There is a very simple test to determine whether the books are still within ambit of copyright protection.Find out if Del Carnegie is around. If the answer is Yes then the books still enjoy copyright protection.If the answer is NO then find out year of his passing away and to that add 70years. If the answer is not 2017 but less than that (the 2016 of before that) then the books are out of copyright.This is the case as copyright offers blanket protection. Law says life of an author plus 70years. This is irrespective of year of publication. An author may publish something in 2000 but if author expires in 2001 then protection will be 2001+70 years. That means that particular title gets only 71years of protection.But the same author may have also published another book in 1980. The law is still same, as a result protection for the title published in 1980 shall also run till 2071. Effectively providing 91 years.So you can figure it out yourself. One just needs to know if author is still around or is deceased. If deceased then year of death to that add 70 years. Answer gives you the year till which that author’s creations have copyright protection.Mind you copyright protection is available whether you as an author sell one copy or 1 million. Level of protection is SAME-law is blind , impartial, and unbiased.
Yes, it’s legal….if:They are your books, as in, you wrote them and haven’t assigned the rights to them to anyone else;orif you have assigned rights, you retained the right to publish them on your blog;oryou have permission ( a license) to do so from the copyright owner;orthe books WERE copyrighted, but the copyright has expired.It also MIGHT be legal (I’m not sure - consult an attorney who can do legal research on this point) if you lived in, and hosted your blog on computers located in countries that were not signatories to the Berne Convention on copyrights and didn’t follow its provisions for other reasons (such as membership in the WTO… which has provisions requiring each member country to respect the intellectual property rights of citizens of member countries) …. but I don’t know if there are any such countries. Not an easy thing to find in a 2 minute search. And it would be morally wrong, even if not illegal.In all other cases I can thing of, it would NOT be legal for you to do so.
A dictionary can certainly be copyrighted. There have been court decisions in many country to support this position. Dictionary is a reference tool and reference tools are not necessarily a public resource. A set of encyclopedia, for example, is a compendium of contributions from various experts. A good dictionary may require a committee of qualified linguists to convene and agree on definitions of each entry. The hard work that goes into it deserve copyright protection. The original 20-volume Oxford Dictionary, which is a lexicography of the English language, took decades to compile.It is true that some collections of facts are not copyrightable. One of the most cited example is a telephone book. There is a copyright doctrine called “sweat of brows” : a laborious compilation without ingenuity in its arrangement has no copyright protection. But this is because an alphabetical compilation of names and addresses is almost obvious. In the same way website containing information about plane ticket prices are not protected by copyright law.In Europe, there is a special sui generis database copyright. But it is limited to 15 years and the information must not be made available to the public.
How many years is a copy write inforced?
It varies, but in most countries it is 50-75 years after the author's death.
Yes, it would be a clear violation of copyright - you are using the work of others in a work that you are creating. That's the first question - "fair use" is a defense to infringement. Whether or not it's "fair use" (which has limited applicability in and of itself) is not a clear examination - it's a mult-factor test that is very fact-specific.Your best bet would be to work with some form of rights clearinghouse or clearance service to obtain the proper permissions from the rightsholders for your proposed use.For more actionable advice, you could (and should) review all of the details of your proposed use with a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction, who can provide a full analysis and actionable advice based on the entirety of the circumstances.
On this page you have the following (two are out of order, at bottom)information on publisher, Penguin Bookspicture of a penguinpublication history of this book , including ISBN of previous printing. An imprint is a division of Penguin that publishes a particular type of book“ISBN is the acronym for International Standard Book Number. This 10 or 13-digit number identifies a specific book, an edition of a book, or a book-like product (such as an audiobook). Since 1970 each published book has a unique ISBN. In 2007, assigned ISBNs changed from 10 digits to 13.”Explanation of the purpose of a copyright. This is esentially a plea by Penguin to respect copyright law and not disseminate illegal copies of the book.Trademark notification. Trademark law controls use of phrases and symbols which can’t be copyrighted, Penguin is informing you that something it used in this book is protected by trademark law.Info from Library of Congress. Copies of all books in print are given to the Library of Congress. This is how this one is filed. Includes the current ISBN number for this edition of the book.Print numbers. Lowest number visible is the edition. For example, in the third print run, the “1” and “2” would be missing. This is a first edition of this particular version of the book.CYA: This statement is meant to absolve Penguin of liability if the author included something offensive in the work. Also commonly seen is “This book is a work of fiction. Any similarity to persons or events is strictly coincidental”, which protects both publisher and author from libel suitsThese are there also, but out of order because I can’t see your picture while I type:copyright holder’s namecopyright info for any previously copyrighted text that is included in this book
Yes. Wikipedia articles are copyrighted by their authors. However, all Wikipedia text is freely licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), meaning that so long as you meet the license conditions, you have permission to use the content—even commercially! The most important conditions are obvious and implied in the name of the license: you need to attribute the content to its authors and "share alike" by licensing any derivative works under the same license. Note that images and other media are licensed separately. While many are also available under CC-BY-SA, some are public domain, some use other free licenses, and some aren't freely available but are used on Wikipedia under a strict interpretation of U.S. fair-use law. Watch out in particular for that last category, especially for commercial reuse or if you're outside the U.S.: the exception to copyright might not apply to you!Here's some useful further reading:Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia contentCreative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License(Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice, etc.)
How long does a photo copyright last?
According to the library of congress "the term of copyright for a particular work depends on several factors, including whether it has been published, and, if so, the date of first publication. As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. For works first published prior to 1978, the term will vary depending on several factors. To determine the length of copyright protection for a particular work, consult chapter 3 of the Copyright Act (title 17 of the United States Code). More information on the term of copyright can be found in Circular 15a, Duration of Copyright, and Circular 1, Copyright Basics. " in your case it was before 1978... find out who the photographer was, see if they still have the film...if they no longer exist, and/or they do not have it...you would be in violation of copyright, but no one would be around to enforce it. If your making a scrapbook or something to remember your mom by, then i wouldnt worry about it...your not making mass copies or selling them. It would be a heartless ba$t*% that would come after you for doing such a thing. again, its illegal for you to copy it without permission, but in your case, for personal use, it wouldn't be worth the money to go after you.
What are the copyright laws on newspaper articles?
Theres a difference between 'de jure' legality and 'practical' legality. In most cases, a newspaper publisher would not prosecute if you used only a small part of one publication in "fair use" - say for a school project, community newsletter etc. Just not for commercial advertising (monetary gains involved). If a service (other than associates/partners of the publisher) copies the newspaper article online word-for-word. That falls into a big legal gray area - are they "distributing" the material or merely making it avaliable, as a public library might do? The owners of the original material (the newspaper publisher) MAY have a case in this particular situation.