Forum Moderators: not2easy
My question is this: If a magazine is in the public domain, are the photos or advertisements contained in that magazine also in the public domain? I've tried to do a little research on this but so far all of the information I've found has treated the elements separately.
For example, various references discuss photos and their "date of publication". If they are published in a document on a certain date, is that the "date of publication"? Or would I have to try to track down the copyright holder of each individual photo to get permission?
Thanks for any assistance.
Eliz.
Regardless, if a publication is determined to be in the public domain, what about the photos and/or advertisements within it?
That, as said, is only my understanding. A quick search on your favourite search engine for "public domain" brings up a raft of useful information and advice.
Syzygy
Usual disclaimers apply; I am not a lawyer because I am not smart enough.This is not legal advice. Go consult a specialist. Anyone taking my advice would probably need their head examined in the first place ;-)
LOL - Syzygy
would I have to try to track down the copyright holder of each individual photo to get permission?
Magazines usually buy photos and articles for specific publication rights and the copyright is retained by the author.
In the case of advertisements the copyright is retained by the advertising company (depending on what arrangements are made for use of photos, illustrations, etc., between the company and artists).
You kind of answered Syzygy's question but not quite. So, to restate it, exactly why do you think that these publications are now in the public domain? That's the crux of the matter and we might be able to better guide you if you give us the basis for that assumption.
I'm even dumberer than Syzygy and don't even know how to pronounce lawyer. So, after having your head examined take a couple of aspirin and call a lawyer in the morning.
I believe that these publications are in the public domain because they were published before 1964 and based on my research the copyrights were not renewed. Or, some were published before 1989 and do not have a copyright notice at all.
...if a publication is determined to be in the public domain, what about the photos and/or advertisements within it?
It is the fact that a page from a publication - within the public domain - is being reproduced. The content within the page is quite irrelevant. It is not the ad/illustration/whatever itself that is specifically being reproduced - but a page upon which it once appeared.
Again - this is only my understanding/interpretation and it's offered here for the purpose of discussion only.
Syzygy
some were published before 1989 and do not have a copyright notice at all.
Can't hang your hat on that one, flyingpylon. Works are protected by copyright whether or not a notice is included.
Also, In all your research you'll have to be sure that copyrights weren't renewed by a successor corporation, estate, individual.
...published before 1989 and do not have a copyright notice at all.
Sorry, that was posted whilst I was typing.
I'm presuming then that one has clarified whether any that were published without copyright notices between 1978 & 1989 sought to renew copyright in the five year period after the implementation of the Berne Convention?
This is where it gets complicated - thus specialist advice is needed.
Syzygy
I have two additional questions related to all of this:
Where would one find a copyright "specialist"?
What information or techniques would they have that were not available to the average U.S. citizen?
Where would one find a copyright "specialist"?
What information or techniques would they have that were not available to the average U.S. citizen?
1/ You need a copyright/intellectual property lawyer, methinks (I'm in UK, so can only presume for USA). I doubt they're hard to find :-)
2/ Er, without trying to sound smart, you don't really need that answered...
Good luck with this. If you do seek proper advice, why not share some of what you learn here in this Forum. I can't speak for others here, but I would be really interested to learn more.
Syzygy
I believe that these publications are in the public domain because they were published before 1964 and based on my research the copyrights were not renewed. Or, some were published before 1989 and do not have a copyright notice at all.
I'm not a lawyer, but...
On the magazines, I think that just because the magazine's copyright has expired, doesn't mean that the content's copyright has expired. The publisher may not have renewed the copyright on the magazine, but the authors or photographers may have renewed their copyrights on their respective works. In which case, some of the contents might still be protected.
As for works published before March 1, 1989, a notice was required between 1978 and 1989. But, just because you have something without the notice does not mean that it is now public domain. There were exceptions. For example, if a photographer gave permission for his copyrighted photograph to be used, and the person or group using that photo failed to put a copyright notice on the piece, the photograph does not fall into the public domain. Also, certain materials published during that time, like postcards, did not require a notice. If only a small number of the items were printed without the notice, and the majority were published with a notice, the item does not fall into the public domain. If the copyright holder registered within five years a copyright on a work published without a notice and made a good faith effort to contact people that may have had copies of that work without the notice, the work does not fall into the public domain.
So, from just having a single item in your possession without a notice, you cannot be sure that it is in the public domain. You'd have to research the copyright status.
The same goes for the magazines published before 1964--you'll need to research whether the individual contents (articles, photos) are still protected.
If you want to know a good book that covers Public Domain issues, sticky me.
After much searching and hiring of lawyers we finally determined that while the magazine itself was PD, most of the stories, including the one I wanted to use, were not.. The original authors either maintained their status, or had the rights purchased by someone else.. We eventually dropped the project because the original author saw dollar signs from what he thought was a money bucket of a small game company.. A percentage of the gross sales would have been cool, but a million dolar signing bonus was simply out of the question..
If you want the material specifically on your site, that might take some negotiating, but could possibly be worked out.
the worst that can happen is that you'll get a cease and desist letter no?
especially if you published it with credit given to the mag, and with a disclaimer: this information is published under the yaddayadda act of 1492...
