You'll need to click on the tweet to read the whole story.
On June 3, 1888, the San Francisco Examiner buried a baseball poem on page 4, between the editorials and the weather.
— Echoes of War (@EchoesofWarYT) June 3, 2026
The author was so embarrassed by it that he refused to sign his real name. The byline just said "Phin."
He was reportedly paid five dollars. Nobody noticed it.… pic.twitter.com/uFfKpW0XVI
Here's what I want to know. The full tweet mentions that actor DeWolf Hopper, having once recited the famous "Casey" poem to thunderous applause, went on to "perform" it "more than 10,000 times over the next 47 years." If I understand "perform" correctly, Hopper got paid, and he got paid for reciting someone else's work. If I created a one-man show that used images and words I'd found online, I'd be hit with all sorts of copyright claims and lawsuits for using unoriginal material in a performance for which I was being paid. And rightly so! So my question is: How did Hopper get away with that for 47 years? I'd appreciate an answer deeper than, "Times were different back then."
It was never copyrighted, just published. Thayer would have had to enforced a copyright claim as soon as he realized that the poem took off. But for years he denied that he even wrote the poem. So Hopper built an act that is effectively using material in the public domain. You can't be sued for that. Lots of works are in the public domain now, including the original "Steamboat Willie" version of Mickey Mouse. They can be used, within limits, without fear of a a copyright claim. For example, anyone can write a novel using the character "Dracula." The copyright on the Stoker novel character has expired. But, if you wanted to make a film using the character "Dracula," you would need to get permission from Universal Pictures, because they maintain a copyright on that character that extends to film, but not the written word. Universal periodically makes movies to keep the copyright "alive" and showing it is still there property. There is an apocryphal story saying that when execs at Universal realized that their "classic monsters" (Dracula, Frankenstein, the Mummy, and the Wolf-man) were in danger of expiring they made a film quickly and released it to satisfy the legal requirements of holding the copyright. That film was "Van Helsing" with Hugh Jackman. It is a convoluted area. Made more complicated by image and likeness protections that have come about since the 1980s. So, even though Universal owns "Dracula" on film they no longer own the image of Bela Lugosi as "Dracula." This is to say that they can use the films they own starring Bela Lugosi however they want. But if they want to make new material - like t-shirts, or shot glasses, or animatronics for the new Universal theme park - and incorporate Dracula they have to either make the character look different or pay the Lugosi estate for licensing the image. (Universal has just elected to use different looks for the Count now.) If I remember, I'll show you an example of this that I have at home.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the detailed explanation. From what I understand from my own research into writing and publishing and creating in the US context, a work is automatically copyrighted the moment you finish it (lift your pen from the paper, stop typing, lift your stylus from the drawing pad, etc.). See here. However, the problem with simply saying "the work is automatically copyrighted" is that, if you have no proof of that fact, there's no evidence you can present in court should an unscrupulous person come along and steal/duplicate your work. In the case of this poem, there's a further wrinkle that both you and the tweet mention: The original author initially disowned his own work. I imagine that that adds a legal wrinkle to the proceedings.
DeleteAnyway, thanks for the deeper explanation. It makes sense.