blog/data/2017-12-05-opphavsrett-empty-socks.txt

   1 Title: Is the short movie «Empty Socks» from 1927 in the public domain or not?
   2 Tags: english, freeculture, opphavsrett, video, verkidetfri
   3 Date: 2017-12-05 12:30
   4
   5 <p>Three years ago, a presumed lost animation film,
   6 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_Socks">Empty Socks from
   7 1927</a>, was discovered in the Norwegian National Library.  At the
   8 time it was discovered, it was generally assumed to be copyrighted by
   9 The Walt Disney Company, and I blogged about
  10 <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Opphavsretts_status_for__Empty_Socks__fra_1927_.html">my
  11 reasoning to conclude</a> that it would would enter the Norwegian
  12 equivalent of the public domain in 2053, based on my understanding of
  13 Norwegian Copyright Law.  But a few days ago, I came across
  14 <a href="http://www.toonzone.net/forums/threads/exposed-disneys-repurchase-of-oswald-the-rabbit-a-sham.4792291/">a
  15 blog post claiming the movie was already in the public domain</a>, at
  16 least in USA.  The reasoning is as follows: The film was released in
  17 November or Desember 1927 (sources disagree), and presumably
  18 registered its copyright that year.  At that time, right holders of
  19 movies registered by the copyright office received government
  20 protection for there work for 28 years.  After 28 years, the copyright
  21 had to be renewed if the wanted the government to protect it further.
  22 The blog post I found claim such renewal did not happen for this
  23 movie, and thus it entered the public domain in 1956.  Yet someone
  24 claim the copyright was renewed and the movie is still copyright
  25 protected.  Can anyone help me to figure out which claim is correct?
  26 I have not been able to find Empty Socks in Catalog of copyright
  27 entries.  Ser.3 pt.12-13 v.9-12 1955-1958 Motion Pictures
  28 <a href="http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/1955r.html#film">available
  29 from the University of Pennsylvania</a>, neither in
  30 <a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015084451130;page=root;view=image;size=100;seq=83;num=45">page
  31 45 for the first half of 1955</a>, nor in
  32 <a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015084451130;page=root;view=image;size=100;seq=175;num=119">page
  33 119 for the second half of 1955</a>.  It is of course possible that
  34 the renewal entry was left out of the printed catalog by mistake.  Is
  35 there some way to rule out this possibility?  Please help, and update
  36 the wikipedia page with your findings.
  37
  38 <p>As usual, if you use Bitcoin and want to show your support of my
  39 activities, please send Bitcoin donations to my address
  40 <b><a href="bitcoin:15oWEoG9dUPovwmUL9KWAnYRtNJEkP1u1b">15oWEoG9dUPovwmUL9KWAnYRtNJEkP1u1b</a></b>.</p>