Comments on: The most insane bit of U.S. copyright law? http://ragesoss.com/blog/2009/08/05/the-most-insane-bit-of-u-s-copyright-law/ assorted blogging by Sage Ross Sun, 05 Feb 2012 16:26:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Sage http://ragesoss.com/blog/2009/08/05/the-most-insane-bit-of-u-s-copyright-law/comment-page-1/#comment-172 Sage Sun, 09 Aug 2009 15:14:55 +0000 http://ragesoss.com/blog/?p=144#comment-172 John, of course that's how it ought to work. But the ABKCO v. LaVere case says otherwise.<br /><br />The court held that, while performances of the song were published (and may have fallen into the public domain), the composition itself had not been technically published. The composition was then first "published" in the 1970s by someone claiming to own the copyright. That's the same kind of rules as for, e.g., an unpublished manuscript that gets passed down for a few generations without being published: copyright term starts when it gets published, not when it gets first written.<br /><br />I'd like to think that the idea that a music recording doesn't count as publication of the underlying composition wouldn't stand up if it went to the Supreme Court, but if the ABKCO decision could go so badly in a circuit court... John, of course that's how it ought to work. But the ABKCO v. LaVere case says otherwise.

The court held that, while performances of the song were published (and may have fallen into the public domain), the composition itself had not been technically published. The composition was then first "published" in the 1970s by someone claiming to own the copyright. That's the same kind of rules as for, e.g., an unpublished manuscript that gets passed down for a few generations without being published: copyright term starts when it gets published, not when it gets first written.

I'd like to think that the idea that a music recording doesn't count as publication of the underlying composition wouldn't stand up if it went to the Supreme Court, but if the ABKCO decision could go so badly in a circuit court…

]]> By: John http://ragesoss.com/blog/2009/08/05/the-most-insane-bit-of-u-s-copyright-law/comment-page-1/#comment-171 John Sat, 08 Aug 2009 12:45:12 +0000 http://ragesoss.com/blog/?p=144#comment-171 "...because it was created earlier but 'published' first between 1978 and 1989, the crazy [copyright] rules go into effect."<br /><br />No, that song went into the public domain, so anyone can publish it, but no one can have a valid copyright on it if they do publish it. <br /><br />If the first person to "publish" it puts a copyright notice on it, that doesn't make their copyright claim a valid one. Once something is in the public domain, it can't revert to private ownership. Though someone trying to enforce a fraudulent copyright may convince someone to pay royalties, they have no legal right to force them to pay. "…because it was created earlier but 'published' first between 1978 and 1989, the crazy [copyright] rules go into effect."

No, that song went into the public domain, so anyone can publish it, but no one can have a valid copyright on it if they do publish it.

If the first person to "publish" it puts a copyright notice on it, that doesn't make their copyright claim a valid one. Once something is in the public domain, it can't revert to private ownership. Though someone trying to enforce a fraudulent copyright may convince someone to pay royalties, they have no legal right to force them to pay.

]]> By: JadeKitsune http://ragesoss.com/blog/2009/08/05/the-most-insane-bit-of-u-s-copyright-law/comment-page-1/#comment-170 JadeKitsune Wed, 05 Aug 2009 21:05:36 +0000 http://ragesoss.com/blog/?p=144#comment-170 So when is the uprising scheduled? This sounds like pretty ridiculous red tape. So when is the uprising scheduled? This sounds like pretty ridiculous red tape.

]]>