Talk:Perpetual copyright

	This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from Copyright was copied or moved into Perpetual copyright with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This article needs expansion, maybe more info about history etc.? --Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs @880, i.e. 20:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This can't be right: the United Kingdom did not come into being until 1801. 31.52.198.186 (talk) 01:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Quite right, it was an act of the Parliament of Great Britain. It also has nothing to do with the Authorised Version of the bible - its any book donated to a university. I'll see if I can amend. Francis Davey (talk) 09:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Rights to publish the Authorised Version were jointly granted by the British Crown to both Cambridge and Oxford University Presses, both of which were beneficiaries of the perpetual copyright granted by the Copyright Act 1775 to "...the Two Universities in England, the Four Universities in Scotland, and the several colleges of Eton, Westminster, and Winchester to hold in Perpetuity their Copy Right in Books given to or bequeathed to the said Universities and Colleges". (The "hold in Perpetuity" part was done away with in 1988, but a 50 year transition period was implemented, so the effects of the 1775 act will continue to linger until the end of 2038.) Here's a link to some further discussion on this point complete with links to the original text of the 1775 act: http://the1709blog.blogspot.com/2011/09/perplexing-perpetual-protection-not.html Mike Agricola (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The concern is that concerns were raised elsewhere about whether the 2040 date was correct in respect of a specifc named work, the elsewhere being a Commons DR, Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:King James Bible where a contributor making a similar reasoning about the 2040 date (on Commons), reckoned that they or a particular source may have been in error about that particular expiry date.

This would seemingly need an expert to resolve. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, so there was a sentence that stated that opyleft licenses create a perpetual copyright because the content will never become public domain. This is Completely and 100% untrue. A copyleft license is a subset of a copyright license; it can still expire and become public domain under copyright law. --Matr1x-101${\displaystyle _{when-replying}^{Ping-me}}$ {_{user page @ commons} - ^talk - _contribs} 23:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)