Public Domain Images - What's the deal?

[Fast Learner]

The Happy Birthday To You story is clearly explained by Snopes:

http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.htm

It is copyrighted, and validly. The song that someone noted it was a copy of (Good Morning To You) was written by the same sisters, or is at least copyrighted by the same sisters (see the text).

The Happy Birthday copyright is valid until 2030, at least. Such is US law, modified in large part to protect Disney's copyright on Mickey Mouse. Ah, the wonderful world of Disney.

 

[Fast Learner]

Oh, and importantly, photos of classic works of art are usually copyright the photographer. Even straight-on "artistic judgement free" photos of paintings. As such, just because the subject is in the public domain, it doesn't necessarily mean you can use the image.

 

[atari]

Happy Birthday was not Copyrighted until 1935 IIRC, when it was published as part of a copyrighted compilation book. It doesn't matter when it was written. It is the date of copyright and first publication in its current form that determine expiration date. You can take a public domain item, modify it (unsure how much is required) and recopyright it as a derivitive work.

IANAL, but I have done a bit of research.

IAALS, and believe me i have done more research into this than anyone at snopes. there is *a lot* of misinformation online.

the 1935 copyright (they were actually registered in 34/5) is for an arrangement of the lyrics and the words. it was published as sheet music.

there are previous publications of the songs, and it does matter when it was written if it was by someone else.

you can take a public domain item, and if it is substantially modified to add new creative work to it, then you hold copyright on only the part that you added.

so if JBowtie might be willing to tell me what songbook from the 1920s he is referring to, that would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Fast Learner]

IAALS, and believe me i have done more research into this than anyone at snopes.

You've done more research on the history of the song Happy Birthday To You than the people at Snopes? Why? In what context? Are you familiar with Snopes?

Edited to add: Did you read the Snopes article? You know, the part where it points out that the copyright holders first came up with the melody in 1893? And the part where it talks about the 1924 songbook? Including the name of its editor?

You bet there's a lot of misinformation out there. I'm surprised your research didn't turn any of those things up.

Are you familiar with Snopes?

 

[atari]

You've done more research on the history of the song Happy Birthday To You than the people at Snopes? Why? In what context? Are you familiar with Snopes?

Edited to add: Did you read the Snopes article? You know, the part where it points out that the copyright holders first came up with the melody in 1893? And the part where it talks about the 1924 songbook? Including the name of its editor?

You bet there's a lot of misinformation out there. I'm surprised your research didn't turn any of those things up.

Are you familiar with Snopes?

ha. i am a law student. to reiterate, yes, i have done far more research than anyone at snopes. they also happen to have some misinformation about this on their site.

i'm not sure where i indicated that my research didn't turn these things up. in fact, i have copies of the 1893 original publication of the tune and the 1924 publication of the lyrics.

i'm still, however, looking for additional publications including the song, and that is why i am asking!

 

[pawsplay]

Oh, and importantly, photos of classic works of art are usually copyright the photographer. Even straight-on "artistic judgement free" photos of paintings. As such, just because the subject is in the public domain, it doesn't necessarily mean you can use the image.

This doesn't seem to jibe with Bridgeman v. Corel, cited above. Care to elaborate?

 

[paigeoliver]

I actually used some of the Kittelsen troll pictures. There is actually a ton of public domain fantasy artwork, and using nothing but that will give you a decidedly archaic style to your brand. However you run the risk of using all the same pictures as everyone else.

Thanks for your replies, evryone. Just to make sure Norwegian laws comply with international laws, I sent an email to a professor of Law at the University of Oslo today. Within half an hour he wrote back, telling me that copyright on paintings by Norwegian artists automatically expire 70 years after the artist's death. His heirs have no say in the matter.

Which means I can safely show you a couple of the paintings I'm considering using.

The first is P.N. Arbo's Valkyrie, the others are some of Th. Kittelsen's troll pictures.