snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Moot Court

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 12 June 2013, 02:01 PM
Seaboe Muffinchucker's Avatar
Seaboe Muffinchucker Seaboe Muffinchucker is offline
 
Join Date: 30 June 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 18,263
Glasses

I still don't understand your resistance to asking for permission.

Seaboe
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 12 June 2013, 08:20 PM
htonl's Avatar
htonl htonl is offline
 
Join Date: 19 July 2006
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 1,640
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morwen Edhelwen View Post
Yay, this song is in public domain!
Bearing in mind that I am not a lawyer, and there may be some obscure loophole or something not accounted for in my description of the law.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 13 June 2013, 06:41 AM
Morwen Edhelwen's Avatar
Morwen Edhelwen Morwen Edhelwen is offline
 
 
Join Date: 24 April 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 160
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaboe Muffinchucker View Post
I still don't understand your resistance to asking for permission.

Seaboe
I would be fine with asking for permission if this song wasn't in public domain. In fact I'd be breaking the law if I didn't, not to mention disrespecting the composer. Due to this, I'm not quoting the still-copyrighted Berlin songs.

But I'll See You In C-U-B-A or Alexander's Ragtime Band? Those are PD, so you can use them without permission. If I don't need to ask, what's the point? This isn't a valid comparison since he's been dead for a lot longer, but Charles Dickens still has descendants. So does Jane Austen. Somehow I highly doubt people who quote Dickens or Austen in their books or write retellings of their books ask their relatives for permission to do that. Dozens of people do it.

But having said that I'd probably still ask just out of courtesy.

Last edited by Morwen Edhelwen; 13 June 2013 at 06:50 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 16 June 2013, 12:32 PM
DaGuyWitBluGlasses DaGuyWitBluGlasses is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2006
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 1,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morwen Edhelwen View Post
I would be fine with asking for permission if this song wasn't in public domain. In fact I'd be breaking the law if I didn't, not to mention disrespecting the composer. Due to this, I'm not quoting the still-copyrighted Berlin songs.
The song "Happy Birthday to You" still collects royalties, based on a 1935 arrangement.
The song itself, composed in 1893, printed in 1912.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 16 June 2013, 01:14 PM
htonl's Avatar
htonl htonl is offline
 
Join Date: 19 July 2006
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 1,640
Default

Which has just become the subject of a lawsuit claiming that Warner does not have the right to claim those royalties.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 17 June 2013, 02:24 AM
Morwen Edhelwen's Avatar
Morwen Edhelwen Morwen Edhelwen is offline
 
 
Join Date: 24 April 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 160
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaGuyWitBluGlasses View Post
The song "Happy Birthday to You" still collects royalties, based on a 1935 arrangement.
The song itself, composed in 1893, printed in 1912.
That's because if IIRC, the first publication of Happy Birthday was unauthorised. Happy Birthday is complex because there are two different sets of lyrics set to the same melody.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 17 June 2013, 02:38 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,514
Default

Well, that's what makes it controversial. That's not what makes it so long-lived. If it had been renewed correctly under the original authors it would still be protected by copyright without the 1935 agreement or the controversial history.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 17 June 2013, 03:02 AM
htonl's Avatar
htonl htonl is offline
 
Join Date: 19 July 2006
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 1,640
Default

If the pre-1923 publications were authorized, then renewals could not have extended the copyright term as far as today. Before the Act of 1976 renewal only gave an extra 28 years on top of the first 28 years, and there could only be one renewal.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 17 June 2013, 03:33 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,514
Default

This Hills could have renewed their 1934 copyright and it would have been protected under 1976, the 1935 copyright notwithstanding.
http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SC Republican Fiercely Opposes "North American Union" and the "Amero" Bohemian Rhapsody in Blue Sightings 13 31 May 2008 11:46 PM
"Winkie Chant" in "The Wizard of Oz" E. Q. Taft Entertainment 18 23 May 2008 12:57 AM
Origin of "the easy way" and "the hard way" robbiev Language 12 26 September 2007 05:21 AM
"Colors" "Box of Crayons" Glurge Capri Glurge Gallery 22 08 June 2007 08:14 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.