Re: A mere photograph

On 4/30/97, Maryly Snow <slides[_at_]ced.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> From whence comes the prior to 1963 date for photographs that
> you mention below? I thought public domain is 75 years prior,
> hence 1922.

Prior to the "Automatic Renewal" copyright legislation of 1992 terms of copyright were 28 years, and the copyright of pre-1964 works had to be renewed for 47 years more copyright protection.

In my discussions during that time, both with the copyright office as well as some "major' historical societies with large photograph collections, those photographs that were registered for the initial 28 year term were in almost all cases (99%) NOT renewed for the additional term. Renewal forms had to be sent to the library of Congress during the 28th year to get the additional copyright protection.

This is a prime example of copyright changes decreasing a rich public domain. After 1963, terms are "automatically " renewed, and these works have the 28 + 47...or the 75 year protection you refer to.

Larry Urbanski
American Film Heritage Association
<larryu[_at_]moviecraft.com> Received on Thu May 01 1997 - 20:16:13 GMT