There are a few inaccuracies in Rich's post. Steamboat Willie was NEVER public domain. Frankenstein & Dracula did not pass into the public domain in 1987 either. The small publisher case he is trying to remember is Eldred v. Ashcroft (537 U.S. 186, appeal denied 538 U.S. 916).
In 1909, the renewal period for copyright renewal was extended to 28 years (plus the initial 28) for a total of 56 years. Starting in 1962, the renewal terms were increased by one year each year until 1978 when it was permanently set at 47 years for pre-1978 works(for a grand total of 75 years protection - and this is why Steamboat Willie and Dracula never entered public domain). Post 1977 works never need file for renewal under this law - it was automatically granted. Then in 1998 the "Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act" was introduced and passed into law granting an additional 20 years of copyright protection for renewals of pre-1978 works (making them effectively 95 years) and 20 years to the post-1977 term (also making them 95 years). Basically it has had this effect: Works from 1922 for sure went into public domain in 1998 (because they had already entered public domain), but works that were made in 1923 (that were renewed and still protected) will not enter the public domain until 2019 (or later if Disney gets all worked up again in the next 12 years). -----Original Message----- From: MoPo List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Halegua Comic Art Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 7:23 PM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: [MOPO] For Michael: Public Domain Films actually Tom I think how they got IAWL back under copyright was to be involved with their congressmen copyright law has been revised by congress a number of times since 1978 as companies attempted to get control of items that had actually fallen into the PD. Disney being one of them. Steamboat Willie was PD for years, but congressional revision allowed them to recapture it. It is really an immoral episode of congressional attitude One great example of this is that about 5 years ago there was a case that made it's way to the Supreme Court There was a case involving a lower tier publisher who had been issuing editions of an author's books that had fallen into the PD, but when the author became super-popular, the original publisher filed suit claiming ownership. In between there was the final law revision in 1992 that extended the length of the renewal period and also allowed for revisiting material that had lapsed due to the failure of the original copyright holder to reclaim some material via renewal. Then they extended the renewal period to 75 years total (including original filings) so while it once was 28+28 years on renewal - and renewal needed to be filed according to old law to be eligible to access the 75 year timeframe. So even thought the original 56 years had lapsed a number of years earlier, the court sided with the corporate giants and put the material back into the original publisher's hands. The subsequent ruling put the small publisher into receivership and out of business due to royalties now due on a whole slew of books they had published that were at the time PD, but now recaptured. Frankenstein & Dracula also benefited from this as under the 56 year rule, their copyrights expired in 1987. Whether those two films are now PD is debatable as 75 years means they should have expired last year and I think that is why Universal re-released a new dvd series last year to maybe capitalize one final time on those films what was most interesting was that one argument that publisher used was the the author -who was now wildly popular in reprint - was never published by anyone else until the small publisher came in, and therefore the rational that all publishers issue Shakespeare, Mark Twain, Conan Doyle and a slew of other now PD authors did not apply to this one author who had only been represented by that single company previously myself, I think it's incredible that Congress could be so abstract & that the Supreme Court was also abstract. I should mention that when the case came to trial, that the Bush administration filed a "friend of the court" brief in support of the corporations - which I'm sure is no surprise to anyone unfortunately I no longer have the info on the case, so I can't point you to it. But I can tell you it was being watched by the news media and all small publishers, including myself Rich===================== Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
