Commons:Village pump/Copyright

‎Another exotic license: clarified(?) mess pre-1978
← Older revision
Revision as of 12:54, 15 March 2013
Line 338:
Line 338:
 
::::The cited law is [http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/257.35 257.35: Florida State Archives]. I'm not familiar with Florida Statutes citation, but: Since 257.35 is chapter 257, section 35, I'm assuming that paragraph (1)(b) refers to subsection (1) paragraph (b) "Preserve and administer such records ... and permit them, at reasonable times and under the supervision of the division, to be inspected and copied." and subsection (4) refers to "The division shall make certified copies ... upon the application of any person ... . The division may charge a fee for this service based upon the cost of service." --[[User:Closeapple|Closeapple]] ([[User talk:Closeapple|talk]]) 11:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 
::::The cited law is [http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/257.35 257.35: Florida State Archives]. I'm not familiar with Florida Statutes citation, but: Since 257.35 is chapter 257, section 35, I'm assuming that paragraph (1)(b) refers to subsection (1) paragraph (b) "Preserve and administer such records ... and permit them, at reasonable times and under the supervision of the division, to be inspected and copied." and subsection (4) refers to "The division shall make certified copies ... upon the application of any person ... . The division may charge a fee for this service based upon the cost of service." --[[User:Closeapple|Closeapple]] ([[User talk:Closeapple|talk]]) 11:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 

 

−
This FSA "public domain" notice has two much bigger problems: (1) The wording of this notice appears to be false; it is not "released to the public domain" under Florida law — in fact, an attribution requirement is right there in 257.35(6). (2) What evidence do we have that the Florida State Archives (or other archivists in the chain of possession) acquired copyright at the same time they acquired the physical specimens? A state cannot invalidate or grant licenses for a copyright it doesn't hold. If the original physical version of work is transferred to another person, did U.S. law pre-1978 consider the copyright to have transfer with it? (We need someone with knowledge about this.) Also, does it matter if the negatives were separated from the original prints? Would separating possession of the two, so that two different parties had a physical representation of the work, mean that a "publication" occurred under pre-1978 U.S. copyright law? If it was publicly exhibited pre-1978 without a copyright notice, that would solve it: Public exhibition where people could re-photograph and copy was "publication" in the U.S. pre-1978, but not afterwards. But U.S. works "unpublished" as of 2003, regardless of when created, retain their copyrights for 70 years after the death of a known author, even if they were subsequently published. --[[User:Closeapple|Closeapple]] ([[User talk:Closeapple|talk]]) 12:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
+
This FSA "public domain" notice has two much bigger problems: (1) The wording of this notice appears to be false; it is not "released to the public domain" under Florida law — in fact, an attribution requirement is right there in 257.35(6). (2) What evidence do we have that the Florida State Archives (or other archivists in the chain of possession) acquired copyright at the same time they acquired the physical specimens? After 1978, and maybe before, a state cannot invalidate or grant licenses for a copyright it doesn't hold. If the original physical version of work is transferred to another person, did U.S. law pre-1978 consider the copyright to have transfer with it? (That seems to depend on which court happened to be deciding, and was a mess: see [[:en:Copyright Act of 1976#Transfer of copyright]].) Also, does it matter if the negatives were separated from the original prints? Would separating possession of the two, so that two different parties had a physical representation of the work, but neither one released them to the public yet, still mean that a "publication" occurred under pre-1978 U.S. copyright law? If it was publicly exhibited pre-1978 without a copyright notice, that would solve it: Public exhibition where people could re-photograph and copy was "publication" in the U.S. pre-1978, but not afterwards. But U.S. works "unpublished" as of 2003, regardless of when created, retain their copyrights for 70 years after the death of a known author, even if they were subsequently published. --[[User:Closeapple|Closeapple]] ([[User talk:Closeapple|talk]]) 12:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 

 

 
== A copyright concern? ==
 
== A copyright concern? ==

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&diff=92619997&oldid=92618674