Quote from: Bren_d on July 23, 2011, 05:36:52 PMIt does look good. This is not a criticism, why and when was it decided that we should omit the verse from Philip Larkin's MCMXIV?It didn't look right, plus the copyright owners couldn't be arsed to reply.
It does look good. This is not a criticism, why and when was it decided that we should omit the verse from Philip Larkin's MCMXIV?
Quote from: dave.woodhall on July 23, 2011, 05:40:55 PMQuote from: Bren_d on July 23, 2011, 05:36:52 PMIt does look good. This is not a criticism, why and when was it decided that we should omit the verse from Philip Larkin's MCMXIV?It didn't look right, plus the copyright owners couldn't be arsed to reply.Is it still under copyright? I thought there was a 60 year limit?
Wouldn't copyright not kick in from when it was first published, 1964 I think? That still takes us up to 2024 mind.
Quote from: Somniloquism on July 26, 2011, 02:47:34 PMQuote from: dave.woodhall on July 23, 2011, 05:40:55 PMQuote from: Bren_d on July 23, 2011, 05:36:52 PMIt does look good. This is not a criticism, why and when was it decided that we should omit the verse from Philip Larkin's MCMXIV?It didn't look right, plus the copyright owners couldn't be arsed to reply.Is it still under copyright? I thought there was a 60 year limit?He's not been dead that long.
Quote from: Bren_d on July 26, 2011, 03:36:14 PMWouldn't copyright not kick in from when it was first published, 1964 I think? That still takes us up to 2024 mind.It's 50 years from the author's death.