Publishing/Copyright Question (OT)

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Mark B

Publishing/Copyright Question (OT)

Legg inn av Mark B » 25 feb 2005 17:21:02

The Genealogist published a lineage I compiled tracing
my descent from Sir Thomas Dacre, Lord Darce
(1467-1513) in its “Historic Ancestorsâ€

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Publishing/Copyright Question (OT)

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 25 feb 2005 19:28:36

In message of 25 Feb, mygenlists@yahoo.com (Mark B) wrote:

[quote]The Genealogist published a lineage I compiled tracing
my descent from Sir Thomas Dacre, Lord Darce
(1467-1513) in its “Historic Ancestorsâ€

John Steele Gordon

Re: Publishing/Copyright Question (OT)

Legg inn av John Steele Gordon » 26 feb 2005 14:11:46

I can't speak for the specific situation, but, in general, an author gives
to a magazine what are called "first serial rights." That is, in exchange
for money (in the case of popular magazines) or honor (in the case of
genealogical and other scholarly publications), he grants the magazine the
right to publish the article one time before it is published anywhere else,
retaining all other rights. Thus he is free to grant the right to publish on
a website subsequent to its publication in the magazine or to incorporate
the material in a book or to grant "second serial rights" allowing the
article to be published in another periodical.

JSG


"Mark B" <mygenlists@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20050225161256.44560.qmail@web52705.mail.yahoo.com...
[quote]The Genealogist published a lineage I compiled tracing
my descent from Sir Thomas Dacre, Lord Darce
(1467-1513) in its â?oHistoric Ancestorsâ?

R. Battle

Re: Publishing/Copyright Question (OT)

Legg inn av R. Battle » 26 feb 2005 21:57:44

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005, John Steele Gordon wrote:

I can't speak for the specific situation, but, in general, an author gives
to a magazine what are called "first serial rights." That is, in exchange
for money (in the case of popular magazines) or honor (in the case of
genealogical and other scholarly publications), he grants the magazine the
right to publish the article one time before it is published anywhere else,
retaining all other rights. Thus he is free to grant the right to publish on
a website subsequent to its publication in the magazine or to incorporate
the material in a book or to grant "second serial rights" allowing the
article to be published in another periodical.
snip


Where does editing fit into this? It seems to me that (barring special
agreements, of course) the author would have sole copyright only over his
or her submitted, unedited article. Most if not all articles of any
significant length that appear in decent journals are, in the end, the
collaborative effort of the original author and one or more of the
journal's editorial staff. The original author, of course, is responsible
for the vast majority of the article; but it seems like the journal would
have some rights over the edited version of the article that it doesn't
have over the author's original version. Is this the case?

-Robert Battle

John Steele Gordon

Re: Publishing/Copyright Question (OT)

Legg inn av John Steele Gordon » 26 feb 2005 22:21:58

I think it would be very difficult to separate the author's work from the
editor's in most cases. Can you copyright a comma added to another man's
sentence?

And editors as a general rule do not add content to an article, they ask the
author to add it as necessary. So the finished product, while often
immensely helped by a good editor, remains the author's prose and the
copyright rightfully belongs to him.

Some times, of course, if rarely in a work where the copyright has real
financial significance, an editor will make such a fundamental contribution
that he deserves co-author status and to become co-owner of the copyright. I
imagine that it is up to the author to make that decision.

As an example--if one far removed from scholarly articles in genealogical
journals--Joshua Logan made such fundamental contributions to the book (i.e
the dialogue) of South Pacific (not the lyrics, which were Hammerstein's
alone), that he asked Hammerstein for billing as co-author of the book. In
the end, Rodgers and Hammerstein gave him co-author billing, but denied
Logan any ownership in the copyright (or any share in the authors'
royalties), which, of course, became an immensely valuable asset. It still
is, for that matter. Someone once asked James Michener how to become a
successful author. He answered, "That's easy, just have Rodgers and
Hammerstein turn your first book into a musical."

However, when the Pulitzer Prize for drama was awarded to just Rodgers and
Hammerstein for South Pacific, they went to the committee and demanded that
Logan share it, which he does.

JSG


"R. Battle" <battle@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.A41.4.61b.0502261249450.130124@dante74.u.washington.edu...
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005, John Steele Gordon wrote:

I can't speak for the specific situation, but, in general, an author
gives
to a magazine what are called "first serial rights." That is, in exchange
for money (in the case of popular magazines) or honor (in the case of
genealogical and other scholarly publications), he grants the magazine
the
right to publish the article one time before it is published anywhere
else,
retaining all other rights. Thus he is free to grant the right to publish
on
a website subsequent to its publication in the magazine or to incorporate
the material in a book or to grant "second serial rights" allowing the
article to be published in another periodical.
snip

Where does editing fit into this? It seems to me that (barring special
agreements, of course) the author would have sole copyright only over his
or her submitted, unedited article. Most if not all articles of any
significant length that appear in decent journals are, in the end, the
collaborative effort of the original author and one or more of the
journal's editorial staff. The original author, of course, is responsible
for the vast majority of the article; but it seems like the journal would
have some rights over the edited version of the article that it doesn't
have over the author's original version. Is this the case?

-Robert Battle

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Publishing/Copyright Question (OT)

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 26 feb 2005 22:41:01

Which choice bits did Logan add to the dialogue of _South Pacific_?

The message parts of that musical, and film, are most interesting for
1949 -- the plea for an end to racism.

DSH

"John Steele Gordon" <ancestry@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:1R5Ud.75$Pq7.22@fe11.lga...

| I think it would be very difficult to separate the author's work from
the
| editor's in most cases. Can you copyright a comma added to another
man's
| sentence?
|
| And editors as a general rule do not add content to an article, they
ask the
| author to add it as necessary. So the finished product, while often
| immensely helped by a good editor, remains the author's prose and the
| copyright rightfully belongs to him.
|
| Some times, of course, if rarely in a work where the copyright has
real
| financial significance, an editor will make such a fundamental
contribution
| that he deserves co-author status and to become co-owner of the
copyright. I
| imagine that it is up to the author to make that decision.
|
| As an example--if one far removed from scholarly articles in
genealogical
| journals--Joshua Logan made such fundamental contributions to the book
(i.e
| the dialogue) of South Pacific (not the lyrics, which were
Hammerstein's
| alone), that he asked Hammerstein for billing as co-author of the
book. In
| the end, Rodgers and Hammerstein gave him co-author billing, but
denied
| Logan any ownership in the copyright (or any share in the authors'
| royalties), which, of course, became an immensely valuable asset. It
still
| is, for that matter. Someone once asked James Michener how to become a
| successful author. He answered, "That's easy, just have Rodgers and
| Hammerstein turn your first book into a musical."
|
| However, when the Pulitzer Prize for drama was awarded to just Rodgers
and
| Hammerstein for South Pacific, they went to the committee and demanded
that
| Logan share it, which he does.
|
| JSG
|
|
| "R. Battle" <battle@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
| news:Pine.A41.4.61b.0502261249450.130124@dante74.u.washington.edu...
| > On Sat, 26 Feb 2005, John Steele Gordon wrote:
| >
| >> I can't speak for the specific situation, but, in general, an
author
| >> gives
| >> to a magazine what are called "first serial rights." That is, in
exchange
| >> for money (in the case of popular magazines) or honor (in the case
of
| >> genealogical and other scholarly publications), he grants the
magazine
| >> the
| >> right to publish the article one time before it is published
anywhere
| >> else,
| >> retaining all other rights. Thus he is free to grant the right to
publish
| >> on
| >> a website subsequent to its publication in the magazine or to
incorporate
| >> the material in a book or to grant "second serial rights" allowing
the
| >> article to be published in another periodical.
| > <snip>
| >
| > Where does editing fit into this? It seems to me that (barring
special
| > agreements, of course) the author would have sole copyright only
over his
| > or her submitted, unedited article. Most if not all articles of any
| > significant length that appear in decent journals are, in the end,
the
| > collaborative effort of the original author and one or more of the
| > journal's editorial staff. The original author, of course, is
responsible
| > for the vast majority of the article; but it seems like the journal
would
| > have some rights over the edited version of the article that it
doesn't
| > have over the author's original version. Is this the case?
| >
| > -Robert Battle

John Steele Gordon

Re: Publishing/Copyright Question (OT)

Legg inn av John Steele Gordon » 26 feb 2005 23:03:48

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:806Ud.16$74.254@eagle.america.net...
Which choice bits did Logan add to the dialogue of _South Pacific_?

Hammerstein had no military experience (he had been turned down for service
in World War I because he was too thin--a source of unending family hilarity
for the rest of his life). So Logan helped with the basics--who salutes whom
sort of thing--and with the military jargon and such. Logan's influence is
greatest in the military scenes, therefore.The basic plot structure was
Rodgers' and Hammerstein's.

JSG

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Publishing/Copyright Question (OT)

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 26 feb 2005 23:31:01

_South Pacific_ is simply a brilliant piece of work.

I recently watched the 1958 film, never having seen it before. Of
course the songs were a staple of my childhood.

I understand you know a great deal about its composition -- the musical.

The story goes that it opened at the Schubert in New Haven and the Yale
Daily News reviewer panned it.

I doubt he ever quite lived that down.

In one scene in the film Ray Walston salutes John Kerr, a Marine
lieutenant, who does NOT return the salute.

I didn't like that.

The "Premature Anti-Racism" of the plot is heart-warming.

However, R&H cheat....

Having Nellie Forbush marry her Caucasian French planter, whose
Polynesian wife is already DEAD, is permitted.

But the young Marine lieutenant is killed off so we don't have to deal
with the issue of an actual interracial marriage with the Tonkinese
girl.

Very clever stuff -- not pushing the envelope, or the audience, too far
for 1949 -- but making an implicit Moral Argument.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

"John Steele Gordon" <ancestry@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:Fw6Ud.25417$SW4.22752@fe08.lga...

| "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:806Ud.16$74.254@eagle.america.net...

| > Which choice bits did Logan add to the dialogue of _South Pacific_?
|
| Hammerstein had no military experience (he had been turned down for
service
| in World War I because he was too thin--a source of unending family
hilarity
| for the rest of his life). So Logan helped with the basics--who
salutes whom
| sort of thing--and with the military jargon and such. Logan's
influence is
| greatest in the military scenes, therefore. The basic plot structure
was
| Rodgers' and Hammerstein's.
|
| JSG

John Steele Gordon

Re: Publishing/Copyright Question (OT)

Legg inn av John Steele Gordon » 27 feb 2005 16:35:08

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eH6Ud.18$74.745@eagle.america.net...
_South Pacific_ is simply a brilliant piece of work.

The story goes that it opened at the Schubert in New Haven and the Yale
Daily News reviewer panned it.

I never heard that. It would have been the only bad review the show ever
got. We talk about "stopping the show," but in fact it very rarely happens
(and the producers don't want it to happen--it breaks the illusion and, if
it makes the show run over, the costs zoom). But when Pinza sang "Some
Enchanted Evening" for the first time in public, on opening night in New
Haven, the audience (mostly Broadway sophisticates, not locals) simply went
nuts. It was a good five minutes before the show could continue.

In one scene in the film Ray Walston salutes John Kerr, a Marine
lieutenant, who does NOT return the salute.

I'm surprised Josh Logan let that happen. In the recent, and terrible, TV
version, starring Glenn Close (at 55, she was playing, as someone acidly
pointed out, "Admiral Forbush"), an enlisted man actually slugs Lt. Cable
and the incident is simply sloughed off as a case of lost temper. The
military takes striking a superior officer rather more seriously than that.
In World War II, the Articles of War called for people guilty of such an
offense "to suffer death or such lesser penalty as a court martial may
direct."

Obviously not too many show business types have any military experience
these days. I understand that ABC got an avalanche of letters from WWII
veterans about it.

JSG

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Publishing/Copyright Question (OT)

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 27 feb 2005 19:31:01

"John Steele Gordon" <ancestry@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:XRlUd.3708$sU2.193@fe11.lga...
|
| "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:eH6Ud.18$74.745@eagle.america.net...

| > _South Pacific_ is simply a brilliant piece of work.
|
| > The story goes that it opened at the Schubert in New Haven and the
Yale
| > Daily News reviewer panned it.
|
| I never heard that. It would have been the only bad review the show
ever
| got. We talk about "stopping the show," but in fact it very rarely
happens
| (and the producers don't want it to happen--it breaks the illusion
and, if
| it makes the show run over, the costs zoom). But when Pinza sang "Some
| Enchanted Evening" for the first time in public, on opening night in
New
| Haven, the audience (mostly Broadway sophisticates, not locals) simply
went
| nuts. It was a good five minutes before the show could continue.

Yes, it was played continually on the radio when I was a mere lad -- and
you were too.

I heard the story about the Yale Daily News reviewer from a reliable
source and have seen it in print. Apparently the guy has been ribbed
about it ever since. He seems to have been fed up with the
glorification of veterans since he was not one. That sort of
short-sighted envy.

| > In one scene in the film Ray Walston salutes John Kerr, a Marine
| > lieutenant, who does NOT return the salute.
|
| I'm surprised Josh Logan let that happen.

Yes, I am too. Walston gives a very smart and snappy salute. It looks
to be a jump cut from Walston to Kerr. Perhaps it's a continuity
problem and was not caught by anyone. Sloppy.

| In the recent, and terrible, TV
| version, starring Glenn Close (at 55, she was playing, as someone
acidly
| pointed out, "Admiral Forbush"), an enlisted man actually slugs Lt.
Cable
| and the incident is simply sloughed off as a case of lost temper. The
| military takes striking a superior officer rather more seriously than
that.
| In World War II, the Articles of War called for people guilty of such
an
| offense "to suffer death or such lesser penalty as a court martial may
| direct."

Correct!

Striking anyone, senior or junior, is taken very seriously today.

| Obviously not too many show business types have any military
experience
| these days. I understand that ABC got an avalanche of letters from
WWII
| veterans about it.
|
| JSG

Good!

You know some more details about the creation of _South Pacific_?

You had a witness Present At The Creation, as I recall.

DSH

John Steele Gordon

Re: Publishing/Copyright Question (OT)

Legg inn av John Steele Gordon » 27 feb 2005 22:36:00

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:UmoUd.38$74.1181@eagle.america.net...

I heard the story about the Yale Daily News reviewer from a reliable
source and have seen it in print. Apparently the guy has been ribbed
about it ever since. He seems to have been fed up with the
glorification of veterans since he was not one. That sort of
short-sighted envy.

I'll ask the folks at R&H about it; they'll know if anyone would. It should
be easy enough to get hold of the review from the Yalie Daily morgue if
nowhere else.

JSG

Gjest

Re: Publishing/Copyright Question (OT)

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 mar 2005 01:32:57

You signed a contract of some sort with The Genealogist when they and
you agreed that they would print this piece. That contract sets the
terms. If they didn't explicitly get the copyright then you retain it.


I am not a lawyer. Boy am I not a lawyer. However, when you write
something (in the US, we're talking, now) you immediately own the
copyright to it, and can only lose it if you agree to losing it.

That said, there are lots of ways to lose it. What agreement do you
have with the magazine?

Mike Ward
http://www.MagazineArt.org

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 16:13:02 +0000 (UTC), mygenlists@yahoo.com (Mark
B) wrote:

My question is: Does The Genealogist
retain the copyright on this article?

Gjest

Re: Publishing/Copyright Question (OT)

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 mar 2005 02:01:01

Mike wrote: "I am not a lawyer. Boy am I not a lawyer. However, when you write something (in the US, we're talking, now) you immediately own the copyright to it, and can only lose it if you agree to losing it. "

If your article does not state "Copyright 2005 by Will Johnson, all rights reserved" or something similar, then you implicitly give up your copyright.
In addition, copyrights expire after a certain amount of time. I believe it is, or used to be, 75 years after the author's death.
Will

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Publishing/Copyright Question (OT)

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 01 mar 2005 03:07:11

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Mike wrote: "I am not a lawyer. Boy am I not a lawyer. However, when you write something (in the US, we're talking, now) you immediately own the copyright to it, and can only lose it if you agree to losing it. "

If your article does not state "Copyright 2005 by Will Johnson, all rights reserved" or something similar, then you implicitly give up your copyright.
In addition, copyrights expire after a certain amount of time. I believe it is, or used to be, 75 years after the author's death.

On the first two relevant sites to come up on Google, it is indicated
that this requirement for notice of copyright was removed in 1989 (with
the Berne Convention Implementation Act) - that from that point all
works were automatically copyrighted from the time they are set in fixed
format for a term of the life of the author plus 70 years, or 95 years
for corporate entities. Both of the following sites give a summary of
the status of works created over the past century (anything older is in
the public domain).

http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/traini ... Domain.htm

http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm

taf

Doug McDonald

Re: Publishing/Copyright Question (OT)

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 01 mar 2005 17:07:45

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In addition, copyrights expire after a certain amount of time. I believe it is, or used to be, 75 years after the author's death.


Copyrights in the USA last until no one knows who Mickey Mouse was.

That is literally true. They will be extended forever unless
the Disney company says not to.

Doug McDonald

Cece

Re: Publishing/Copyright Question (OT)

Legg inn av Cece » 01 mar 2005 17:54:41

"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message news:<4223ce4f@news.ColoState.EDU>...
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Mike wrote: "I am not a lawyer. Boy am I not a lawyer. However, when you write something (in the US, we're talking, now) you immediately own the copyright to it, and can only lose it if you agree to losing it. "

If your article does not state "Copyright 2005 by Will Johnson, all rights reserved" or something similar, then you implicitly give up your copyright.
In addition, copyrights expire after a certain amount of time. I believe it is, or used to be, 75 years after the author's death.

On the first two relevant sites to come up on Google, it is indicated
that this requirement for notice of copyright was removed in 1989 (with
the Berne Convention Implementation Act) - that from that point all
works were automatically copyrighted from the time they are set in fixed
format for a term of the life of the author plus 70 years, or 95 years
for corporate entities. Both of the following sites give a summary of
the status of works created over the past century (anything older is in
the public domain).

http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/traini ... Domain.htm

http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm

taf

An article belongs to its author. The editor has no ownership at all,
no matter what bits he's suggested be added, or what re-writing he's
done.

The author grants rights to a publisher, one or several at a time, for
certain amounts of time or until certain events have occurred. The
author owns the right to copy and publish his work. Unless he has
been hired to write an article or book -- like someone who writes for
a newspaper, or someone who ghost-writes a celebrity's
"auto"biography. Or unless he's has signed over ownership of the
copyright -- I do know of publishers who include this in their
standard contract.

Always read a contract carefully before you sign it! It's a good idea
to have an agent check the contract before you sign it, or a lawyer
who specializes in intellectual property. It's amazing what some
publishers (usually marginal ones) manage to sneak into contracts.

The best place to learn about copyrights: http://www.copyright.gov in
the U.S.; http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/index.htm in the U.K.

Cece

Gjest

Re: Publishing/Copyright Question (OT)

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 mar 2005 18:01:02

In a message dated 3/1/2005 8:12:38 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:

Copyrights in the USA last until no one knows who Mickey Mouse was.

That is literally true. They will be extended forever unless
the Disney company says not to.

Doug McDonald

Yes they can be extended until certain circumstances, not all. But for those
copyrights which are *not* extended, they expire 75 years after the author's
death.
Which is why http://www.wikisource.org can put out things like the complete
work's of Lewis Carroll.
Will

Doug McDonald

Re: Publishing/Copyright Question (OT)

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 01 mar 2005 18:20:31

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 3/1/2005 8:12:38 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:


Copyrights in the USA last until no one knows who Mickey Mouse was.

That is literally true. They will be extended forever unless
the Disney company says not to.

Doug McDonald


Yes they can be extended until certain circumstances, not all.

All or any. I am implying the the Congress of the United States has
been bought out by Disney and will upon command, like a good
dog, extend copyright on EVERYTHING just so Disney can keep
copyright on their cartoon characters forever. When 85 years
comes after the birth of Mickey Mouse, Congress will make
copyright on everything extend 100 years. At 100 years, they
will extend it to 115. Etc.

Doug McDonald

Gjest

Re: Publishing/Copyright Question (OT)

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 mar 2005 18:41:01

In a message dated 3/1/2005 9:28:10 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:

bought out by Disney and will upon command, like a good
dog, extend copyright on EVERYTHING just so Disney can keep
copyright on their cartoon characters forever. When 85 years
comes after the birth of Mickey Mouse, Congress will make
copyright on everything extend 100 years. At 100 years, they
will extend it to 115. Etc.

Right. So the law would state something like "...75 years or if you're
disney"
The point is there are requirements to extend, I can't extend the copyright
on the works of Lewis Carroll. And he can't either, because he is dead. Ergo
there are restrictions.
Will

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Publishing/Copyright Question (OT)

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 01 mar 2005 20:24:38

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 3/1/2005 8:12:38 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:


Copyrights in the USA last until no one knows who Mickey Mouse was.

That is literally true. They will be extended forever unless
the Disney company says not to.

Doug McDonald


Yes they can be extended until certain circumstances, not all. But for those
copyrights which are *not* extended, they expire 75 years after the author's
death.
Which is why http://www.wikisource.org can put out things like the complete
work's of Lewis Carroll.
Will


I think this is obsolete. Copyrights used to be short (28 yrs from
publication), and then you could extend them (an additional 47 yrs, to
which was later automatically added another 20 years). In 1964,
Congress made the extensions automatic, and in 1978 just did away with
the pretext of automatic extensions, replacing it with a lengthened
total time (95 yrs for corporate, life plus 70 for private individuals).

The take-home is that anything published before 1923 is in the public
domain. Anything between that date and 1963 is in public domain if not
extended. Anything between those dates for which the copyright was
extended, plus anything from 1963 to 1977, plus anything later published
by a corporate entity will begin entering the public domain from 1 Jan.
2019 (beginning of next calendar year after publication date plus 95).
From 1978, for anything by a private author the rule of thumb is life
plus 70. There is no longer any extension provision.

A few years ago, the late Congressman Sony Bono introduced an act for
perpetual copyright, but it got little support after his death. (To bad
- it means "I've Got You Babe" will eventually pass into the public domain.)

taf

R. Battle

Re: Publishing/Copyright Question (OT)

Legg inn av R. Battle » 01 mar 2005 22:27:22

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Doug McDonald wrote:
<snip>
I am implying the the Congress of the United States has
been bought out by Disney and will upon command, like a good
dog, extend copyright on EVERYTHING just so Disney can keep
copyright on their cartoon characters forever.
snip


I know this is completely OT, but since that has already been indicated by
the "OT" in the subject line.... I believe that the Disney characters are
trademarks and do not fall under the issue of copyright. Copyright is
only applicable to the works published by Disney, not the characters
therein; right?

-Robert Battle

John Steele Gordon

Re: Publishing/Copyright Question (OT)

Legg inn av John Steele Gordon » 01 mar 2005 23:34:47

"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:4224c177@news.ColoState.EDU...
I think this is obsolete. Copyrights used to be short (28 yrs from
publication), and then you could extend them (an additional 47 yrs, to
which was later automatically added another 20 years). In 1964, Congress
made the extensions automatic, and in 1978 just did away with the pretext
of automatic extensions, replacing it with a lengthened total time (95 yrs
for corporate, life plus 70 for private individuals).

The take-home is that anything published before 1923 is in the public
domain. Anything between that date and 1963 is in public domain if not
extended. Anything between those dates for which the copyright was
extended, plus anything from 1963 to 1977, plus anything later published
by a corporate entity will begin entering the public domain from 1 Jan.
2019 (beginning of next calendar year after publication date plus 95).
From 1978, for anything by a private author the rule of thumb is life plus
70. There is no longer any extension provision.

A few years ago when some VERY remunerative copyrights were about to expire,
Disney, the estates of Jerome Kern and Oscar Hammerstein (for Show Boat,
which would have gone into the public domain in 2002), etc. etc. lobbied
Congress to extend the copyrights and Congress obliged, I think for twenty
years.

So if you'd like to sing "Can't Help Lovin' Dat Man" anywhere but the
shower, pony up or some expensive lawyers will be knocking on your door.

Irving Berlin, who lived to be 101, actually outlived the copyright on
"Alexander's Ragtime Band." The Kern and Hammerstein heirs didn't make that
mistake, they called their ever-obliging Congressman.

JSG

JSG

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Publishing/Copyright Question (OT)

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 01 mar 2005 23:50:01

In the 1950's schools were performing popular plays, musicals and
songs -- while not charging admission.

_Arsenic & Old Lace_ and _Meet Me In St. Louis_ for example.

Gordo even performed in _The Caine Mutiny Court Martial_.

Is that still allowed without payment of fees and/or royalties?

DSH

"John Steele Gordon" <ancestry@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:7g6Vd.27113$E92.23620@fe08.lga...
|
| "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
| news:4224c177@news.ColoState.EDU...
| >
| > I think this is obsolete. Copyrights used to be short (28 yrs from
| > publication), and then you could extend them (an additional 47 yrs,
to
| > which was later automatically added another 20 years). In 1964,
Congress
| > made the extensions automatic, and in 1978 just did away with the
pretext
| > of automatic extensions, replacing it with a lengthened total time
(95 yrs
| > for corporate, life plus 70 for private individuals).
| >
| > The take-home is that anything published before 1923 is in the
public
| > domain. Anything between that date and 1963 is in public domain if
not
| > extended. Anything between those dates for which the copyright was
| > extended, plus anything from 1963 to 1977, plus anything later
published
| > by a corporate entity will begin entering the public domain from 1
Jan.
| > 2019 (beginning of next calendar year after publication date plus
95).
| > From 1978, for anything by a private author the rule of thumb is
life plus
| > 70. There is no longer any extension provision.
|
| A few years ago when some VERY remunerative copyrights were about to
expire,
| Disney, the estates of Jerome Kern and Oscar Hammerstein (for Show
Boat,
| which would have gone into the public domain in 2002), etc. etc.
lobbied
| Congress to extend the copyrights and Congress obliged, I think for
twenty
| years.
|
| So if you'd like to sing "Can't Help Lovin' Dat Man" anywhere but the
| shower, pony up or some expensive lawyers will be knocking on your
door.
|
| Irving Berlin, who lived to be 101, actually outlived the copyright on
| "Alexander's Ragtime Band." The Kern and Hammerstein heirs didn't
make that
| mistake, they called their ever-obliging Congressman.
|
| JSG
|
| JSG

John Steele Gordon

Re: Publishing/Copyright Question (OT)

Legg inn av John Steele Gordon » 02 mar 2005 13:38:24

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eh6Vd.125$74.2260@eagle.america.net...
In the 1950's schools were performing popular plays, musicals and
songs -- while not charging admission.

_Arsenic & Old Lace_ and _Meet Me In St. Louis_ for example.

Gordo even performed in _The Caine Mutiny Court Martial_.

Is that still allowed without payment of fees and/or royalties?

The royalties are predicated on the expected gross (number of performances X
number of seats X ticket price). If the tickets are free (which is rare
nowadays) the royalty is small--a few hundred dollars.

R&H subscribed to a clipping service a few years ago to see if schools,
etc., were mounting productions without permission. They found none, rather
to their pleasant surprise.

In the 1970's, a school made a recording of its production of Oklahoma! and
sent a copy to Richard Rodgers. He wrote them a nice letter telling them how
much he enjoyed the record and what an excellent job they had done. R&H's
lawyer sent them a letter too, not so nice, telling them in no uncertain
terms to cease distribution of the unauthorized recording.

JSG

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Publishing/Copyright Question (OT)

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 02 mar 2005 17:41:01

<G>

Many schools, of course, can't even afford the "few hundred dollars" --
which is why we see far fewer of these plays and musicals being
performed in high schools, I suppose.

DSH

"John Steele Gordon" <ancestry@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:5DiVd.27267$ij2.14987@fe08.lga...
|
| "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:eh6Vd.125$74.2260@eagle.america.net...
| > In the 1950's schools were performing popular plays, musicals and
| > songs -- while not charging admission.
| >
| > _Arsenic & Old Lace_ and _Meet Me In St. Louis_ for example.
| >
| > Gordo even performed in _The Caine Mutiny Court Martial_.
| >
| > Is that still allowed without payment of fees and/or royalties?
|
| The royalties are predicated on the expected gross (number of
performances X
| number of seats X ticket price). If the tickets are free (which is
rare
| nowadays) the royalty is small--a few hundred dollars.
|
| R&H subscribed to a clipping service a few years ago to see if
schools,
| etc., were mounting productions without permission. They found none,
rather
| to their pleasant surprise.
|
| In the 1970's, a school made a recording of its production of
Oklahoma! and
| sent a copy to Richard Rodgers. He wrote them a nice letter telling
them how
| much he enjoyed the record and what an excellent job they had done.
R&H's
| lawyer sent them a letter too, not so nice, telling them in no
uncertain
| terms to cease distribution of the unauthorized recording.
|
| JSG

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»