Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Really? I didn't know that! Thanks for the information. Wouldn't you agree, though, that to do so raises no end of purely practical issues? What does happen to someone who has started, quite legitimately, to use the work while it is in the public domain? Are they suddenly deemed to be in breech of copyright?
|
After a bit of searching I found a reference to this situation:
http://www.simkins.co.uk/Articles/nj...wsletter1.aspx
"The Regulations provide that where a copyright is revived, the copyright owner will not be entitled to prevent exploitation, but will be entitled to receive a royalty. This is an important distinction from the general provisions of copyright, which give the owner discretion as to whether or not he will allow exploitation of his work."
So yes, in breech, but could not be required to cease publication. I don't know whether a particular royalty rate was specified or not.
And to answer your question - yes, it was a very bad idea to revive copyrights.
The 1842 act had it about right. The longer of 42 years from publication or 7 years after the death of the author. It's all been going wrong since then!