tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post7393790256042501442..comments2024-03-22T08:01:16.236-04:00Comments on Rebecca Tushnet's 43(B)log: Copyright and disproportionate effects on imagesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post-18429847310983339552012-07-19T14:04:48.428-04:002012-07-19T14:04:48.428-04:00Bruce: that was my assumption; remember also that ...Bruce: that was my assumption; remember also that the collective works rules made it essentially impossible for a contributor like a photographer to keep a separate copyright at that time, so one could proceed with pretty high confidence if the whole magazine was in the public domain.Rebecca Tushnethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17344226000864611148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post-23919683704220461912012-07-19T13:34:12.633-04:002012-07-19T13:34:12.633-04:00"Because of a small clause in copyright law, ..."Because of a small clause in copyright law, all the issues of Baseball Digest from before 1964 had fallen in the public domain..." I'm trying to reverse engineer this. 1964 is 28 years before automatic renewal, I take it that's the "small clause" referred to -- the magazine never renewed its copyrights; including, I guess, in the photographs although I'm not sure how you could be certain about that. But I suppose the question is not really what the law is, but what the Wikipedia editors believed it to be, and therefore did.Bruce Boydenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02247768315353108904noreply@blogger.com