At 11:06 PM 8/23/2007 -0600, Noel Stoutenburg wrote: >Section (h) (8) (A) explicitly defines "source country" for the purposes >of of Title 17 Section 104, as "A nation other than the United States". >Accordingly, (h) (6) (B) specifically applies to items in the public >domain in the United States, but subject to copyright in some other >place. Furthermore, even if the United States were a source country for >purposes of these sections, (h) (6) (B) limits applicability of the >section to works which are "not in the public domain in [their] source >country through expiration of term of protection". But until 1963, in >order for the term of protection to be extended, the copyright had to be >renewed, and if it was not renewed, the copyright expired and the work >entered the public domain through expiration of term of copyright, and >therefore are ineligible because they fail to meet the test of (h) (6) (B).
What a difference a conjunction makes. Most of the tests of that law are joined by "or". The next to last item on the (h)(6)(C) list ends with "and". You're absolutely right, and I've been wrong about that for years. Yikes. At least I was wrong in a more strict direction, and didn't get my own work into hot water because of it. Back in my cute-but-dumb days, I set several "forbidden" texts, and the compositions are now not publishable or even performable (technically, anyway). Good pieces, too. Now I search only for older texts with a contemporary feel because it's too much hassle to use new ones ... discouraging to have the creative process underway, and then navigate the permissions cycle only to receive a "no" -- or worse, to receive no answer. The same goes for thematic source material. (Anyone who has followed the James Joyce saga knows how insane the whole copyright protection business can become in the hands of a psychotic heir.) What a sad state of affairs that artists and composers and writers can't grow the culture with cross-references from recent experiences -- at least unless that have a handsome bank account to pay exploitive copyright owners or defend against the lawsuits. Remixes and mashups and plunderphonics have made incredible contributions to the musical art. From Tenney's "Blue Suede" onward through 2 Live Crew to Danger Mouse, the crazy legal situation has been constantly tested. Maybe being on the legal fringes contributes to the excitement of the creativity. My own sampling pieces from the early 1970s are probably illegal now, but were thrilling to write then. Argh. Thanks much, Dennis _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
