In response to part of what Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote,
The 1994 law included "restored copyright" for many works in the
public domain. It's a minefield for composers.
I wrote, asserting
I concede that the issue of "restored copyright" has caused problems
for composers, but for the most part, unless one is dealing with
material from the former Soviet Union, or from countries in its sphere
of influence, "restored copyright" provisions do not constitute a
major issue, as the number of affected composers and affected works is
relatively small.
In rebuttal, Andrew Stiller wrote, in part
Not true. The "restored copyright" provision applied to all works
whose copyright had run out due to failure to renew, and automatically
extended their terms to what they would have been had the renewal
taken place. Since, in turn, such a hypothetical renewal would take
the work's copyright into the jurisdictional period of the current law
(and its later ammendments) the actual copyright period for *anything*
published after 1923 is life plus 70.
However, this does not appear to be consistent with the infomation
contained on the Cornell University website, at
<http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/copyrightterm.pdf>,
nor with Circular 3 issued by the U.S. Copyright office, which expressly
states
(P.L. 103-465) modified the effect of publication without notice for
certain foreign works. Under this Act, copyright is automatically
restored, effective January 1, 1996, for certain foreign works placed
into the public domain because of lack of proper notice or
noncompliance with other legal requirements.
(cf: <http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.html>)
ns
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
