L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
I'll say it again: the fact that multiple books use it (without explanation or citation) does not make it right.
And as everyone else is saying to you, if you can establish (through actual evidence) a different date ...
then you'd have done a great thing! You would then be cited and feted as someone who has done good and serious research. You have not done that.
But I will try one last time.
The date is arbitrary. As you know, these copyrights were mass submitted in 1972. They were not contemporaneous with the actual publication dates.
If you're familiar with the topic you know that a selection of the 1st or the 15th indicates that the individual in question is most likely choosing a random date*; in addition, the actual retail practice back then means that this particular date, which fell on a Saturday, is certainly wrong.
Moreover, we can easily see that there are three copyrights submitted for three different products, in 1973, that all claim the exact same date. We further know that this is impossible, because contemporaneous evidence is that Chainmail. Dunkirk, and Alexander were released at different times.
So we know that this is an arbitrary and incorrect date that does not suffice as evidence of publication date.
Finally, while today we are used to the perpetual copyright, it wasn't always that way. From 1909 on it was a 28 year term, renewable once. 1971 is an important date (think Berne treaty), but long story short, it is and was common practice to affix a reasonable, but later, date of publication on a copyright registration, especially back then.
So long as it's not a knowingly bad date (years off, for example) it won't invalidate the registration. It's presumptively valid.
This gets into a slightly different issue w/r/t to the difference between copyright (creation), copyright (publication) and copyright (registration) dates, but the long story short is that the date chosen on the registration as a publication date will usually reflect a later date.**
As always, advise is what you pay for it, etc. etc.
*Weirdly enough, no one ever chooses the 30th!
**Absent a slightly different issue not relevant here.
Chainmail's application was signed by Lowry on Dec. 31, 1971.The date is arbitrary. As you know, these copyrights were mass submitted in 1972. They were not contemporaneous with the actual publication dates.
It almost certainly is not completely random. I would think it was an estimate of when one of the three products first went on sale, perhaps rounded to a half-month. The application states: "Give the complete date when copies of this particular edition were first placed on sale, sold, or publicly distributed."If you're familiar with the topic you know that a selection of the 1st or the 15th indicates that the individual in question is most likely choosing a random date*;
Hobby stores are open on Saturday, I would not assume that.in addition, the actual retail practice back then means that this particular date, which fell on a Saturday, is certainly wrong.
That is an assumption, and likely an incorrect assumption. There's no reason to think the date is completely arbitrary; the application spells out in plain English that the applicant is supposed to give the date the product was first sold.Moreover, we can easily see that there are three copyrights submitted for three different products, in 1973, that all claim the exact same date. We further know that this is impossible, because contemporaneous evidence is that Chainmail. Dunkirk, and Alexander were released at different times.
So we know that this is an arbitrary and incorrect date that does not suffice as evidence of publication date.
Chainmail's application was signed by Lowry on Dec. 31, 1971.
View attachment 115525
It almost certainly is not completely random. I would think it was an estimate of when one of the three products first went on sale, perhaps rounded to a half-month. The application states: "Give the complete date when copies of this particular edition were first placed on sale, sold, or publicly distributed."
View attachment 115526
Hobby stores are open on Saturday, I would not assume that.
That is an assumption, and likely an incorrect assumption. There's no reason to think the date is completely arbitrary; the application spells out in plain English that the applicant is supposed to give the date the product was first sold.
Those scans don't look made up to me. The directions that Lowry likely read that instruct him to "Give the complete date when copies of this particular edition were first placed on sale, sold, or publicly distributed" don't look made up. Lowkey may have some legal training, but by saying "the date is arbitrary," he makes it sound like Lowry rolled dice in deciding on May 15, 1971, and that was almost certainly not the case. Maybe Lowkey can clarify what he meant by "the date is arbitrary."Look man, you're just making stuff up.
Those scans don't look made up to me. The directions that Lowry likely read that instruct him to "Give the complete date when copies of this particular edition were first placed on sale, sold, or publicly distributed" don't look made up. Lowkey may have some legal training, but by saying "the date is arbitrary," he makes it sound like Lowry rolled dice in deciding on May 15, 1971, and that was almost certainly not the case. Maybe Lowkey can clarify what he meant by "the date is arbitrary."