|
|
Happy Birthday song
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
Of course this begs the question, how the hell was something over 100 years old still in copyright?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar
Of course this begs the question, how the hell was something over 100 years old still in copyright?
I think it was sold in the 80s, so it was kept alive on the books.
|
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status:
Offline
|
|
I don't have a problem with something so old being copyrighted if it's still in use. If not, then Mickey Mouse, etc. would become public domain. I can't agree with that.
I was reading an article about this a few months ago. Someone uncovered a version of the song which (IANAL) invalidated the copyright because it pre-dated what WB assumed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by osiris
I think it was sold in the 80s, so it was kept alive on the books.
It was 90 years old in the 80s. Same question.
Originally Posted by starman
I don't have a problem with something so old being copyrighted if it's still in use. If not, then Mickey Mouse, etc. would become public domain. I can't agree with that.
Mickey Mouse has new works created around him. Not so much for a short diddy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar
It was 90 years old in the 80s. Same question.
The song was copyrighted in 1935 though published much earlier and used even earlier (1800s?) than that in some variation. So the copyright is from 1935 and tied to lifespan of the owner - therefore entirely plausable.
|
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status:
Offline
|
|
it was sold to another party along with the copyright, but supposedly the rights were for only playing on the piano not vocally singing it. Then there's the issue of having music for it but the words are totally different in another copyright... no wonder it was made void because it's ridiculous.
|
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status:
Offline
|
|
The music was originally written with different words. The music has been in the public domain since sometime in the 1980s or 1990s. The remaining copyright (and Warner's $1-2M per year licensing regime) is based on the modern words. Trouble is, no one knows who wrote the words, so Warner can't show ever getting the rights.
Also, Warner got the copyright in 1935. The plaintiffs were able to find an old songbook from the 1920s, showing the modern words and labeled as "used by permission". Published openly without any listed restrictions, before copyright was applied. The judge invalidated the copyright on multiple grounds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar
The author died in 1938.
There were two - the Hill sisters. Patty died in 1946 and Mildred in 1916.
But then, which author are we talking about?
|
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
The one that it was credited to on the copyright: Preston Ware Orem
(There was another but there's no link for them)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by starman
I don't have a problem with something so old being copyrighted if it's still in use. If not, then Mickey Mouse, etc. would become public domain. I can't agree with that.
I have absolutely no problem with old works remaining copyrighted, what I have a problem with is with ridiculously long copyrights being the default.
There's no question there should be some mechanism for an entity to maintain copyright in perpetuity. Disney has the resources to curate its library. Let them go ape shit with it.
The problem is those who don't have the resources to curate their library for 70 years after they die, or they only provided for a shorter time past their death, because length of copyright was changed after their death.
There are an uncountable number of works where the author is dead, they gave no provision to maintain their work, and someone else trying is illegal. It's destroying the legacy of American art.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status:
Offline
|
|
This is the legal basis of Copyright and patents:
Originally Posted by US Constitution
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Let's parse it out:
• "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" = to expand human knowledge, ie - the public domain.
• "by securing for limited Times" = forever copyrights and patents are not allowed by the Constitution. They were always meant to expire.
• "to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" - er, I don't see corporations here. Or any 3rd party after the author/inventor.
Our current forever-extended copyrights violate the spirit of the constitution, and constantly deny the Public our works, when the copyrights should have expired. And those rights are supposed to apply only to the original people who wrote or invented them.
I'm in favor of a blanket 20-year limit on copyrights or patents. Why should anyone (or any corporation) be paid forever for doing one job?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Well, as I said above, I think if you have the means to curate your library in perpetuity then it's fair to give you a mechanism to do so. The library is available. That's the desire. I would argue availability is what promotes the progress of science and useful arts.
Where the public domain comes in is as another method of keeping things available. People who can't keep their library available need this mechanism. The vast majority of people are not in a position to accommodate keeping their work available for close to a century after their death. The law caters to the exceptions, not the majority.
What's most galling is the exceptions the law caters to have means well beyond what is necessary to accommodate a system where one is asked to file for some form copyright extension.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by reader50
I'm in favor of a blanket 20-year limit on copyrights or patents. Why should anyone (or any corporation) be paid forever for doing one job?
Ask George Lucas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|