From 406eb4ee4c7e46b5276c0892cf70f501a6c9423f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Petter Reinholdtsen Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 12:27:27 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] New post on Empty Socks. --- .../2017-12-05-opphavsrett-empty-socks.txt | 40 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+) create mode 100644 blog/data/2017-12-05-opphavsrett-empty-socks.txt 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 index 0000000000..3c9884678e --- /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 + +

Three years ago, a presumed lost animation film, +Empty Socks from +1927, 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 +my +reasoning to conclude 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 +blog post claiming the movie was already in the public domain, 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 +available +from the University of Pennsylvania, neither in +page +45 for the first half of 1955, nor in +page +119 for the second half of 1955. 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. + +

As usual, if you use Bitcoin and want to show your support of my +activities, please send Bitcoin donations to my address +15oWEoG9dUPovwmUL9KWAnYRtNJEkP1u1b.

-- 2.47.2