- <div class="entry">
- <div class="title"><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Is_the_short_movie__Empty_Socks__from_1927_in_the_public_domain_or_not_.html">Is the short movie «Empty Socks» from 1927 in the public domain or not?</a></div>
- <div class="date"> 5th December 2017</div>
- <div class="body"><p>Three years ago, a presumed lost animation film,
-<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_Socks">Empty Socks from
-1927</a>, was discovered in the Norwegian National Library. At the
-time it was discovered, it was generally assumed to be copyrighted by
-The Walt Disney Company, and I blogged about
-<a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Opphavsretts_status_for__Empty_Socks__fra_1927_.html">my
-reasoning to conclude</a> that it would would enter the Norwegian
-equivalent of the public domain in 2053, based on my understanding of
-Norwegian Copyright Law. But a few days ago, I came across
-<a href="http://www.toonzone.net/forums/threads/exposed-disneys-repurchase-of-oswald-the-rabbit-a-sham.4792291/">a
-blog post claiming the movie was already in the public domain</a>, at
-least in USA. The reasoning is as follows: The film was released in
-November or Desember 1927 (sources disagree), and presumably
-registered its copyright that year. At that time, right holders of
-movies registered by the copyright office received government
-protection for there work for 28 years. After 28 years, the copyright
-had to be renewed if the wanted the government to protect it further.
-The blog post I found claim such renewal did not happen for this
-movie, and thus it entered the public domain in 1956. Yet someone
-claim the copyright was renewed and the movie is still copyright
-protected. Can anyone help me to figure out which claim is correct?
-I have not been able to find Empty Socks in Catalog of copyright
-entries. Ser.3 pt.12-13 v.9-12 1955-1958 Motion Pictures
-<a href="http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/1955r.html#film">available
-from the University of Pennsylvania</a>, neither in
-<a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015084451130;page=root;view=image;size=100;seq=83;num=45">page
-45 for the first half of 1955</a>, nor in
-<a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015084451130;page=root;view=image;size=100;seq=175;num=119">page
-119 for the second half of 1955</a>. It is of course possible that
-the renewal entry was left out of the printed catalog by mistake. Is
-there some way to rule out this possibility? Please help, and update
-the wikipedia page with your findings.
-
-<p>As usual, if you use Bitcoin and want to show your support of my
-activities, please send Bitcoin donations to my address
-<b><a href="bitcoin:15oWEoG9dUPovwmUL9KWAnYRtNJEkP1u1b">15oWEoG9dUPovwmUL9KWAnYRtNJEkP1u1b</a></b>.</p>
-</div>
- <div class="tags">
-
-
- Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/english">english</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/freeculture">freeculture</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/opphavsrett">opphavsrett</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/verkidetfri">verkidetfri</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/video">video</a>.
-
-
- </div>
- </div>
- <div class="padding"></div>
-