Hacker News Reader

Comment by decode | Hacker News Reader

I assume you're referring to the rule that works from before 1923 are all in the public domain. Apparently the rule is all works that were copyrighted before 1923 are in the public domain.

A work is considered to have been copyrighted before 1923 if it was published:

* in an authorized publication

* in the United States

* before 1923

* and had a proper copyright notice

The sticking point here is that the purported owners of the copyright claim that the 1911 publication of Happy Birthday to You was unauthorized. Therefore, since the first authorized publication was in 1935, the copyright should run from that date.

http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2009/07/the-myth-of-th...

View on HN

I'm not a lawyer but what you say contradicts with the following source:

https://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

It clearly states that all works from before 1923 are all in the public domain.

I think the key here is the table heading is "Works Registered or First Published in the U.S", I assume they mean that the first publication is authorized.

I don't think so, it really is just registered or published. There are cases where the copyright notice matters, but they are handled with care in this listing.

The first footnote in your linked page contains a link to an explanation of the charts by their original author:

http://www.infotoday.com/searcher/sep12/Hirtle--When-Is-1923...

On this page, in section 4, "The myth of the pre-1923 public domain", there is an explanation about authorized publication:

"For publication to have occurred, the work must be issued with the authorization of the copyright owner. A “pirated” copy of a work published in 1922 without the copyright owner’s authorization is, for the purpose of copyright, considered to be unpublished. If a copyright owner subsequently authorized publication in, say, 1970, the work received a 95- year term starting on that date. Reproducing or otherwise using the 1922 work in a way that implicates one of the rights of copyright would infringe on the copyrights established by authorized publication in 1970."

It goes on to specifically reference Happy Birthday to You as an example of this principle.

This clears that up, thanks.

That makes the ruling even more interesting. If Warner doesn't own the copyright, they don't have standing to say the 1911 publication was unauthorized.

In order to argue that, wouldn't they have to show that they authored the song well before 1911, but didn't publish it, and that somebody else somehow found their unpublished song and stole it? Because otherwise, it sounds like the 1911 "Happy Birthday" is either an independent creation or else they took the song from the 1911 author.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com