DCM Download Site > What you can upload
Silver Age Charlton?
fett:
--- Quote from: bbbrown on April 10, 2010, 04:29:22 PM ---
Fett, you fund it, I will make the time to run it as long as I can find some decent mod's to take care of the message end and some copyright expert to keep it legit. :)
--- End quote ---
Unscanned GA comics keeping me busy atm. As soon as we're done I'll get right on that. ;)
John C:
--- Quote from: narfstar on April 10, 2010, 06:17:07 PM ---So would Atlas Seabold books be safe for another site to carry even though they carried a copyright notice but did not register?
--- End quote ---
Only for a very loose definition of "safe." They're still under copyright, so doing so would still be infringing. However, to stop you, the owner (whoever that may be) would need to register, and wouldn't be allowed to collect damages for the period when it wasn't registered.
Personally? I wouldn't clear it. Any day, the owner COULD register it, and, with market research in hand, claim that you've spoiled a million-dollar reprint sale or something along those lines that would be on damages going forward.
That's how I read it, at least, and I again emphasize that my legal training comes from having an occasional dinner with a friend who does contract law, to wit, none. It's also possible that Eric is right, registration is needed for renewal, and I just haven't seen it.
Does anybody know who would own the Atlas/Seaboard books at this time? I remember once hearing that heirs were difficult to find, but that may have just been generic uninformed rumor. (Since it was short-lived and since hasn't done anything, I'm wondering if the current owner might be willing to sell it cheap, for subsequent release into the public domain.)
OtherEric:
The question here is at what point did registering the book (rather than just having a correct copyright notice) stop being mandatory? I know for a very long time registration was required; it didn't matter if you had the correct notice or not if you didn't follow through.
John C:
I actually agreed with that until just a few days ago, actually. I couldn't find a single statement one way or another in the law, but you do occasionally get things like the statement on joining the Berne treaty mentioning eliminating "formalities" like required registration and the 1976 law stating (for the first time) that registration MAY be made during the copyright term, which imply that, some time previously, registration was mandatory.
However, no matter how far I go back, I can't find anything that says registration secures your copyright. At most, registration gave (and still gives) you documentation when you sue for damages.
In fact, the 1909 law (which I looked at just now to see what it had to say) has S9, "That any person...may secure copyright for his work by publication thereof with the notice of copyright..." and S10, "That such person may obtain registration of his claim to copyright..." So the earliest version of the Copyright Act explicitly makes registration optional for documentation purposes, rather than a stipulation for copyright.
As of 1965 (now that I know the key word "secure" is useful here!), the law says very much the same thing, just with better punctuation and as S10 and S11. Same with 1973 (relevant to Seaboard). S411 of the 1978 law says outright that, "no action for infringement of the copyright in any work shall be instituted until registration of the copyright claim has been made," which does appear to be the primary use.
I'm still looking to see if I can find a mention of registration with respect to renewal, but that doesn't look promising, either. In the 1909 version, S23 says that the copyright owner can be a person, an anonymous person, or an employer. Renewal is available to those who "duly registered therein within one year prior to the expiration of the original term of copyright." Said renewal can be made by the author (or, presumably, the employer, though that's absent from the text), the widow/widower, children, executor, or next of kin, in that order of availability. Lastly, if no renewal is filed, then the copyright expires at the end of the first term.
That said, I could be wrong. I haven't authenticated the text of the laws at the site I'm reading, nor am I sure there aren't other clauses that override it. So if anybody has better information (or even, y'know, "worse" information that we don't already have), I'm absolutely all ears.
For example, on another page on the same site I've been using:
http://chart.copyrightdata.com
Under the question, "Was the work registered in the name of the true owner?" the "No" answer says, "Prior to 1978, accurate registration was required to secure a copyright after publication. Furthermore, filing was required to be prompt." B-but...WHERE? Where was it required!? If it's not in the law text, then that's not right, is it?
narfstar:
So it seems that in whichever text you follow there must have been a registration to allow damage suits. So the owners of Seabold copyrights could issue a cease and desist but not sue for damages? Did Charlton ever register even after proper notice posting?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version