Autocar, May 8, 1931
1931 publications
Started by
Kvadrat
, May 10 2006 04:46
14 replies to this topic
#1
Kvadrat
-
- 982 posts
- Joined: August 01
Member
Posted 10 May 2006 - 04:46
Autocar, May 1, 1931
Autocar, May 8, 1931
Autocar, May 8, 1931
#3
Kvadrat
-
- 982 posts
- Joined: August 01
Member
Posted 10 May 2006 - 08:50
Autocar, May 22, 1931
Autocar, May 29, 1931
Autocar, May 29, 1931
#4
jarama
-
- 1,129 posts
- Joined: September 00
Member
Posted 10 May 2006 - 08:52
Fantastic stuff, Vladimir. Thankyou for sharing. 
Carles.
Carles.
#5
Tim Murray
-
- 24,605 posts
- Joined: May 02
Moderator
Posted 10 May 2006 - 11:13
Many thanks Vladimir - fascinating material. I take it that the C T Delany entered in a Lea Francis in the Double Twelve race is Tom.
#6
Kvadrat
-
- 982 posts
- Joined: August 01
Member
Posted 10 May 2006 - 13:05
You're welcome!
Does anyone have other publications from that year to share with us?
Does anyone have other publications from that year to share with us?
#7
David McKinney
-
- 14,156 posts
- Joined: November 00
Member
Posted 10 May 2006 - 14:14
I don't wish to be a wet blanket - but is there a copyright issue with these?
#8
Kvadrat
-
- 982 posts
- Joined: August 01
Member
Posted 10 May 2006 - 14:45
If you all decide that yes, I'll stop.
#9
David McKinney
-
- 14,156 posts
- Joined: November 00
Member
Posted 10 May 2006 - 15:11
Not my decision to make, Vladimir
I'm just raising the question
It would clearly be a breach of copyright for me to scan and post pages from the latest Autosport or Motor Sport - I'm just asking if the same rules apply to a 75-year-old publication
I'm just raising the question
It would clearly be a breach of copyright for me to scan and post pages from the latest Autosport or Motor Sport - I'm just asking if the same rules apply to a 75-year-old publication
#10
RTH
-
- 6,066 posts
- Joined: January 03
Member
Posted 10 May 2006 - 15:31
I know we have discussed this at great length in the past and had a variety of authoritive statements made. I am sure for at least some copyright, there is a 50 year expiration rule .
Only a few weeks ago Cliff Richard and others were to mount a campaign to have the law on copyright either altered or extended because some pop music royalties ( I do not recall whether it was songwriting, music, lyrics or the whole performance ) from the mid to late fifties were about to run out. So clearly it can run out even when the author is still alive. I heard no more as to what the outcome was. We do know there is no copyright for instance on Bach,Beethoven,Mozart etc.
It is all to easy to say everything is always protected for ever to err on the side of caution - I don't believe that is always true. I have yet to read a credible definitive clearly defined statement of hard law on the subject.
Only a few weeks ago Cliff Richard and others were to mount a campaign to have the law on copyright either altered or extended because some pop music royalties ( I do not recall whether it was songwriting, music, lyrics or the whole performance ) from the mid to late fifties were about to run out. So clearly it can run out even when the author is still alive. I heard no more as to what the outcome was. We do know there is no copyright for instance on Bach,Beethoven,Mozart etc.
It is all to easy to say everything is always protected for ever to err on the side of caution - I don't believe that is always true. I have yet to read a credible definitive clearly defined statement of hard law on the subject.
#12
Alan Cox
-
- 8,397 posts
- Joined: March 03
Member
Posted 10 May 2006 - 17:26
I seem to recall that the period of copyright for literary works was extended to 70 years to bring the UK in line with our comrades in Europe, which is why I found it odd that the copyright for music still appeared to be only 50 years.
If that is correct, 1931 publications would fall outside this "cut-off" anyway.
Can any legal eagle confirm the rights or wrongs of this recollection?
If that is correct, 1931 publications would fall outside this "cut-off" anyway.
Can any legal eagle confirm the rights or wrongs of this recollection?
#13
Alan Cox
-
- 8,397 posts
- Joined: March 03
Member
Posted 10 May 2006 - 22:02
Further to last post, I can confirm that, since September 1995 literary copyright lasts for the duration of the author's life, plus 70 years - previously it had been the author's life plus 50 years.
The publisher owns the typographical copyright, which lasts for 25 years.
Therefore, an author who has been dead for 70 years, but whose work has been published within the last 25 years, will still be in (typographical) copyright.
The publisher owns the typographical copyright, which lasts for 25 years.
Therefore, an author who has been dead for 70 years, but whose work has been published within the last 25 years, will still be in (typographical) copyright.
#14
Rob G
-
- 11,615 posts
- Joined: April 01
Member
Posted 11 May 2006 - 00:22
Thank you, Vladimir. Very interesting stuff. The Autocar didn't do historians any favors by not including people's first names, did they?
#15
Kvadrat
-
- 982 posts
- Joined: August 01
Member
Posted 11 May 2006 - 01:00
Originally posted by Alan Cox
Further to last post, I can confirm that, since September 1995 literary copyright lasts for the duration of the author's life, plus 70 years - previously it had been the author's life plus 50 years.
The publisher owns the typographical copyright, which lasts for 25 years.
Therefore, an author who has been dead for 70 years, but whose work has been published within the last 25 years, will still be in (typographical) copyright.
So can I go on?
