Copyright case

[David Blair]

Thanks Aaron for this information, it is really a help to hear this.

Taking the topic a bit sideways, I was wondering if any had experience 
with the following...

Movie magazine photos seem to have a 50 year copyright coverage. They 
are made by the photographer in the course of their daily duties, and so 
under the definition of Authorship [see ref below], the copyright 
belongs to the magazine. In the States we call this "work for hire". And 
in the description of Terms of Protection for such work [ref below], 
coverage is listed as 50 years.

However, the second paragraph of the terms of protection article [ref] 
must have been introduced in the renovations of the law, and is really 
confusing. It seems, quite vaguely, to indicate that if the photog comes 
forward anytime in the 50 years period and " makes public" the work, 
indicating his/her true name, than somehow the copyright shifts to 
him/her and the term of protection changes to the length of the photog's 
life + 50 years.

Is this true? Has anyone run into a fear factor, which taking the above 
literally would prevent republication of any material from any dead 
magazine from the birth of Japanese cinema onwards? Since you couldn't 
ever ID the anonymous photographers, and would never know if they had 
"made public" their name.

my references at the Copyright Research Information Center [CRIC] are:

Authorship [as Work for Corporation] [Copyright Law, Chapter 2, section 
2, article 15]
http://www.cric.or.jp/cric_e/clj/cl2_1.html#cl2_1+A15

and
Terms of Protection [] [Section 4, article 53]
http://www.cric.or.jp/cric_e/clj/cl2_2.html#cl2_2+S4


thanks,
David

-- 

==================

Waxweb [revised May 2006]:
http://www.waxweb.org  [see blog on site ]

The Telepathic Motion Picture of THE LOST TRIBES  [in 2007]:
http://www.telepathic-movie.org  [see blog on site] 

-------------------

David Blair
blair at telepathic-movie.org