On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 02:13:35AM +0000, jonathon wrote: > On 22/01/2016 18:15, Kahunapule Michael Johnson wrote: > > > I can confirm that Jonathan's claim is false. > > _Twin Books v Disney (83 F 3d 1162)_ is the case law, and as such > confirms what I wrote. > > I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.
Thank you for naming the case. I also am not a lawyer, but the claim that this case establishes that "a work first published after 1909, and first published outside the US does not fall in the public domain" is a mischaracterization. It establishes that a work only fell into the public domain in the US under 1909 copyright law if its first publication *in the US* omitted the necessary formalities. Additionally, it held that copyright in the US began at registration in the US, rather than at first publication anywhere in the world. As a result (see Societe Civile Succession Guino v. Renoir), works only published outside the US were neither copyrighted nor in the public domain in the US, and as of 1978 are automatically copyrighted in the US for the life of the author(s) + 70 years (ie, copyrighted under current law). The case is binding only in the 9th Circuit (and, technically, could be overturned by that circuit sitting en banc). TL;DR: Don't check the date of original publication if you want to know US copyright status; check the first publication in the US. Thanks, Isaac Dunham _______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
