On 7/16/05, James D. Forrester <james(a)jdforrester.org> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 16/07/05, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
[Snip]
IIRC
didn't King James I grant a perpetual copyright to Oxford for that
book?
It's very weird...
Basically, James VI (being a canny - and perpetually bankrupt - Scot)
wanted to get as much money out of the Authorised Version as he could,
when it first was published in 1611. So, he took a patent on it - an
early form of copyright - but arranged to have it vested in the Crown
not the monarch. (In other words, it passes down the generations).
Well, technically, the creation of the Authorised Version was considered
an act of the Crown, not the Throne, yes; the Crown being, like a
company, a entity separate from the incumbents, it is in continuous
existence (even during the Commonwealth years, legally), but is a person
not a body corporate: the Crown is a 'person' and is still 'alive' (and
has been since 1066). It owns the copyright, and the copyright will
continue to exist until 70 years after the Crown's 'death' (i.e., the
abolition of the British monarchy, if that comes) - the copyright is not
actually perpetual. This is, in its very own weird and warped way,
compatible with current copyright law. It just confuses Americans. :-)
Note also that the other commonly thought of British perpetual
copyright, of Peter Pan on behalf of Great Ormond Street Children's
Hospital, is also not a copyright, but a copyright-like right of
royalty. See the Copyrights, Designs And Patents Act 1988, section 301,
IIRC.
Forgive the floridness of my wording; just saw HIV Part the First last
night, with Part the Second following tonight. :-)
[Snip]
Yours,
- --
James D. Forrester