![]() I think a history of copyright was posted here (from Ars?) not long ago, and it showed the greatest ralliers for copyright were not original artists, but publishers and distributors. Of course, if said heirs wish to try to enforce the copyright, they will have to actually prove all of the findings of fact to make it the case, which is probably not worth the burden given the time left. ![]() However, they probably didn't actually legally lose their copyright, so it follows the 1976 copyright act rules, which means that the copyright is now held by their heirs and will expire next year. The existence of the 1922 Everyday Song Book may or may not constitute this publication, and the notice may or may not constitute a legal copyright notice (it was never decided by the judgement, only that the question requires a trial to determine the answer).įrom the record, it seems likely that the Hill sisters owned the copyright, but considered it abandoned and so never actually published it. If there's a copyright notice, then it's still copyrighted today only if all the rules were followed, which is pretty unlikely at this point. If there was an authorized publication, then it's public domain if there's no copyright notice. The expiration is the death of the last author + 70 years (2016, if the Hill sisters created it) or 120 years from at most 1911 (if it's anonymous, since we know it had to be created before 1911 by a (presumably unauthorized if this is to apply) publication). Whoever owned that copyright continued to do so until first (authorized) publication or January 1, 1978, where it follows the rules (most likely from first creation, since it's an expires-first rule). It's unclear in this instance, but the presumption is that it's the Hill sisters. The most notable is who owned the common-law copyright (or the first right to publish) the lyrics. There are several key issues that are undecided by the court. They argue that the lyrics may have been written by someone else, the common law copyrights in the lyrics were lost due to general publication or abandonment before the lyrics were published, and the rights were never transferred to Summy Co." Plaintiffs challenge nearly every aspect of this narrative. To Summy Co., which published and registered them for a federal copyright in 1935. That the Hill sisters authored the lyrics to Happy Birthday around the turn of the last century, held onto the common law rights for several decades, and then transferred them The Parties disagree only about the status of the Happy Birthday lyrics. "The distinction between the music and the lyrics as copyrightable elements is critical in this case because both Parties agree that the Happy Birthday melody was borrowed from Good Morning and entered the public domain a long time ago. A summary of the argument is in the judge's order:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |