tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post4186359670193134429..comments2024-03-22T08:01:16.236-04:00Comments on Rebecca Tushnet's 43(B)log: What's wrong with this picture?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post-43574918750605393332011-12-05T19:44:51.599-05:002011-12-05T19:44:51.599-05:00Anonymous, Bruce is right--there's nothing wro...Anonymous, Bruce is right--there's nothing wrong in itself with being published in 1921. The trouble is the problematic copyright notice with a completely wrong date, which might have prevented it from having copyright ever.Rebecca Tushnethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17344226000864611148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post-43529765309799956742011-12-05T17:36:17.183-05:002011-12-05T17:36:17.183-05:001921-should be PD, I think.1921-should be PD, I think.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post-79465786506733481912011-11-18T12:59:34.550-05:002011-11-18T12:59:34.550-05:00Umm. Oops! It's possible copyright was not acq...Umm. Oops! It's possible copyright was not acquired at all due to a defective notice, although I've never looked into how the 1909 Act treated errors in the year of first publication.Bruce Boydenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02247768315353108904noreply@blogger.com