Resumo

Licenza

Este trabalho está em domínio público porque foi publicado nos Estados Unidos entre 1929 e 1977, inclusive, sem um aviso de direitos autorais. A menos que seu autor esteja morto por vários anos, não é do domínio público nos países ou áreas que não se aplica a regra do curto prazo para as obras dos E.U.A, como o Canadá (50 apm), China (50 apm, com exceção de Hong Kong e Macau), Alemanha (70 apm), México (100 apm), Suíça (70 apm), e de outros países com tratados individuais. Veja esta página para mais explicações. العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ ไทย ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Esta obra está no dominio público xa que foi publicada nos Estados Unidos de América entre 1929 e 1963, e aínda que puidese ter ou non un aviso de dereitos de autoría, os dereitos non se renovaron. Agás que o autor leve falecido o período de tempo requirido, mantén os dereitos de autoría naqueles países que non aplican a regra do período máis curto para obras nos Estados Unidos, como o Canadá (70 pma), China continental (50 pma, non Hong Kong ou Macao), Alemaña (70 pma), México (100 pma), Suíza (70 pma), e outros países con tratados individuais. Vexa Commons:Hirtle chart para máis explicacións. العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ українська ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Additional source information: This is a publicity photo taken to promote a film actor. As stated by film production expert Eve Light Honthaner in The Complete Film Production Handbook, (Focal Press, 2001 p. 211.):

"Publicity photos have traditionally not been copyrighted. Since they are disseminated to the public, they are generally considered public domain, and therefore clearance by the studio that produced them is not necessary."

Nancy Wolff, includes a similar explanation:

"There is a vast body of photographs, including but not limited to publicity stills, that have no notice as to who may have created them." (The Professional Photographer's Legal Handbook By Nancy E. Wolff, Allworth Communications, 2007, p. 55.)

Film industry author Gerald Mast, in Film Study and the Copyright Law (1989) p. 87, writes:

"According to the old copyright act, such production stills were not automatically copyrighted as part of the film and required separate copyrights as photographic stills. The new copyright act similarly excludes the production still from automatic copyright but gives the film's copyright owner a five-year period in which to copyright the stills. Most studios have never bothered to copyright these stills because they were happy to see them pass into the public domain, to be used by as many people in as many publications as possible."

Kristin Thompson, committee chairperson of the Society for Cinema and Media Studies writes in the conclusion of a 1993 conference with cinema scholars and editors, that they "expressed the opinion that it is not necessary for authors to request permission to reproduce frame enlargements. . . [and] some trade presses that publish educational and scholarly film books also take the position that permission is not necessary for reproducing frame enlargements and publicity photographs."[1]