Greg my numbers in the original post were wrong - it was reduced from 250/week to 75/week, not 75/month. Sorry for the confusion . I've fixed it in the original post.
Casey my numbers were wrong in the original post -- the original award was $250 per *week* and it was reduced to $250 per *week*. Thank you for noticing the anomaly - I've fixed it.
Interesting comments here. And even more interesting is to note that in all 57 comments, no one seems to have observed that it is possible (though not probable) that these photos are copyright protected despite their century-old age.
The Copyright Act provides the following:
==================
? 303. Duration of copyright: Works created but not published or copyrighted before January 1, 1978
(a) Copyright in a work created before January 1, 1978, but not theretofore in the public domain or copyrighted, subsists from January 1, 1978, and endures for the term provided by section 302. In no case, however, shall the term of copyright in such a work expire before December 31, 2002; and, if the work is published on or before December 31, 2002, the term of copyright shall not expire before December 31, 2047.
==================
Whether these century-old works would have been "copyrighted" is governed by the 1909 Copyright Act. That act provided that the works became subject to copyright protection when the copyright was registered. The photos could have gone into the public domain under the 1909 act if they were published without a copyright notice. And to have been "copyrighted," the photographer (or whomever else may have been able to claim ownership) would have had to register those works. So if as of January 1, 1978 the photos remained unpublished and the copyrights had not been registered, the copyright would have naturally run to 12/31/2002. But if at some time between 1/1/78 and 12/31/2002 the photos were first published, the copyright in them would extend to the life of the author (photographer) plus 70 years, or 12/31/2047, whichever is later.
I don't mean to say that this slight probability somehow realistically legitimates Wal--Mart's irrational fear. I'm just sayin'.
Re: Re: Even lower
Greg my numbers in the original post were wrong - it was reduced from 250/week to 75/week, not 75/month. Sorry for the confusion . I've fixed it in the original post.
Re: Even lower
Casey my numbers were wrong in the original post -- the original award was $250 per *week* and it was reduced to $250 per *week*. Thank you for noticing the anomaly - I've fixed it.
Re:
Thanks Joe.
These photos could be under copyright
Interesting comments here. And even more interesting is to note that in all 57 comments, no one seems to have observed that it is possible (though not probable) that these photos are copyright protected despite their century-old age.
The Copyright Act provides the following:
==================
? 303. Duration of copyright: Works created but not published or copyrighted before January 1, 1978
(a) Copyright in a work created before January 1, 1978, but not theretofore in the public domain or copyrighted, subsists from January 1, 1978, and endures for the term provided by section 302. In no case, however, shall the term of copyright in such a work expire before December 31, 2002; and, if the work is published on or before December 31, 2002, the term of copyright shall not expire before December 31, 2047.
==================
Whether these century-old works would have been "copyrighted" is governed by the 1909 Copyright Act. That act provided that the works became subject to copyright protection when the copyright was registered. The photos could have gone into the public domain under the 1909 act if they were published without a copyright notice. And to have been "copyrighted," the photographer (or whomever else may have been able to claim ownership) would have had to register those works. So if as of January 1, 1978 the photos remained unpublished and the copyrights had not been registered, the copyright would have naturally run to 12/31/2002. But if at some time between 1/1/78 and 12/31/2002 the photos were first published, the copyright in them would extend to the life of the author (photographer) plus 70 years, or 12/31/2047, whichever is later.
I don't mean to say that this slight probability somehow realistically legitimates Wal--Mart's irrational fear. I'm just sayin'.
How amazing it is to see a post on Techdirt in which the importance of lawyers is emphasized, not denigrated!