How to research public domain art?
Eric Perlin
such as stationary, t shirts, etc. Of course, I know anything by centuries-old
masters is public domain, but what about other art, from the 20th century? For
example, let's say I want to design a stationary set using a painting of a horse
used in an obscure magazine ad in 1946. How can I find out if this particular
picture is still copyrighted or now in public domain?
I am aware that copyrights on certain old works have lapsed while others from
the same period have not. I just need to know how to find out which works have
lapsed and which have not.
zrad78j91
domain for lack of renewal would be determined by examining copyright
registration and renewal listings. Unfortunately, these listings have not
been collated, except for motion pictures. Your example of 1946 falls
within the 1923-1963 period, which is the period where works that were
copyrighted within that timespan remain under copyright, but only if the
copyrights were renewed. (This assumes works considered to be U.S. works
and which were indeed "published" (as defined by law) and copyrighted.)
It can happen that works can fall into the public domain for other reasons.
Among these: publication without copyright. One example of this is the
"Dispatch Photo" which was the subject of a the lawsuit Fritz Conner v. Mark
I, Inc. and April House, Inc., summarized (with photo) at
http://chart.copyrightdata.com/c03A.html#s133. Some magazines that were not
renewed are mentioned (with reproductions of photos) at the bottom of the
page of http://chart.copyrightdata.com/ch07.html.
You mention that you were interested in magazine ads. This is considered
"copymatter inserted on behalf of others" and thus you might want to look at
a page headlined "copyright doesn't cover matter inserted on behalf of
others": http://chart.copyrightdata.com/c02A.html#sc02A.1.
Yet another court decision determined that the "Chicago Picasso" sculpture
(if one wants to dignify Picasso's 3-D work by calling it "sculpture") had
lost whatever copyright protection it might have had owing to abandonment.
This decision is summarized at
http://chart.copyrightdata.com/c03A.html#s104. Abandonment joins
non-renewal and lack of separate registration has yet another reason for
post-1922 works being in the public domain.
A page on "researching copyright status" indicates how difficult this might
be. See http://chart.copyrightdata.com/ch17.html. There is a "collation"
of a sort in the log books of the Copyright Office at the Library of
Congress. These are organized in the order in which the registrations were
originally made (and thus not easy to find particular works in rapid
succession) and not easily accessible for most people.
(The email address I gave won't work unless you make an obvious deletion.)
"Eric Perlin" <eric...@SPAMSUCKSintergate.com> wrote in message
news:li97u293ubmn1ejah...@4ax.com...
Eric Perlin
Which is the most clear?
This house is not of God; for they do not there believe that the five
propositions are in Jansenius. Others: This house is of God; for in it there
are wrought strange miracles.
Which is the most clear?
Tu quid dicis? Dico quia propheta est. Nisi esset hic a Deo, non poterat
facere quidquam.[190]
835. In the Old Testament, when they will turn you from God. In the New,
when they will turn you from Jesus Christ. These are the occasions for
excluding particular miracles from belief. No others need be excluded.
Does it, therefore, follow that they would have the right to exclude all the
prophets who came to them? No; they would have sinned in not excluding those
who denied God, and would have sinned in excluding those who did not deny
God.
So soon, then, as we see a miracle, we must either assent to it or have
striking proofs to the contrary. We must see if it denies a God, or Jesus
Christ, or the Church.
836. There is a great difference between not being for Jesus Christ and
saying so, and not being for Jesus Christ and pretending to be so. The one
party can do miracles, not the others. For it is clear of the one party that
they are opposed to the truth, but not of the others; and thus miracles are
clearer.
837. That we must love one God only is a thing so evident that it does not
require miracles to prove it.
838. Jesus Christ performed miracles, then the apostles, and the first
saints in great number; because the prophecies not being yet accomplished,
but in the process of being accomplished by them, the miracles alone bore
witness to them. It was foretold that the Messiah should convert the
nations. How could this prophecy be fulfilled without the conversion of the
nations? And how could the nation