New post on Empty Socks.

diff --git a/blog/data/2017-12-05-opphavsrett-empty-socks.txt b/blog/data/2017-12-05-opphavsrett-empty-socks.txt
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..3c98846
--- /dev/null
+++ b/blog/data/2017-12-05-opphavsrett-empty-socks.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+Title: Is the short movie «Empty Socks» from 1927 in the public domain or not?
+Tags: english, freeculture, opphavsrett, video, verkidetfri
+Date: 2017-12-05 12:30
+
+<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>