To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

De Sylva v. Ballentine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

De Sylva v. Ballentine
Argued April 25–26, 1956
Decided June 11, 1956
Full case nameDe Sylva v. Ballentine
Citations351 U.S. 570 (more)
76 S. Ct. 974; 100 L. Ed. 1415; 109 U.S.P.Q. 431
Case history
PriorBallentine v. DeSylva, 226 F.2d 623 (9th Cir. 1955); cert. granted, 350 U.S. 931 (1956).
Holding
After the death of an author, the widow and children are eligible to renew copyright, equally as a class. Additionally, conditional on state laws, illegitimate children are also eligible for a share of the copyright.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas
Harold H. Burton · Tom C. Clark
Sherman Minton · John M. Harlan II
Case opinions
MajorityHarlan, joined by Warren, Reed, Frankfurter, Burton, Clark, Minton
ConcurrenceDouglas, joined by Black

De Sylva v. Ballentine, 351 U.S. 570 (1956), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held after the death of an author, the widow and children are eligible to renew copyright, equally as a class. Additionally, conditional on state laws, illegitimate children are also eligible for a share of the copyright.[1]

This extension to children and widows was not considered retroactive by courts, however. In Easton v. Universal Pictures Co., 288 N.Y.S. 2d 776 (1968), a 1951 document assigning control of a copyright from the author's family after his death was invalidated because "they had, in fact, as the law then appeared to be, nothing to assign." Another limitation to this new right of inheritance was that the family would not be eligible to renew the copyright if it had been passed permanently to another party,[2] which was in line with Fred Fisher Music Co. v. M. Witmark & Sons.[3]

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/2
    Views:
    1 522
    4 316
  • දරුවන්ගේ ප්‍රතිඵල ජීවිතයේ තෘප්තිය බවට පත් කරගත් ගුරුවරයා | Lakshantha Brian De Silva | Tutor Profile
  • আপনার জমির খাজনা সরকারি কোষাগারে কি ভাবে জমা হয়।

Transcription

References

  1. ^ De Sylva v. Ballentine, 351 U.S. 570 (1956).
  2. ^ Abraham L. Kaminstein. 71st Annual Report of the Register of Copyrights (PDF) (Report). United States Copyright Office. p. 13. Retrieved August 19, 2018.
  3. ^ Fred Fisher Music Co. v. M. Witmark & Sons, 318 U.S. 643 (1943).

External links


This page was last edited on 13 September 2023, at 02:05
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.