Discussion:
What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? New York
I copyrighted a song called "Sacred" in 1960 and registered it. In 1964 I copyrighted it again under my own publishing company and distributed it as sheet music (very little was sold). In 2002 I copyrighted the song again with form RE with the renewable matterial being the musical arrangement. In 2005 I copyrighted it again with form SR, because I added a bridge and changed a couple of lines of lyrics, I also arranged the song differently (this final copyright hasn't come back from the copyright office).
I sent the song out to publishers and a company is interested in the song and is sending me a contract. They asked when this track was made and I told them in 2004 (which it was). Will I have a problem with protection of my copyright due to the original registration?
Answer:
Will I have a problem with protection of my copyright due to the original registration? I guess you could potentially, because the copyright in the 2004 derivative work is a seperate copyright from the original 1960 work. In principle, you could sell the 2004 work, and then you could also sell the 1960 work to someone else, and you would have 2 different music publishing companies with the legal rights to very similar songs. That could get ugly.
But, from a practical standpoint, you have the power here. Since you have the power to sell the original work, and the original work isn't going to go into the public bomain for another 40 years or so, you probably don't have anything to worry about.
Of course, different facts might lead to a different conclusion -- but based on the facts as given, you probably have little to worry about.
You might want to talk to you publisher, and tell them about the original copyright, and offer to transfer or license those rights as well.
Answer:
I thought the 1960 song was in the public domain, since I copyrighted it in 1960 but never renewed it by the 28th Year. So I am concerned if there will be a problem in protecting the latest version of the song, which had much of the original embedded in it?
Answer:
I thought the 1960 song was in the public domain, since I copyrighted it in 1960 but never renewed it by the 28th Year. So I am concerned if there will be a problem in protecting the latest version of the song, which had much of the original embedded in it? No, some strange things happened with copyright law in the 1963 - 1978 time frame, one of which was to abandon the need to renew copyrights. Here is the current statute that covers your work:
§ 304. Duration of copyright: Subsisting copyrights
(a) Copyrights in Their First Term on January 1, 1978. —
(1)(A) Any copyright, in the first term of which is subsisting on January 1, 1978, shall endure for 28 years from the date it was originally secured.
(B) In the case of —
(i) any posthumous work or of any periodical, cyclopedic, or other composite work upon which the copyright was originally secured by the proprietor thereof, or
(ii) any work copyrighted by a corporate body (otherwise than as assignee or licensee of the individual author) or by an employer for whom such work is made for hire,
the proprietor of such copyright shall be entitled to a renewal and extension of the copyright in such work for the further term of 67 years.
(C) In the case of any other copyrighted work, including a contribution by an individual author to a periodical or to a cyclopedic or other composite work —
(i) the author of such work, if the author is still living,
(ii) the widow, widower, or children of the author, if the author is not living,
(iii) the author's executors, if such author, widow, widower, or children are not living, or
(iv) the author's next of kin, in the absence of a will of the author, shall be entitled to a renewal and extension of the copyright in such work for a further term of 67 years.
(2)(A) At the expiration of the original term of copyright in a work specified in paragraph (1)(B) of this subsection, the copyright shall endure for a renewed and extended further term of 67 years, which —
(i) if an application to register a claim to such further term has been made to the Copyright Office within 1 year before the expiration of the original term of copyright, and the claim is registered, shall vest, upon the beginning of such further term, in the proprietor of the copyright who is entitled to claim the renewal of copyright at the time the application is made; or
(ii) if no such application is made or the claim pursuant to such application is not registered, shall vest, upon the beginning of such further term, in the person or entity that was the proprietor of the copyright as of the last day of the original term of copyright.
(B) At the expiration of the original term of copyright in a work specified in paragraph (1)(C) of this subsection, the copyright shall endure for a renewed and extended further term of 67 years, which —
(i) if an application to register a claim to such further term has been made to the Copyright Office within 1 year before the expiration of the original term of copyright, and the claim is registered, shall vest, upon the beginning of such further term, in any person who is entitled under paragraph (1)(C) to the renewal and extension of the copyright at the time the application is made; or
(ii) if no such application is made or the claim pursuant to such application is not registered, shall vest, upon the beginning of such further term, in any person entitled under paragraph (1)(C), as of the last day of the original term of copyright, to the renewal and extension of the copyright. Basically, since your work was in its first term as of 1978 (1960 + 28 years = 1988), you are entitled, under 17 USC 304 above, to an addition 67 years after the end of your first 28 year term, of 95 years total from the date of publication. In other words, your original published work will not expire until Januray 1, 2056 -- so no need to rush, you've got plenty of time...
Answer:
The 17 USC 304 law actually has a footnote (6), which in a nutshell says that the copyrights secured before January 1, 1964, shall be governed by the provisions of section 304(a) of title 17, United States Code, as in effect on the day before...[enactment on June 26, 1992}...
So, the section 304 (a) as it existed before being replaced by the 1992 amendments states: That in default of the registration of such application for renewal and extention, the copyright in any work shall terminate at the expiration of the 28 years from the date copyright was originally secured.
This means that I have lost the copyright to the 1960 version and it is now in public domain. Will this be a problem for my subsequent derivitive copyrights which have a substantial amount of the 1960 song embedded in it?
Answer:
The 17 USC 304 law actually has a footnote (6), which in a nutshell says that the copyrights secured before January 1, 1964, shall be governed by the provisions of section 304(a) of title 17, United States Code, as in effect on the day before...[enactment on June 26, 1992}...
So, the section 304 (a) as it existed before being replaced by the 1992 amendments states: That in default of the registration of such application for renewal and extention, the copyright in any work shall terminate at the expiration of the 28 years from the date copyright was originally secured.
This means that I have lost the copyright to the 1960 version and it is now in public domain. Will this be a problem for my subsequent derivitive copyrights which have a substantial amount of the 1960 song embedded in it? You are misreading the statute. The only change to section 304(a) that occured with the Sonny Bono act was to change the duration from 47 years to 67 years. Your work is not in the public domain, unless you put it there yourself. The language of 304 above -- the 28 year term + 67 year renewal term -- is the correct duration for you work.
There rae some other parts of the act, relating to transfers to heirs and the like, that your 1960 work will potentially be subject to -- these are the parts of the act that Sonny Bono didn't change, and is what your paragraph above is talking about. But the part of your quote that you left out was that, even for the pre-1964 works, the original 47 year "second term" of the 1976 act is changed to a 67 year term with the Sonny Bono act.
You don't have to worry about the public domain here, period.
Answer:
Thanks for the replies.
I had called the copyright office and spoke to about 3 different people who all said that there was no copyright protection since the 28 years had elapsed without being renewed.
They finally put me in touch with an Examiner from the Renewals Section who also insisted that the 1960 song was not protected anymore and was in the public domain.
He was the one that told me of the above footnote #6 and faxed me section 304 of 17 USC as it appeared prior to its replacement by the 1992 amendments. Its last sentence is the governing reference to the expiration of copyrights which were in their first term on 1/1/1978 but which were not renewed.
So I am hoping your are right and the copyright office is wrong, for now I am very confused!
Answer:
Thanks for the replies.
I had called the copyright office and spoke to about 3 different people who all said that there was no copyright protection since the 28 years had elapsed without being renewed.
They finally put me in touch with an Examiner from the Renewals Section who also insisted that the 1960 song was not protected anymore and was in the public domain.
He was the one that told me of the above footnote #6 and faxed me section 304 of 17 USC as it appeared prior to its replacement by the 1992 amendments. Its last sentence is the governing reference to the expiration of copyrights which were in their first term on 1/1/1978 but which were not renewed.
So I am hoping your are right and the copyright office is wrong, for now I am very confused!
Actually, no reason for confusion -- I think the copyright office is right here, and I am the one that is wrong. I went back and looked at the old text of the law, and I agree with the copyright office that the original work will now be in the public domain. Sorry about the misadvice, I should have looked up the original language earlier. With all of the changes to copyright terms over the last few decades, it's not always easy to determine where you stand...
So back to your question -- the original work is now public domain -- that doesn't mean that the copyright in your current work isn't still valid -- it will remain valid until it expires -- but it does mean that anyone else can use the original work, and create their own derivative works from the original work. They can't copy your copyrighted derivative work, of course, but they can create there own.
Whether or not that will impact the market for your current song will depend on your publisher, I guess.
Again, I apologize for leading you astray earlier.
Finally, a sideline -- this type of thing is exactly why we have the extended copyright terms without renewal these days. When "It'sd a Wonderful Life" first came out, the movie studio had the movie copyright, and someone else held the copyright to the score. Well, the movie studio forgot to renew their copyright, but the music people didn't -- so the movie itself is in the public domain, while the score is still covered by copyright. Potentially, anyone could obtain a copy of the movie, write and record their own score, and they could publish their own version of the movie!