SCREEN-L Archives

July 1993

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Date:
Fri, 23 Jul 1993 10:44:39 EDT
In-Reply-To:
Message of Fri, 23 Jul 1993 09:14:04 EST from <KOS@CUNYVMS1>
Reply-To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (16 lines)
All law cases are governed by the facts of the specific case.  This
generalization points to the difficulty of comparing cases dealing with
such matters as underlying copyright.  The long delayed copyright law
revision only confounded the matter.
 
Music copyrights are particularly messy; who gets the royalties (if anyone)
depends on the particular circumstances.  WONDERFUL LIFE was likely not
copyright in its original version of 1946.  If it had been, it would still
be protected (because of the delay in the 1962-1978 copright law revision).
Was the music separately protected?  I doubt it unless the holder of the
original >>music<< copyright was particularly negligent.
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cal Pryluck, Radio-Television-Film, Temple University, Philadelphia
<[log in to unmask]>  <PRYLUCK@TEMPLEVM>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2