File talk:FantUnivNov54.jpg

Magazines File‑class

	This file is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
File	This file does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Doubts on copyright status[edit]

What story is the cover art for? The big feature by Algis Budrys? Wouldn't it count as a part of the story and thus potentially be included under the "[In human hands, and other contributions] By Algis Budrys" copyright renewal entry? Haukur 20:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also - what are these registrations all about? [1] Haukur 20:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a search for Schomburg: [2] He does have a number of registrations and renewals to his name. Haukur 21:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I know of the subject, no, Budrys would not get copyright. In fact the Schomburg's copyrights that show up in your later search indicate that wasn't the standard practice. I couldn't use your links -- I think there must be some state cookie info in them. However, I searched for Schomburg separately and found no 1954 copyrights in his listings. Mike Christie (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Budrys would get the copyright for the art - what I was wondering is if his registration of copyright for his story would be sufficient for Schomburg to get copyright for (what I assume is) an illustration to that story. I just don't really know how these registrations work or how specific they have to be. Haukur 08:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again I would have thought this unlkely, but I'm no expert. Is there somewhere on WP where this sort of question can be answered by experts? Mike Christie (talk) 11:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Well, you could try Godwin. Haukur 18:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine any court would hold that this image is a derivative work of the (apparently still copyrighted) story. The direct copyright would be held by "Fantastic Universe", which did not renew copyright for its artwork. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still think this is very shaky. I wish we had an expert. Haukur 12:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]