide.

There is no such thing as "technically under copyright." A work is in copyright or in the public domain. If the work is in the public domain, then there is no argument: reprint and spread the information. If it is in copyright, then gnash your teeth all you want, but leave it be.

As for the technicalities of this situation, I fired off an e-mail for clarification to the person whose link I cited earlier. I don't know if he'll have time to answer but I'll give [paraphrase ] his comments even if they go against me.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by commasense
But let's consider the following theoretical case: an accomplished scientist, working alone, discovers a miraculous cure for cancer, and copyrights a description of the process.

Oh, one more thing. Everything you write is automatically copyright from the moment it is written. The scientist can register a copyright and it is a good idea for him or her to do so, but that only changes the damages that can be won in a lawsuit. It does not affect copyright one whit.

I only mention this because it is another aspect of copyright that many (probably most) people don't understand.

[Johnny L.A.]

As for the technicalities of this situation, I fired off an e-mail for clarification to the person whose link I cited earlier. I don't know if he'll have time to answer but I'll give [paraphrase ] his comments even if they go against me.

Thanks. It looks like the booklet is in the public domain based on the links you and others provided; but it will be good to know for sure.

In the meantime, I'm transcribing it onto my computer. If nothing else, I'll have a copy that I can read and not worry about messing up; and I can keep the original booklet safe.

[Exapno Mapcase]

So. you thought there would be a simple yes/no answer to this, did you?

Here's what my contact (a practicing copyright lawyer) said:

There's an odd little window of works whose renewal date fall into 1990-1993, which this one does. In that window copyright can be reclaimed by a petition to the Registrar of Copyright. It's one of those things the 1992 technical amendment I cited was supposed to correct.

So his advice is to treat it as if it were still copyrighted. A court might very well find for you, but - my words - you definitely don't want to expensively fight in court over this.

Checking the online Copyright database to see if it turned up was a good idea, but he says that unless you know enough about the work to be able to search all the different ways - the author's name, the publisher's name, the
title, AND the original certificate number - you might not find the needed info.

Well, that certainly settled that, didn't it?

[Johnny L.A.]

The original certificate number is not printed in the book. Here is all of the information I have:

Title (as printed): how to build your own UNDERWATER camera housing.
Author: Mart Toggweiler
Published by: DIVE-RITE PRODUCTS, BOX 14444, LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA

As I said, neither the title nor the author showed up in an online copyright search. An e-mail to Dive-Rite Products (www.diverite.com) got this reply: "No, That was before our time." I did not find a Dive-Rite in Long Beach, California.

[commasense]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

commasense, you did well in restating your argument, so I retract any suggestion that you are one of the idiot kids who often post on this subject.

Well, thank you.

However, as Walloon already has pointed out, your analogy simply has no relevance in this discussion. Remember, only the specific expression of facts or ideas can be copyrighted, not the facts themselves or the underlying ideas.

I just knew that someone was going to bring this up. I fully understand the difference between copyright, trademark, and patent, but was just trying to come up with a compelling example. I regret I wasn't able to devise a better one, but I was hoping you'd all get my point.

And I still refuse to accept the position you take in your last paragraph. If the work is still under copyright, then the disposition of the work lies entirely in the hands of the copyright owner or the estate or heirs. He (or they) may not want the pamphlet published, for some reason. Or he might want to republish the pamphlet and make money off of it but cannot for some reason. In either case, it is not your call to decide.

I grant that all the possibilities you raise are valid. But the point I was driving at is, what if there is no copyright holder? Surely you would grant it is possible for a copyrighted work to fall into a state in which its ownership is effectively impossible to determine. What is the status of such a work? Does a right exist if there is no one to claim it? And what if there is a compelling benefit to society to be gained from publishing? (That's what I was trying to get at with my doctor example.) Are we to allow potentially useful works in this indeterminate state to languish in obscurity merely to observe the requirements of the copyright statutes, when there is no one who will benefit from their "burial"?

It comes down to religious differences. Exapno seems to be an absolutist on the point (and undoubtedly has the law on his side), where I am more of a relativist. I have long believed that it is often easier to ask forgiveness than get permission. I'm not arguing that there is a legal right to such publishing, only that there may be cases in which no serious harm, and some good, can be done. And there are, of course, risks:

So his advice is to treat it as if it were still copyrighted. A court might very well find for you, but - my words - you definitely don't want to expensively fight in court over this.

Surely you are exaggerating. Isn't it (as I said in my first post) highly unlikely that this would ever go beyond a cease-and-desist letter?

[Walloon]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

There's an odd little window of works whose renewal date fall into 1990-1993, which this one does. In that window copyright can be reclaimed by a petition to the Registrar of Copyright. It's one of those things the 1992 technical amendment I cited was supposed to correct.

Ask your friend [/quote]where this appears in U.S. copyright law, because I can't find it anywhere.

[Johnny L.A.]

Acting on Walloon's clues, I've written a letter to the individual in SoCal who looks a likely candidate to be the author. I'll mail it on Tuesday (Monday being a holiday).

[Walloon]

U.S. Copyright Office:

Works in the public domain cannot be protected by copyright. The 1976 Act, the 1992 amendment, and the 1998 amendment do not provide a procedure for restoring protection for works in which copyright has been lost for any reason.

[Sunspace]

My, this is an interesting thread. I now have a copyright question of my very own... but that's for another thread.

[PhilAlex]

I'll yet again add to what Walloon said about restoring copyright...

(There is a mailing list totally devoted to this, btw. It's called CNI-COPYRIGHT. I subbed for about two months. Made me run from reprinting anything but "Boy Meets Girl")

Anyhow, pre 1978, if you printed something in "reasonalbe quantity" and distributed it, without a copyright notice, congrats, it's public domain.

Remember the Beethoven sweatshirt? An adman named Howard gossage came up with the idea for a fund raiser for a classic radio station. Printed a bunch of them, and was promptly ripped off.

Took the dude to court. Said dude pulled out one of the first 500 that didn't have a (C) on it.

Case dismissed.

(To further confuse the issue, I've read that, pre 1978, if the (C) notice was accidently forgotten, the item is still copyright. But don't ask me for a cite)

[Mr2001]

Originally Posted by PhilAlex

I'm constantly impressed with the thoroughness of Walloon's approach, but I've got something to add:

If it's really PD in the states, and you put it up on the Web, and I, who lives in Canada download it.... it's an interesting thing.

See, Canada is Life + 50. Always has been. Most other countries are like that too.

So. If the guy is still alive, I >can't< download it.

I don't believe that's true. Canadian courts have ruled that downloading music from the internet is legal, but sharing (i.e. uploading) is not, and that's consistent with the view that you're only violating copyright when you distribute a work. I assume a book would be treated the same as music, so you would be able to download it in Canada; you just couldn't put it up on your own site.

[Walloon]

Originally Posted by PhilAlex

Anyhow, pre 1978, if you printed something in "reasonalbe quantity" and distributed it, without a copyright notice, congrats, it's public domain.

Actually, a proper copyright notice was required under the 1976 act (effective 1978). The requirement that a proper copyright notice must be affixed was not repealed until March 1, 1989.

[Walloon]

Originally Posted by PhilAlex

(To further confuse the issue, I've read that, pre 1978, if the (C) notice was accidently forgotten, the item is still copyright.

Not so. The previous Copyright Act of 1909, the last major revision before 1976, stated:

Section 10. Any person entitled thereto by this title may secure copyright for his work by publication thereof with the notice of copyright required by this title; and such notice shall be affixed to each copy thereof published or offered for sale in the United States by authority of the copyright proprietor. . .

Section 19. The notice of copyright required by section 10 of this title shall consist either of the word "Copyright", the abbreviation "Copr.", or the symbol C, accompanied by the name of the copyright proprietor, and if the work be a printed literary, musical, or dramatic work, the notice shall include also the year in which the copyright was secured by publication.

[Johnny L.A.]

Re: How to Build Your Own Underwater Camera Housing

The author is still alive, and has given me written permission to reproduce his booklet "as long as it's not for profit". I still think that the copyright expired in 1991 and that it's in the public domain; but I'm glad that I have the author's blessing.

Fuji Kitakyusho: I've taken a break from transcribing the booklet. I ran out of steam about 43 pages into it, and there are a lot of photos yet to scan. I'll post again when I finish.

[Exapno Mapcase]

My sincere congratulations for taking the time and effort to do the right thing. You're a terrific example for everybody else who posts on copyright questions here.