User talk:ThomasHorn7

Inductiveload— talk/contribs  23:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Go Big Red
Could you please indicate why this work is under a free licence. A 1962 work would generally not be free form copyright unless explicitly released by the author. Thank you Inductiveload— talk/contribs  23:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a school song, it isn't copyrighted by the school. ThomasHorn7 (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for posting on your user page, that will teach me to type directly in the address bar! Just because it is a school song doesn't mean that it isn't copyrighted by the author (Ted Skinner). In general, for most countries except the US, this is some number of years after the author's death, and 1962 is recent in copyright terms, so you'd be out of luck.
 * However, in the US, if it was published without a copyright notice between 1923 and 1977, you could use PD-US-no-notice. You would need to find the original publication to show this. If there was a notice, it was published from 1923–1963 and the copyright was not renewed, it can be PD-US-no-renewal. However, if it had a notice and was renewed, it it copyright until 1962+95=2057. Basically, you need to show that the original publication, whatever that was, had no copyright notice, or had one that was not renewed. Unfortunately, we cannot just assume that it falls into this category. Inductiveload— talk/contribs  01:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is generally sufficient to check all the available copyright renewal records and make sure it isn't there. However, this could be hard if the lyrics were first published with a notice in a work that we don't know the name of. For example, there was a lyric copyright renewed for a song called "Go Big Red" was renewed by "Dee" Drina Elizabeth Hairell. Having checked that page, it doesn't seem our 1962 song is there, which is good. However, we also don't have the original publication name, if any, so it could still be hiding in there. Sorry to be so annoying, a "free library" is hard to create in these copyright-crazy times. Inductiveload— talk/contribs  02:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Discussion can continue at Possible copyright violations. The page has been marked as a CV for now, which is normal while copyright issues are discussed. I'd like others' input on the issue as I believe it is OK, but don't have enough evidence to actually decide on a license myself. This doesn't mean it will be deleted (note the "possible" in "Possible copyright violations"), just that the status is uncertain. Cheers, Inductiveload— talk/contribs  02:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Quick note to say the work has been determined to be free of copyright though non-renewal and has been restored. Inductiveload— talk/contribs  16:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)