# Copyright question **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 13, 2004, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/229079 "2004-02-13T18:53:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2004, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/229079/1 "2004-02-13T18:53:06Z")
As you know from [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=237154), 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? ---
**Author:** ![Scarlett67](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scarlett67/32/7387_2.png) [@Scarlett67](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scarlett67)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2004, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/229079/2 "2004-02-13T19:07:24Z")
You may find this [circular from the U.S. Copyright Office](http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hlc) helpful. ---
**Author:** ![InTransit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e47774/32.png) [@InTransit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InTransit)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2004, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/229079/3 "2004-02-13T19:09:23Z")
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](http://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. ---
**Author:** ![InTransit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e47774/32.png) [@InTransit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InTransit)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2004, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/229079/4 "2004-02-13T19:11:30Z")
Clarification: I meant 1990 above. The circular Scarlett67 refers to is very good. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2004, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/229079/5 "2004-02-13T19:24:26Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2004, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/229079/6 "2004-02-13T19:34:21Z")
**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. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2004, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/229079/7 "2004-02-13T20:02:57Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Fuji\_Kitakyusho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f0a364/32.png) [@Fuji\_Kitakyusho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji_Kitakyusho)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2004, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/229079/8 "2004-02-13T20:19:24Z")
> [@Johnny L.A.](#): > > As you know from [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=237154), 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](http://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 ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2004, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/229079/9 "2004-02-13T21:22:26Z")
**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. ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2004, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/229079/10 "2004-02-13T22:43:03Z")
> [@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 ---
**Author:** ![Garfield226](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Garfield226](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Garfield226)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2004, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/229079/11 "2004-02-13T23:03:54Z")
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… ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2004, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/229079/12 "2004-02-13T23:21:39Z")
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! ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2004, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/229079/13 "2004-02-14T03:39:07Z")
**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](http://www.authorslawyer.com/c-term.shtml) 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©) 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](http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.html) 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. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2004, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/229079/14 "2004-02-14T06:52:42Z")
**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. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2004, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/229079/15 "2004-02-14T06:59:31Z")
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). ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2004, 8:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/229079/16 "2004-02-14T08:39:13Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![PhilAlex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/839c29/32.png) [@PhilAlex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhilAlex)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2004, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/229079/17 "2004-02-14T14:56:26Z")
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). ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2004, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/229079/18 "2004-02-14T15:25:01Z")
> [@](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2004, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/229079/19 "2004-02-14T18:30:51Z")
**Johnny L.A.** : According to [Ancestry.com](http://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](http://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. ---
**Author:** ![PhilAlex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/839c29/32.png) [@PhilAlex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhilAlex)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2004, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/229079/20 "2004-02-14T18:43:54Z")
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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/229079.md?page=2)