blog/archive/2017/12/12.rss

   1 <?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
   2 <rss version='2.0' xmlns:lj='http://www.livejournal.org/rss/lj/1.0/'>
   3         <channel>
   4                 <title>Petter Reinholdtsen - Entries from December 2017</title>
   5                 <description>Entries from December 2017</description>
   6                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/</link>
   7
   8
   9         <item>
  10                 <title>Is the short movie «Empty Socks» from 1927 in the public domain or not?</title>
  11                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Is_the_short_movie__Empty_Socks__from_1927_in_the_public_domain_or_not_.html</link>
  12                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Is_the_short_movie__Empty_Socks__from_1927_in_the_public_domain_or_not_.html</guid>
  13                 <pubDate>Tue, 5 Dec 2017 12:30:00 +0100</pubDate>
  14                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Three years ago, a presumed lost animation film,
  15 &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_Socks&quot;&gt;Empty Socks from
  16 1927&lt;/a&gt;, was discovered in the Norwegian National Library.  At the
  17 time it was discovered, it was generally assumed to be copyrighted by
  18 The Walt Disney Company, and I blogged about
  19 &lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Opphavsretts_status_for__Empty_Socks__fra_1927_.html&quot;&gt;my
  20 reasoning to conclude&lt;/a&gt; that it would would enter the Norwegian
  21 equivalent of the public domain in 2053, based on my understanding of
  22 Norwegian Copyright Law.  But a few days ago, I came across
  23 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.toonzone.net/forums/threads/exposed-disneys-repurchase-of-oswald-the-rabbit-a-sham.4792291/&quot;&gt;a
  24 blog post claiming the movie was already in the public domain&lt;/a&gt;, at
  25 least in USA.  The reasoning is as follows: The film was released in
  26 November or Desember 1927 (sources disagree), and presumably
  27 registered its copyright that year.  At that time, right holders of
  28 movies registered by the copyright office received government
  29 protection for there work for 28 years.  After 28 years, the copyright
  30 had to be renewed if the wanted the government to protect it further.
  31 The blog post I found claim such renewal did not happen for this
  32 movie, and thus it entered the public domain in 1956.  Yet someone
  33 claim the copyright was renewed and the movie is still copyright
  34 protected.  Can anyone help me to figure out which claim is correct?
  35 I have not been able to find Empty Socks in Catalog of copyright
  36 entries.  Ser.3 pt.12-13 v.9-12 1955-1958 Motion Pictures
  37 &lt;a href=&quot;http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/1955r.html#film&quot;&gt;available
  38 from the University of Pennsylvania&lt;/a&gt;, neither in
  39 &lt;a href=&quot;https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015084451130;page=root;view=image;size=100;seq=83;num=45&quot;&gt;page
  40 45 for the first half of 1955&lt;/a&gt;, nor in
  41 &lt;a href=&quot;https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015084451130;page=root;view=image;size=100;seq=175;num=119&quot;&gt;page
  42 119 for the second half of 1955&lt;/a&gt;.  It is of course possible that
  43 the renewal entry was left out of the printed catalog by mistake.  Is
  44 there some way to rule out this possibility?  Please help, and update
  45 the wikipedia page with your findings.
  46
  47 &lt;p&gt;As usual, if you use Bitcoin and want to show your support of my
  48 activities, please send Bitcoin donations to my address
  49 &lt;b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;bitcoin:15oWEoG9dUPovwmUL9KWAnYRtNJEkP1u1b&quot;&gt;15oWEoG9dUPovwmUL9KWAnYRtNJEkP1u1b&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/b&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
  50 </description>
  51         </item>
  52
  53         </channel>
  54 </rss>