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.
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.
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.
ReplyDelete1921-should be PD, I think.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, 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.
ReplyDelete