Lawyers - How to find dispersion of assets after dissolution of business??

[ODB]

Let's say a company went out of business in 1970 and were dissolved by order of the court. At that time they held copyrights to works you are interested in.

Where do you start to try to find who, if anyone, bought those copyrights during liquidation?

 

[Poser]

I’m going to assume it’s a trademark or design , not a copyright since copyright applies to more intangible creations such as text, music, choreography etc. trademarks apply to likeness, patents to designs

Go to the US Patent and Trademark website, perform a trademark search. You’ll find the trademark owner info as well as contact info.

 

[Sherman]

If you are indeed looking for specific patents, depending on the type of patent, each patent must be renewed every 3.5, 7.5, or 11.5 years. If not renewed it allows competitors to take your ideas (patent) and pirate it for their own gain. Good luck.

 

[Gwchem]

It wouldn't be patents, because patents from the 70's would be expired.

 

[Bubblehide]

I hate these vaguely worded threads, they just leave way to much up to interpretation.

 

[ODB]

I’m going to assume it’s a trademark or design , not a copyright since copyright applies to more intangible creations such as text, music, choreography etc. trademarks apply to likeness, patents to designs

Go to the US Patent and Trademark website, perform a trademark search. You’ll find the trademark owner info as well as contact info.

Actually, it is a book copyright I am looking for. When it was published, the copyright page said: Copyright 1947 xxx company, incorporated. Not the author's name.

The xxx company was dissolved by court order in 1970. It is possible the copyrights were bought, but how the hell to find that out?

@Bubblehide Above is more info for you. presume since you opened the thread and commented you are a lawyer. I await your valuable information.

 

[Customweld]

I’m not a lawyer, and you probably have already looked. But maybe the copyright.gov website?

 

[ODB]

I’m not a lawyer, and you probably have already looked. But maybe the copyright.gov website?

Yes - no luck.

I am thinking it's an orphan copyright - but... due diligence...

 

[Customweld]

Yes - no luck.

I am thinking it's an orphan copyright - but... due diligence...

I figured you had probably already exhausted that avenue. Best of luck to you!

 

[Marbles]

Any luck finding subsequent editions or reprints? You have probably already tried that.

I'm not a lawyer, but for $800 an hour I can identify as one for 4.3651 hours. No more than that though, scared of the damage to my already deformed soul.

 

[ODB]

Any luck finding subsequent editions or reprints? You have probably already tried that.

I'm not a lawyer, but for $800 an hour I can identify as one for 4.3651 hours. No more than that though, scared of the damage to my already deformed soul.

Yes. And I have reached out to the publishers. They tell me they do not own the copyright and oddly enough do not know who does (it's been 20+ years since the last printing). They printed under their own impress - which leads me further to the conclusion it's an orphan copyright.

I am probably way over-thinking this - but the last thing I need is a call from a lawyer out of the blue...after all the work is done.

 

[EastHumboldt]

I’m not a lawyer, but I play one on TV, and I say go for it!

 

[Marbles]

Yes. And I have reached out to the publishers. They tell me they do not own the copyright and oddly enough do not know who does (it's been 20+ years since the last printing). They printed under their own impress - which leads me further to the conclusion it's an orphan copyright.

I am probably way over-thinking this - but the last thing I need is a call from a lawyer out of the blue...after all the work is done.

If making money is involved, I would say you are not overthinking it at all and it would be worth your time and money to consult a copyright attorney about what would constitute fair use or if the work would be in the public domain.

It sounds like the system is a mess regarding orphan works, assuming this report is up to date. https://www.copyright.gov/orphan/

Yep, still a mess in the US https://abj.artrepreneur.com/using-orphan-work/

Given the year of publication, without a copyright renewal I think the work is in the public domain. It sounds like the renewal would have had to be in the 28th year, so 1974, with the Library of Congress https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/renewals.html

Again, I probably have not told you anything you don't already know, and I could be wrong on all counts; but I can feel good pretending to have been helpful.

 

[Will_m]

Be cheaper now to pay a lawyer to tell you what you’re doing is okay than it would be to pay one later to try and tell a judge it’s okay.

 

[Poser]

If making money is involved, I would say you are not overthinking it at all and it would be worth your time and money to consult a copyright attorney about what would constitute fair use or if the work would be in the public domain.

It sounds like the system is a mess regarding orphan works, assuming this report is up to date. https://www.copyright.gov/orphan/

Yep, still a mess in the US https://abj.artrepreneur.com/using-orphan-work/

Given the year of publication, without a copyright renewal I think the work is in the public domain. It sounds like the renewal would have had to be in the 28th year, so 1974, with the Library of Congress https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/renewals.html

Again, I probably have not told you anything you don't already know, and I could be wrong on all counts; but I can feel good pretending to have been helpful.

This is correct. The copyright is subject to the pre 1976 Copyright Act. Copyrights from after this act took effect are the author’s life + 70 years with an additional 20 years for corporate copyrights (Disney bought a bunch of politicians).

The early stage works from the 1940s would have had to been manually renewed after 28 years or they enter public domain. There was even a Beatles copyright lost due to this archaic method. In all likelihood, it is public domain, but it may be difficult to verify.

There is a online renewal database for works from this era. I’m not sure how thorough it is, however: http://collections.stanford.edu/copyrightrenewals/bin/page?forward=home

 

[ODB]

Very much appreciate the comments fellas.

After a ridiculously late night working Boolean searches, I actually found an obscure newspaper article that mentioned who bought the assets!! That company is still in business, so I will reach out to them. It’s possible they only bought the physical assets due the nature of the business, but…progress!

Many thanks for the added info @Marbles and @Poser. I will hit those as I await response from the potential owner.

 

[Poser]

Very much appreciate the comments fellas.

After a ridiculously late night working Boolean searches, I actually found an obscure newspaper article that mentioned who bought the assets!! That company is still in business, so I will reach out to them. It’s possible they only bought the physical assets due the nature of the business, but…progress!

Many thanks for the added info @Marbles and @Poser. I will hit those as I await response from the potential owner.

Cool. I’d be interested for an update once you find out. I used to so some work in music copyright law BITD when I lived in nashville. It’s an interesting, complicated and vastly misunderstood subject. 2024 will begin to see the first significant wave of pop culture copyrights expire and enter public domain. Many Hank Williams songs, for example as well as a number of early rock n roll songs.

Seeing how such examples are held by corporate entities with deep pockets and vast influence these days, and given how these copyrights are still very profitable investment holdings, many experts expect to see a addendum that will further extend copyrights by another 20-50 years.

 

[ODB]

@Poser. Interesting stuff for sure. Thanks.

If it all comes together like I want I’ll definitely share the news since it does have a hunting angle. But will keep mum for now and hold thumbs things get that far! ;-)

 

[bertiebowin]

I agree that such vague topics cause more misunderstanding than specific answers. The topic of copyright, business, etc., requires the smallest details and nuances, because the final answer may depend on them. I wouldn't listen to ordinary people on the forum who give any answers, especially if they are not unambiguous. Instead, I suggest you turn to professionals, such as https://www.antonybatty.com. These are people who truly understand the smallest details of the business, and I am sure they will definitely give you the answer to your question.