Re: A mere photograph

On 29/04/97, Larry Urbanski <larryu[_at_]moviecraft.com> wrote:
>
> Photographs made in the US prior to 1963 are a different story. The
> bulk of published and copyrighted photographs made prior to this year
> were not renewed in the USA, and are in the public domain. Still,
> searches would be required to verify this.
>
> And, I believe you were referring to "mere" photographs anyway.

Can someone explain to a mere Antipodean what happened in 1963, and why photographs (and presumably other works) created prior to that date had to have their copyright renewed? And when it was renewed, did the work gain another full term, or was it renewable only for the unexpired portion of the original term of protection?

I'd be grateful,

Cheers,
Mike Lean
Copyright Officer, QUT
<m.lean[_at_]qut.edu.au> Received on Wed Apr 30 1997 - 23:27:56 GMT