So I was just reading an article about the movie Night Of The Living Dead (because, why not?), and it mentions how since the credits neglected to include a copyright, the film almost immediately went into public domain. I don’t know a lot about how those laws work- is that all it takes to copyright something? Just put a notice in it? I thought it involved filing something…somewhere. And if that’s all it takes, how does a copyright expire?
The laws have changed quite a bit since then.
Some things to note:
Registering something for copyright means you can really sue infringers. Get damages and penalties.
Without registering, you can basically get them to desist and not much more.
The old copyright notice is no longer required. Everything is “born” copyrighted, once it is “fixed” in some form. E.g., printed, filmed, etc.
You likely read this in the WIKI, which says:
Night of the Living Dead entered the public domain because the original theatrical distributor, the Walter Reade Organization, neglected to place a copyright indication on the prints. In 1968, United States copyright law required a proper notice for a work to maintain a copyright.[126] Image Ten displayed such a notice on the title frames of the film beneath the original title, Night of the Flesh Eaters. The distributor removed the statement when it changed the title.[38][127]
I bolded the section I’m referring to. I am familiar with US copyright law, although I am not an attorney. I don’t know about 1968, but sometime in the 1970s it began that there was no requirement to put a copyright notice on a work, nor does is there a requirement for it to be registered with the Copyright Office.
In 2015, the moment you affix something to a media (paper, computer, etc.) the work is copyrighted even without a notice. But it’s really foolish in my opinion not to put a notice such as:
(c) 2015 Copyright Donald T. Duck. All rights reserved.
You can go further and register the work, which I highly recommend because if proof is ever needed such as in to defend against a lawsuit, you will want the copyright office to show you have registered the work with them. It’s $35.00 to copyright a work. Anyone that balks at that charge is foolish, because if you spent any time at all, even a week writing a book (which could actually takes years), a song (could be a few hours) or a play (also months or years), your time is most certainly work more than the fee to register the work.
Copyrights do expire. There is a famous situation where the movie It’s a Wonderful Life (1946), that the movie had fallen into public domain, because the movie studio (i.e. copyright holder) had neglected to renew the copyright. I’ve not looked this up in a while, but I think copyrights expired after X numbers of years. Now the copyright lasts much longer for the life of the author plus 70 years.
To learn more about copyright, it’s a pretty easy read:
http://www.copyright.gov
The old copyright law was 28 years from publication, with a renewal of another 28 years if you applied in the 28th year. There were also various requirements – that there be a copyright notice (in the proper form), that the copyright be registered, etc.
The oddest quirk that had real-world effects was a rule that if a work was copyrighted outside the US, you could only import a certain (small) number of copies or you lost copyright. The publisher of Lord of the Rings went over that limit, and thus Ace Books published it in the US without payment. The trilogy was edited and new material added so that Ballantine Books could copyright it for Tolkien. The early Ballantine edition had an author’s note on the back cover, begging people to only buy that edition.
US copyright law was changed in 1976 and went into effect on January 1, 1978. All works got original copyright for the author’s life plus 50 years. That’s been amended since.
Actually, I read this on a Listverse list, for what it’s worth. Anyway, it’s interesting that copyright used to work like that. Almost like nobody realized how valuable a copyright was until that point.
Why should they? What afterlife was there for movies before tape? A few movies made it into classic theaters. They got packaged into blocks for late night television. Movies had value, but it diminished rapidly. Virtually all the value was used up in the first 28 years.
Same for almost everything except possibly a very few books. Music? An individual recording was meaningless after 28 years. If the song was a standard, then somebody else would record it. Oldies was not even a term. Television? If you missed a show the first time it was on, you maybe had a chance at a rerun, then it was gone forever.
Pulp magazines? Comic books? Newspapers?
We live in an era in which there is an expectation that we get to view anything and everything that ever existed. This is something totally new inside my adult lifetime.
That’s why they had to completely revamp the copyright laws (and need to do so again). The value of objects no longer has the same diminishing curve. No one in the 1950s could have foreseen this, and no one did.
That’s not quite right. My wife has the original US editions and there is simply no copyright notice in them. Then a publisher (Ballantyne, IIRC) decided to publish it without Tolkien’s permission and came in for a lot of criticism, although they were legally clear. But that publication led directly to the LOTR craze, which illustrates that copyright is not always in the author’s best interests.
It’s certainly not in mine. Scholarly journals require copyright transfer before they publish and then your “published” article is concealed behind their paywalls unavailable to the public or even to the author. Although many (including me) post them on a web site these days, publishers can (and have) insisted that they be removed.
No, Chuck has it right. Ace was the pirate, Ballantine the good guys. It was their legal publication that led to the craze.
I was told that before around 1967 US music albums did not have a copyright year on them. And I found that to be true. Since then I believe they always list the year on albums/CDs/etc…
The Copyright Act of 1909 did NOT include any protections for “phonorecords” (as they are called). Phonorecords did not come under federal copyright law until The Sound Recording Act of 1971 (effective Jan 1, 1972). Up until that time, phonorecords were protected under various state laws. Hence, no copyright notice was necessary. The copyright notice for a phonorecord consists of the letter “P” enclosed in a circle instead of the letter “C” as with most other copyrights.
As for the underlying musical work (the notes and the words of the songs on the phonorecord), a copyright notice was not necessary because until the Copyright Act of 1976, a sound recording did not constitute a “publication” of the musical work, hence it was not necessary to include a copyright notice. (See WHITE-SMITH MUSIC PUBLISHING COMPANY, Appt., v. APOLLO COMPANY)
A 1995 court ruling (La Cienega Music Co. v. ZZ Top) raised the possibility that the failure to display a copyright notice on pre-1978 recordings may have caused the musical compositions contained therein to fall into the public domain. Congress amended the law in 1995 to provide that “(b) The distribution before January 1, 1978, of a phonorecord shall not for any purpose constitute a publication of any musical work, dramatic work, or literary work embodied therein.” Hence, no copyright notice was necessary for the musical work.
As an off-topic matter of curiosity, are the Ace editions considered to be valuable collectibles today?
A set in very good or better condition goes for $250-$300, which is pretty high for a paperback of that era.
But it’s less than 1% of what the original hardbacks go for. Valuable is variable.
I believe there were other laws before that one, too.
Just to clarify:
In the US, you cannot sue unless you register, but you can register after the infringement. If you register before the infringement, then you can sue for additional awards: statutory damages and attorneys’ fees. I believe that “statutory damages” includes the potential for 3x actual damages as punitive measures in egregious cases, and may include other things.
Image is used because that’s a photography site, but the penalty in all cases is a cap of $150,000 not 3 times actual damages.
Here’s a flowchartthat helps to clarify things. It’s from 2002, though, and I don’t know if the copyright period has been extended again since then.
Personally, I find this page easier to understand and far more complete.
Wait a minute. Suppose I have a short story I wrote back in 1980. According to that chart, if it had been published back then without a copyright notice, it would now be in the public domain; but if it had never been published, it would still be protected until 70 years after my death. That can’t be right, can it?
EDIT: And the flowchart I linked to says the same thing. It seems peculiar that an unpublished work would be protected longer than a published one.
Look at it this way. You have one shot at getting copyright protection: by following the rules at the time you publish.
If you blew it in 1980, you lose.
If you waited and still have that one shot left, you get protection.
“The original length of copyright in the United States was 14 years…If the author wished, they could apply for a second 14‑year monopoly grant”
It is annoying that copyrights have often been extended “retroactively”… especially when the original creators are dead.
Also:
“Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. … As you know, there is also [then-MPAA president] Jack Valenti’s proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress”
Thanks for clarifying. Evidently the punitive “treble damages” is for patents, not copyrights. Or perhaps it’s outdated law.