Surely you remember the story by Arthur C. Clarke when aliens landed on Earth long after humanity became extinct, and the ony artifact they were able to locate was a Disney movie?
:eek:
Exapno Mapcase, most of your advice is good, and much appreciated. However, your Junior Modding is neither.
How true.
In the case of Kim, she has died and left no will or heirs. Therefore the owner is now legally the state. I don’t believe that the state can hold copyright, but I admit I can’t cite case law on this.
Nor can an owner put anything into the public domain. As I said earlier, an owner can make it freely available, but it remains under copyright. Templeton’s myths are a fine place to start learning about copyright, but I disagree with his terminology. Again, I know of no case law in which someone has put a piece into the public domain and then tried to reassert copyright.
Copyright law is full of such problems. The hypotheticals that are discussed on the Internet rarely ever make it through the court system.
The legal principles behind a “quit claim” as it is applied to real estate may be the model for placing a copyright into the public domain.
Maybe. I dunno. But I would ask if anyone can point to an actual provision in the current copyright laws that allows for voluntarily putting a work into the public domain. I can’t find anything that even suggests the possibility of doing so, but IANAL.
Locus, the science fiction magazine, occasionally prints requests from editors trying to track down authors or copyright holders for certain old stories they want to reprint in various anthologies. I don’t know how successful they are, but I’ve also seen several anthologies of older stories - 30s & 40s, probably - where a story is published but there’s also a note on the copyright page that a particular author/copyright holder couldn’t be traced and if they read this, to contact the editor or publisher.
I assume funds are held aside somehow to pay out should the author make contact…
Ah-ha! I found a statutory acknowledgement (in Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter II) of a work being placed intentionally in the public domain by its owner:
[Moderator hat on]
OK. Let's all play nice here. We seem to be getting back on track. Rants, personal insults, etc. belong in other forums. All of the posters in this one are pretty bright members. Let's keep the tone up. Thanks.
[/Moderator hat off]
As if trying to figure out Fair Use ain’t impossible enough, try keeping up with the exceptions pertaining to computers and the internet. Walloon, that’s an interesting provision, but I wonder whether its specificity would make it more likely or less likely to be applicable to other forms of copyrightable material. As I said, I can’t recall any case on this and I refuse to make any attempt to try to secondguess what a court might say. Parsing the distinctions made in actual cases hurts my brain as it is.
And fascinating though it might be, it’s also irrelevant to the OP, whose problem is a lack of any such declared intent.
::shudder::
This is an oft-used excuse or rationalization. I’ve had it used on me when I objected to my work being used without my permission. It never did set really well with me.
The “You should be flattered that I’m violating your copyright!” line is not going to put those who object to your using their work in a good mood. It’s best to avoid using this line completely, IMHO.
With respect to Exapno’s question: Stanford University Fair use resources state as their opinion that a work can become public domain by an express statement to that effect by the copyright holder.
With respect to the OP, Stanford University Fair use resources mention that a diiligent search for the copyright holder may help putting you in an ‘innocent infringment’ category: “This “innocent infringement” categorization will limit the damages that you may have to pay in a court case.”
Also, see Indiana University:
Let me kind of restate the OP. I guess I am an archivist or data freak at heart. I love data. Lots of it. I love to be able to mine mountains of data for undiscovered facts and interesting stuff. With the extreme low cost of data storage nowadays and even that small cost decreasing, I hate to destroy or lose material that might have some value sometime in the future, even very little value very far in the future. And the Internet makes the most obscure stuff easily found and obtained.
(Adam Osbourne once made the prediction that in the future, nothing would ever be deleted. Ever, since it would be easier and cheaper not to bother.)
So, with that mindset, It seems like the inability to find the owner of a work can be an obstacle to that goal. Point by point:[ul][li]You have the only copy of a work[]It was produced by an artist so obscure as to be unlikely to have any real dollar value[]A good faith effort is made to locate the rightful owner, but failsThe work is made available to the world with no monetary gain expected[/ul]It seems to me that, if the copyright law does not cover this particular situation, and if the provider of the work doesn’t want to take the legal risk, that the work is effectively lost to the world. Or at least for a long time.[/li]
Tusculan’s Stanford link (chap 13) seems to cover this the best; perhaps the key is the diligence of the search.
This is a rather different question, as the preservation of material does not necessitate a full reprint. The U.S. Copyright Code, par. 108 contains specific provisions (link to par. 108) for making archiving copies by libraries and archives. The requirements, however, are rather specific.
Yes, I know that people say this all the time on the internet. While the Stanford site is a well-respected one, I don’t see on it what statutory authority they have for this statement.
-
How can you possibly know this?
-
Legally irrelevant, except that it may limit the amount of monetary damages they receive for a successful suit.
-
This is an important qualification, but you need to consider what an opposition lawyer would define as “good faith.”
-
See #2.
Sorry, Exapno, but there is not statutory basis for this. I understand you distrust of Internet sources as there’s a lot of nonsense around, but Stanford is much more reliable.
You won’t need a specific section in the Copyright Act. I would expect this to be an application of estoppel. If the copyright owner makes a statement to that effect, you should be allowed to rely on that, so if the copyright holder would after that try to sue for breach of copyright, he would be estopped. But I am not an expert in American law, so take this for what it’s worth.
If you were responding to my post(s), perhaps I define “preservation” differently than just “storing a single copy in a safe place”. I feel the best way to avoid the loss of a work forever is to spread as many copies around as possible, on the theory that most disasters won’t wipe out all preserved copies. Except for a 10-mile-wide asteroid landing in my teacup tomorrow, of course.
And allowing wide dissemination of a work not only “preserves” it but may provide enjoyment or education to others better than locking it up in cold storage.
As far as Exapno’s question, “How can I possibly know [that I have the only copy of a work]?”, the answer is, sometimes I don’t, sometimes I do. In the latter case, I have some sound recordings that I made personally. Does that make me the sole owner? I don’t think so, as there are artists on the recording who never signed a release with me. (These are often rehearsals or demos, not “formal” recordings, still I feel they have some artistic, if not monetary, value.)
In other cases, I can only say that it is unlikely that another copy exists anywhere due to the nature of the source, and a cursory Internet check doesn’t turn up any other copies. So either they don’t exist or others have not chosen to distribute them widely or openly.
As far as #2 or 4 being irrelevant, maybe not. If the most dollar value that anyone can ever place on a “pirated” work is very little, the cost of legal action would be prohibitive and a request for damages impractical. We’re not talking about undiscovered Beatles or Picassos here.
Exapno Mapcase:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.html#304
Quote:
304. Duration of copyright: Subsisting copyrights
(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.
…
© In the case of any other copyrighted work, including a contribution by an individual author to a periodical or to a cyclopedic or other composite work —
(i) the author of such work, if the author is still living,
(ii) the widow, widower, or children of the author, if the author is not living,
(iii) the author’s executors, if such author, widow, widower, or children are not living, or
(iv) the author’s next of kin, in the absence of a will of the author, shall be entitled to a renewal and extension of the copyright in such work for a further term of 67 years.
Also see section (4)©(1-2)
[/quote]
i.e. it seems that even if a copyright owner didn’t leave a will, their stuff doesn’t go into the public domain.
Also, here’s some stuff from that Supreme Court case… I think Eldred was with some Harvard-trained lawyers…
Quote:
…Next worst case: the copyright owner cannot be found. The original creator has died or can’t be traced. Or the original corporate copyright holder has been merged and spun off so many times that the current parent corporation doesn’t even employ anyone who knows anything about the property…
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#toc
It doesn’t look like the copyrights of authors without wills go into the public domain.
See also
http://www.uiowa.edu/~cyberlaw/writ...ml#Who%20Cares?
The “Next worst case” part… this is from a Supreme Court case with some Harvard-trained lawyers.
Also
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.html#304
1(a,c), 4©
(I should have deleted the text above http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#toc ) :smack:
We are rapidly descending into the void of irrelevancies here, but would you mind please looking at what I actually wrote, which was a case in which a creator dies intestate with no heirs? Not one of your cites considers that eventuality so they have no bearing on what I wrote.