The four Tolkien children renewed copyright on LotR though, didn't they?

Tolkien's copyright is surely only determined from his death? I know works have new copyright notices but does this matter in respect to public domain?

garm wrote:
The four Tolkien children renewed copyright on LotR though, didn't they?

They had to, in order to preserve the original copyright.

From the US copyright law (which as we all know, only applies in the US): https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf

Works originally copyrighted between January 1, 1950, and
December 31, 1963. Copyrights in their first 28-year term on
January 1, 1978, still had to be renewed to be protected for
the second term. If a valid renewal registration was made
at the proper time, the second term will last for 67 years.
However, if renewal registration for these works was not
made within the statutory time limits, a copyright originally
secured between 1950 and 1963 expired on December 31 of
its 28th year, and protection was lost permanently

Looking at a recent copyright page for LOTR:


So the 1954 edition was renewed 28 years later (1982 and 1983), and the 1965/6 editions were renewed 1993/4 (again, 28 years later). As both editions were published before 1978, they fall into the (USA law) category of 28 years plus 67 year renewal, so 1954 edition falls into the public domain (in the USA) in 2049, and the second edition text falls into public domain in 2060.

Anything published after 1978 in the USA falls into the "author's death plus seventy years", which since I believe those are all joint authored by JRRT and someone else (usually Priscilla or Christopher) have no clock started yet. For the ones published by the Tolkien Trust (which is a corporation I think? as far as US copyright law is concerned) would be date of publication plus 120 years. If I understand all of this correctly.

I'm sure you're correct in respect to the posthumous material. And I suspect the formation of the Tolkien Trust probably had some copyright issue at its heart i.e. to maximize the copyright length.

In respect to the before-1978 rules of 95 years in the US: does this not mean that LotRs (first edition) will fall out of copyright in the UK (1973+70 years) before the US? That's quite ironic. (US would be 1st January 2050 btw.)

Khamûl wrote:
I'm sure you're correct in respect to the posthumous material. And I suspect the formation of the Tolkien Trust probably had some copyright issue at its heart i.e. to maximize the copyright length.

In respect to the before-1978 rules of 95 years in the US: does this not mean that LotRs (first edition) will fall out of copyright in the UK (1973+70 years) before the US? That's quite ironic. (US would be 1st January 2050 btw.)

I believe so, the UK will have it in public domain before the USA. We have Disney and/or Sonny Bono to thank for that...

And you are right, with the "round up to Jan 1 of next year", the 1954 edition becomes public domain in 2050 not 2049 like I stated above.

As Disney movies fall into public domain internationally but remain copyright in the USA, I have a feeling the corporate pressure on US copyright law will inevitably fall off, and hopefully everything can get simplified.

Urulöké wrote:
For the ones published by the Tolkien Trust (which is a corporation I think? as far as US copyright law is concerned) would be date of publication plus 120 years. If I understand all of this correctly.

I think the matter of how the Tolkien Estate is listed has no bearing here.

Most of the work published after 1978 is co-authored so it would be the 70 years after death. So not before 2090 in the case of The History of Middle-earth. The copyright of the 12 volumes shows copyright as The Tolkien Estate Limited and C. R. Tolkien. Comparing that to copyrights on academic releases for instance shows that the Estate holds copyright over text written by J. R. R. and notes and commentary are copyright to C. R. Tolkien.

So as I understand it. The 12 volumes are not yet counting down but work published years after them like The Fall of Arthur will fall into PD earlier but notes by Christopher will remain copyrighted.

That could all be barking of course, this question of copyright is totally insane. It is far too complicated.

Not The Tolkien Estate, but specifically the Tolkien Trust, which is a charitable organization that owns the copyright to many of Tolkien's works published after it was formed in 1977.

http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/The_Tolkien_Trust#Copyrights

I agree that we as lay-people will never unravel all of this, nor do I have any real vested interest in doing so. I would find it interesting to understand if A Northern Venture is now in the public domain in the USA, and how to treat unpublished letters, and other material that could actually be interesting to see!

Urulöké wrote:
Not The Tolkien Estate, but specifically the Tolkien Trust, which is a charitable organization that owns the copyright to many of Tolkien's works published after it was formed in 1977.

http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/The_Tolkien_Trust#Copyrights

I agree that we as lay-people will never unravel all of this, nor do I have any real vested interest in doing so. I would find it interesting to understand if A Northern Venture is now in the public domain in the USA, and how to treat unpublished letters, and other material that could actually be interesting to see!

Indeed, and in fact it is even more complicated in the case of Tolkien. The Fall of Arthur is copyright of The Tolkien Trust, The Tolkien Copyright Trust and C. R. Tolkien. The 3 volume (2002) HoME is copyrights to the Tolkien Copyright Trust and the paperbacks (black spines) are copyrighted to The Tolkien Estate and C. R. Tolkien. Even the 2015 reprints (paperbacks) are copyrighted to The Tolkien Estate.

A Northern Venture is PD in the US as I understand it and letters written before 1923 are also PD, naturally being PD means little if the owner has not published or made them available. That is the other factor. Letters, notes and other matter written/drawn before 1923 may well be PD but the owner is under no obligation to make them available so in the case of Tolkien much of the distinction makes no difference.