Other than the markings at the top margin of the page, everything written on this form is as it was in The name and the address of the intended recipient of the copyright certificate were typed at the bottom of the page and have been cut from this image to conserve space. The Copyright Office in stamped in the registration number top right corner , the date that the application was received, as well as the dates that the Copyright Office received copies of the work and of the description these latter two stamped dates have also been cut off on this web site.
On item was added in The image above right shows that copyright notice. To learn how courts have ruled on this, see the citations and case summaries page on copyright notice: The copyright proprietor seems to have presumed that the copyright term went into effect in Under the rules in effect until , a work with a publication date of April 21, the date on the application would have had to be renewed between April 21, , and April 21, Under the rules which went into effect January 1, , all works with copyrights that commenced in had a renewal window of January 1, , to December 31, The renewal form submitted by the copyright proprietor reproduced immediately below was stamped by the Copyright Office with the effective date of September 18, This would have made the renewal valid had there not been conflicting circumstances.
In the case of D.
- The Nerve (Would That It Were Book 1).
- Atlantis Rising 102 - November/December 2013 (Atlantis Rising Magazine).
- Catalog Record: How to investigate the copyright status of a work | Hathi Trust Digital Library!
- Smart Ways to Save Money.
- Asylum Lake?
The fact that the copyright term had to be measured from apparently escaped the Copyright Office employee who first examined the application and the records. Thus, the renewal application was processed and was assigned number RE , as has been stamped in the top right corner above. At a late time, this was crossed out. In this particular case, the personnel of the Copyright Office adjusted the records to accurately reflect the copyright status of the work in question.
However, persons interested in conclusive answers about the copyright status of a particular work have to recall that not in every case will the Copyright Office personnel recognize the significance of small pieces of information that can have a decisive bearing on the copyright status of a work. For the above reasons, persons investigating the renewal status of a work such consider whether 1 the work was published not performed but published prior to the date declared in the registration, 2 the renewal was filed on behalf of a party with a legitimate claim to the subsequent copyright term, 3 other considerations relevant to the particular media or particular work.
These additional reports of instances where the year in the copyright notice is earlier than the registration year, along with the renewal information, are provided on this supplementary page: Copyright renewal records for s Warner Bros.
Circular 22 - How to Investigate the Copyright Status of a Work
The nearest thing to an effortless search for copyright status on a work is to have the Copyright Office do it for you. This is an expensive option, and the backlog of work faced by the necessarily-limited staff at the Copyright Office can result in a long wait for your results. The benefit to a Copyright Office search is that their personnel has access to the most records — far more than those at college and major-city public libraries — and that these are the original, complete records, so a search has more facts to draw upon.
The staff works with the records throughout their work days, so they are well-versed in the intricacies of the records. The illustration immediately below is the text from a Copyright Office search report. A vast amount of blank space below the text has been omitted from this image. The particular movie reported on in this search is one of the fourteen Sherlock Holmes films starring Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes and co-starring Nigel Bruce as Dr.
Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon is among the four Holmes films starring Rathbone and Bruce that is widely available on low-cost video because it entered the public domain. The Copyright Office denoted the fact of the copyright registration citing the underlying work upon which the screenplay was based. The illustration below is the bottom of the search report form reproduced above. The texts of hundreds of search reports such as this including for many movies that are not commonly-available from public-domain distributors are reproduced in the latest editions of the Film Superlist books.
See above for publication information on this series. Read Citations and Case Summaries on: Researching the Copyright Status of a Work Archival copyright registation and renewal records are maintained in the Copyright Office at the Library of Congress on index cards filed in drawers such as these. Modern records are maintained electronically. Older records are also maintained in log books and full-sheet registration forms and renewal forms. The above page shows listings for which the copyrights were not renewed.
The page below only part of which has been reproduced shows two registrations which were renewed as well as additional ones which were not. This is the renewal number. These are almost certainly written by a different hand because these numbers could not be determined until renewal took place and the works did not become eligible for copyright renewal until 27 years after the original registrations. One needs to consider the copyright status on that date for works from those countries. For countries that joined either the Berne Convention or the WTO after 1 January , the relevant date is the earliest date of adherence to either treaty.
Yemen, for example, joined the Berne Convention on 14 April After deciding on a date to use, one must determine whether copyright in the work had expired by that date in the source country. It is therefore necessary to know the copyright laws of the source country for the work. For example, let's say that you were interested in digitizing To the Adventurous , a book by Edith Nesbit, the author of The Railway Children , that was published in London by Hutchinson in There is no record for the volume in the Stanford Copyright Renewal database, but could copyright in the title have been restored in ?
Investigation reveals that Edith Nesbit died in , and copyright term in the United Kingdom on 1 January was and is 70 years after the death of the author. That means her English copyrights had expired by 1 January , and copyright restoration could not have taken place. The work can be digitized. For copyright restoration to take place, it is not enough that first publication took place in an eligible country and that the work was still protected by copyright on the appropriate date. At least one of the authors or rights holders must also have been either a citizen of an eligible country or be domiciled in an eligible country at the time the work was created.
In general, this is not a major issue. As was noted above, most countries in the world are now eligible countries, and most authors would be protected. A book by an Iranian citizen living in Iran that was first published in the United Kingdom, however, would not be eligible for copyright restoration since Iran is not an eligible country. Perhaps more problematic are American authors who live and work abroad.
It was first published in Paris by the Olympia Press in , but not registered for copyright in the US. Subsequent versions appeared in the US starting in the mids. One would search in vain the Stanford Copyright Renewal Database for the work, and so might conclude that it is in the public domain in the US. Candy was written, however, when Southern was living in Geneva, Switzerland. Because Southern was domiciled in an eligible country Switzerland and first publication occurred in an eligible country France , the estates of Southern and Hoffenberg were able to secure in copyright protection for the novel using the provisions of copyright restoration.
For works that were first published abroad, therefore, it is not enough to know that they were published in an eligible country. One must also know the nationality of the authors and their residence at the time the book was written. The fact that an author is an American does not automatically exclude him or her from copyright restoration.
- Circular 22 - How to Investigate the Copyright Status of a Work?
- .
- !
As the examples above indicate, what was a relatively simple process for determining public domain status of US and foreign works has been thrown on its head by copyright restoration. Prior to restoration, analysis could focus on whether a work's copyright had been renewed.
Now a series of complex questions, many of which cannot be definitively answered, must be posed.
Was the work published solely in the US? Is it based on or derived from a foreign work? If published both in the US and abroad, did first publication occur in the US? Was it published in an eligible country, by a citizen of an eligible country or by an American living abroad? In the face of such complexities, one might well ask what a digital librarian should do.
If you crave the certainty that was possible prior to copyright restoration, you could assume that all works, both foreign and domestic, had their copyright restored, and digitization can only proceed with the permission of the copyright owner. Alternatively, one could settle on strategies that would identify and manage risks. On a practical level, for an action to be brought, the copyright owners most likely the heirs of the author, given the age of the books would have to know that they own a restored copyright, know that the book has been made available, and be willing to bring legal action in the US.
It may be that the issues described in this paper, while a theoretical possibility, will never be an issue in practice. Of course, while the likelihood of a suit is low, the possible damages that could accrue if one should be filed are high. The copyright restoration act stipulates that the full range of remedies found in Chapter 5 be available for infringements that start after restoration.
Possible legislative protection against unsuccessful copyright investigations may be on the horizon. There is currently under way a legislative effort to provide some immunity from damages for copyright infringement for so-called "orphan works. As currently drafted, the inability to identify a copyright owner is one of the factors that makes a work an orphan.
A search that understands that copyright in a work could have been restored but concludes that a work is in the public domain and thus fails to identify a copyright owner might qualify. The exact language of any legislation that passes will need to be examined closely. This paper has demonstrated that it is almost impossible to determine with certainty whether a work published from through in the US is in the public domain because of copyright restoration of foreign works.
First you have to determine if the work was also published abroad or if it is based on or derived from a work published abroad. If a foreign edition is found, one then has to establish the order of publication, and whether the foreign publication occurred less than 30 days before the US publication. If foreign publication was more than 30 days before American publication, one next needs to determine if publication occurred in an eligible country and if at least one of the authors of the work was living in or a citizen of an eligible nation.
Catalog Record: How to investigate the copyright status of a | Hathi Trust Digital Library
Checking the copyright renewal database is still important, but only after one has determined that the work's foreign copyright was not restored or that it does not draw upon subsisting foreign copyrights. Copyright restoration has been criticized for unnecessarily removing thousands of foreign-published works from the public domain in the United States.
What has been little noticed up to now is its negative impact on the determination of the potential public domain status of works published in the US. In many cases the impossibility of determining with certainty the absence of subsisting foreign copyrights in American publications that otherwise would be in the public domain means that American institutions will either have to keep these works inaccessible to the general public or risk the possibility of an infringement suit.
The provision has proven to be controversial on legal grounds.
Determining the Copyright Status of a Work
Never before in US history have works been removed from the public domain and placed back under copyright protection. The constitutionality of this action has been challenged in Golan v. The decision upheld the general constitutionality of section A, though the court did remand the case back to the district court for further First Amendment review. Even the simple statement that works published prior to are in the public domain is not as absolute as it may sound. Foreign works published after may still be protected by copyright in the states of the Far West.
And the question of what constitutes publication is particularly difficult to answer. Many printed works that are found in libraries may only have undergone "limited publication. Barbara Ringer, "Study No. Off, , p. See, for example, Samuel Demas and Jennie L. A Guide to Information and Procedure. Rothman, ; and Library of Congress Copyright Office, How to investigate the copyright status of a work. Library of Congress, Copyright Office, See also Jon Orwant, "U.
In reporting the bill in that would form the basis for the first recognition of foreign copyrights in American law, Senator Jonathan Chace noted "The committee believe it is time that the United States should cease to be the Barbary coast of literature, and that the people of the United States should cease to be the buccaneers of books. The US's adherence to the Universal Copyright Convention in eased some of the more onerous requirements regarding notice and manufacture, but the requirement for renewal after 28 years remained. Peter Lyman and Hal R. WorldCat facts and statistics.
This example also illustrates the difficulty of using WorldCat to determine whether publication occurred abroad. Later English editions are listed in WorldCat, but anyone using just the WorldCat database to determine primacy of place of publication would erroneously conclude that the translation was first published in the US.
Copyright in Carousel was renewed, however, and Liliom , which was first presented in , is in the public domain in the US. I would like to thank Elaine Engst for suggesting this example. Catalog of Copyright Entries. Publishers' Circular 14 It is unclear how many other national bibliographies include publication date information. It is interesting to note that Dutch Vet appeared in the US four months after publication in the UK, and with no ad interim registration within the required two months. Unfortunately, the absence of an ad interim registration is not proof of simultaneous publication.
Until , a regular registration for a work could have been filed from 30 to 60 days after foreign publication, assuming printing in the US had been arranged. After , the delay could even be longer. Again, Dutch Vet is a good example: If you decide to have the Office staff conduct the search, you should send the estimated amount with your request. The Office will then proceed with the search and send you a typewritten report or, if you prefer, an oral report by telephone. If you request an oral report, please provide a telephone number where you can be reached during normal business hours 8: Certified searches are most frequently requested to meet the evidentiary requirements of litigation.
Note that the search fee does NOT include the cost of additional certificates, photocopies of deposits, or copies of other Office records. For information concerning these services, request Circular 6. The more detailed information you can furnish with your request, the less time-consuming and expensive the search will be. Please provide as much of the following information as possible:. The Copyright Office staff will also, for the standard hourly search fee, search its indexes covering the records of assignments and other recorded documents concerning ownership of copyrights.
The reports of searches in these cases will state the facts shown in the Office's indexes of the recorded documents, but will offer no interpretation of the content of the documents or their legal effect. In determining whether or not to have a search made, you should keep the following points in mind:. The Copyright Office does not maintain any listings of works by subject, or any lists of works that are in the public domain. Individual works, such as stories, poems, articles, or musical compositions that were published as contributions to a copyrighted periodical or collection, are usually not listed separately by title in our records.
The Copyright Office does not search or compare copies of works to determine questions of possible infringement or to determine how much two or more versions of a work have in common. Copyright does not protect names and titles, and our records list many different works identified by the same or similar titles.
In General
Some brand names, trade names, slogans, and phrases may be entitled to protection under the general rules of law relating to unfair competition, or to registration under the provisions of the trademark laws. Questions about the trademark laws should be addressed to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Washington, D.
Possible protection of names and titles under common law principles of unfair competition is a question of state law. The Copyright Office cannot express any opinion as to the legal significance or effect of the facts included in a search report. Searches of the Copyright Office catalogs and records are useful in helping to determine the copyright status of a work, but they cannot be regarded as conclusive in all cases. The complete absence of any information about a work in the office records does not mean that the work is unprotected. The following are examples of cases in which information about a particular work may be incomplete or lacking entirely in the Copyright Office:.
Even if you conclude that a work is in the public domain in the United States, this does not necessarily mean that you are free to use it in other countries. Every nation has its own laws governing the length and scope of copyright protection, and these are applicable to uses of the work within that nation's borders. Thus, the expiration or loss of copyright protection in the United States may still leave the work fully protected against unauthorized use in other countries. For further information, request Circulars 15, "Renewal of Copyright," 15a.
Most provisions of this statute came into force on January 1, , superseding the previous copyright act of , and made significant changes in the copyright law. Other significant changes resulted from the Berne Convention Implementation Act of , which took effect March 1, If you need more information about the provisions of either law, write or call the Copyright Office. For information about the Berne Law, request Circular Printed information about the law is available only through the Superintendent of Documents, U. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. You may order by telephone from the order desk by calling To order via fax machine please call For copyright investigations, the following are some of the main points to consider about the impact of the Copyright Act of and the Berne Convention Implementation Act of Some of the most sweeping changes under the Act involve copyright formalities that is, the procedural requirements for securing and maintaining full copyright protection.
The old system of formalities involved copyright notice, deposit and registration, recordation of transfers and licenses of copyright ownership, and United States manufacture, among other things. In general, while retaining formalities, the law reduced the chances of mistakes, softened the consequences of errors and omissions, and allowed for the correction of errors.
The Berne Convention Implementation Act of reduced formalities, most notably making the addition of the previously mandatory copyright notice optional. It should be noted that the amended notice requirements are not retroactive. Under the present copyright law, copyright exists in original works of authorship created and fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly, or indirectly with the aid of a machine or device. In other words, copyright is an incident of creative authorship not dependent on statutory formalities.
Thus, registration with the Copyright Office generally is not required, but there are certain advantages that arise from a timely registration. For further information on the advantages of registration, write or call the Copyright Office and request Circular 1, "Copyright Basics. Both the and the copyright acts require a notice of copyright on published works. For mask works a copyright notice might read " SDR Industries.
The law prescribes that all visually perceptible published copies of a work, or published phonorecords of a sound recording, shall bear a proper copyright notice. This applies to such works published before March 1, After March 1, , notice of copyright on these works is optional. Adding the notice, however, is strongly encouraged and, if litigation involving the copyright occurs, certain advantages exist for adding the notice. The requirement for the notice under the law applied equally whether the work was published in the United States or elsewhere by authority of the copyright owner.
Compliance with the statutory notice requirements was the responsibility of the copyright owner.