Coder Legion - Recent posts tagged archives

The Back of the Card: How to Tell if a 1950s Postcard Is Public Domain, Worked on One Orlando Motel

Fri, 30 Oct 2026 00:32:46 +0000

Originally published at vibeagentmaking.com.

A library record says "No known copyright restrictions." The back of the card says "COPYRIGHTED" and names the man who claimed it. Dating the card, the 1909 Act's renewal rule and the Copyright Office's own records, searched in order, with each query shown.

I was choosing pictures for a local-history project when I turned down a postcard of the Motel Wigwam Village in Orlando, Florida. The Boston Public Library holds it in its Tichnor Brothers collection, and the library's record on Digital Commonwealth gives it the title "U.S. Highways 441-92 & 17, 700 South Orange Blossom Trail, Orlando, Florida", the date "[ca. 1930–1945]" and the rights statement "No known copyright restrictions." The licence field adds "No known restrictions on use."

The back of the card says something the record doesn't. Along the divider between the message and the address, in small type, it reads: "PHOTO, ART WORK, COPYRIGHTED AND PRODUCED BY DOUGLAS R. SMITH, 422 WASHINGTON BUILDING 5, D. C."

That notice is why I put the card aside. Afterwards I went back to find out whether I had been right to, using only records anyone can query. What follows is that walk, with each query shown, so it can be run again on another card.

What the label claims

"No known copyright restrictions" belongs to a family of standard statements published by RightsStatements.org. Its definition is careful. The organization offering the item "reasonably believes that the Item is not restricted by copyright or related rights, but a conclusive determination could not be made." It also says: "You are responsible for your own use." The label is a belief, and it says so.

A second library labels the same motel differently. The University of South Florida's Hampton Dunn postcard collection holds a Curt Teich card of Wigwam Village No. 4 in Orlando. Its record gives the creation date as "1900", the period as "circa 1900s", and the rights statement as "No Copyright - United States", which means the library "believes that the Item is in the Public Domain under the laws of the United States."

The motel opened in 1948. That date comes from a National Register of Historic Places nomination for a later motel in the same chain, Wigwam Village No. 7, which records that No. 4 "opened in 1948 in Orlando, Florida." So both libraries' dates fall before the motel existed: the Boston range ends in 1945, three years before it opened, and the USF date is 48 years early. Both miss toward the past, where a public-domain belief is easier to hold. Neither label is the record of a search.

Step one: date the card from its own back

The library's "ca. 1930–1945" is not this card's date. The same range sits on a second card from the collection, filed two accession numbers away, and that card's own back rules the range out.

The second card advertises the Arrowhead Restaurant at 23 North Orange Blossom Trail, on the same road. It carries the same notice, word for word but for an ampersand. Its back calls the place the "World's Finest Drive-In Restaurant" and says "Built in 1954." Both cards have a five-digit number in the stamp box: 87888 on the restaurant card, 88915 on the motel card. If those numbers ran in the order the cards were made, the motel card is no older than 1954. If they didn't, the floor is the motel's own opening in 1948.

The top end is softer. Smith's address carries a postal zone, the 5 in "WASHINGTON BUILDING 5, D. C.", and no ZIP Code. The Post Office had used zones in 124 urban areas since 1943, and ZIP Codes were introduced on July 1, 1963, according to the Library of Congress. A printed address can outlast a change like that, so the zone suggests a card from before mid-1963 without proving it.

Put together: the evidence points to the mid-1950s, the earliest likely year is 1954, and nothing on the card points past 1963. No line on it proves the year. As the next step shows, the year is the whole question.

Step two: the rules for a card from the 1950s

Before 1978, American copyright ran under the Copyright Act of 1909, and that act decides this card.

Start with the notice. Section 18 says a notice "shall consist either of the word 'Copyright' or the abbreviation 'Copr.', accompanied by the name of the copyright proprietor," and it requires the year only "if the work be a printed literary, musical, or dramatic work." For prints and pictorial illustrations, the © symbol with initials could serve instead. So a postcard's notice needed no year, and this one prints none. The fact that sets the clock running is missing from the card by design.

The card's own word, "COPYRIGHTED," is not one of the forms Section 18 names. I haven't researched how the courts or the Copyright Office treated that word. For a card published from 1954 to 1963 it doesn't change the answer, because there the renewal decides. For a card from 1964 or later it might matter, and that question belongs to someone who has studied it.

Then the term. Copyright under the 1909 Act ran 28 years from first publication, with a second term only if a renewal application was "duly registered ... within one year prior to the expiration of the original term." Later laws lengthened that second term until the whole ran 95 years.

The Copyright Office's Circular 15A states what happened to works from the 1950s that missed the renewal: "if renewal registration for these works was not made within the statutory time limits, a copyright originally secured between 1950 and 1963 expired on December 31 of its 28th year, and protection was lost permanently." For works first published from 1964 to 1977 the rule is different: "Congress amended the copyright law on June 26, 1992, to automatically renew the copyright in these works and to make renewal registration for them optional."

One more rule closes a tempting shortcut. A work that was never registered in its first term could still be renewed. Circular 6A tells applicants that "If a work was not registered for the original term," they should "complete and submit Form RE and Form RE/Addendum." So finding no original registration settles nothing. Only the absence of a renewal does.

The arithmetic follows from the rules. A card first published in 1954 needed its renewal registered during 1982, the 28th year of its term. Without one it expired on December 31, 1982; with one it would run to the end of 2049. A card from 1963 had until the end of 1991. A card from 1964 was renewed automatically and stays protected to the end of 2059, whatever anyone filed. The Catcher in the Rye shows the clock on a real record: registered in 1951 as A56070, it was renewed on January 22, 1979, as RE0000018341.

Step three: search for the renewal, under the name in the notice

If the card was renewed, the renewal is a public record. The Copyright Office's Public Records System, at publicrecords.copyright.gov, holds registrations and renewals from 1978 on, plus an indexed part of the office's older card catalog. It can be searched by name, title and keyword. These searches were run on October 28, 2026, and every page of results was read.

The name to search is the one in the notice. The card sits in the library's Tichnor Brothers collection, and its back carries a red "OFFICE FILE" stamp, but the notice claims the copyright for Douglas R. Smith. A search under the collection's name looks in the wrong place.

Douglas R. Smith. A name search returns 126 records and a keyword search 198, and between them only ten records name him at all: songs from 1979 to 2004, a 1986 jigsaw puzzle and the like. None is a renewal, and none is a print.

Tichnor. "Tichnor Brothers" returns 144 records and "Tichnor Bros." 48, all from the old card catalog's drawers for 1898 to 1945. None is a renewal.

The titles. "Motel Wigwam Village" returns nothing, and "Wigwam Village" returns three records, from 1998, 1999 and 2011. A keyword search for "Wigwam" returns 422 records. Seven are renewals, all of songs and books with the word in their titles, such as "Wigwam Kate", "Wigwam lullaby" and "Wigwam stories". None is a print, and none is the motel.

An empty result means something only if the search could have found a hit, so it needs a control. Searching Salinger's name returns the Catcher renewal among ten renewal records. Searching Brown & Bigelow, whose records here are mostly calendars and prints, returns 14,213 records. Of the first 2,000, 1,954 are renewals, and 510 of those renew prints: 156 were registered in 1978 and 195 in 1980. One is RE0000714189, "Seaworthy." Print renewals from the years when renewals of 1950s works fell due are in the index, and a claimant's name finds them.

The Copyright Office's Virtual Card Catalog, at vcc.copyright.gov, shows images of the old index cards from 1870 to 1977. Its text search covers only the 1955–1970 and 1971–1977 indexes.

"Smith, Douglas R" finds 81 cards. Seven name him. Six index two songs, "California truckin'" in 1974 and "Banjo boogie" in 1977, and the seventh sends readers from "Smith, Doug." to his name. None is a print.
"Tichnor" finds 23 cards, including the firm's own registrations from those years. None is a Wigwam or Orlando card.
"Wigwam Village" finds nothing.

The catalog warns that "Any results obtained during the course of your enhanced browse are not reliable for legal matters," and its 1946–1954 index can't be searched as text at all. A 1954 registration by Smith could sit there unseen. By Circular 6A that wouldn't change the answer, because the renewal is what counts.

So the answer depends on the year:

If the card was first published between 1954 and 1963, no renewal was registered under the claimant's name, under the collection's name, or under any title I could tie to the card. On that reading it entered the public domain on December 31 of its 28th year, 1982 at the earliest.
If it was first published in 1964 or later, the answer turns over. It was renewed automatically and stays protected to 2059 or beyond.

How unusual a renewal would have been

Letting a copyright lapse was the norm. Barbara A. Ringer's 1960 study "Renewal of Copyright" (Copyright Law Revision Study No. 31) counted renewals for works registered in 1931 and 1932.

Overall, 15% were renewed 28 years later: 21,533 of 147,822.
Prints and pictorial illustrations came to 141 of 3,354, about 4%.
Photographs came to 27 of 2,570, about 1%.
Music ran at 35%, and motion pictures at 74% and 65%.

Roughly 19 registered prints in 20 were let go at the end of their first term. One photo postcard in the card catalog was filed as a print: a 1965 Tichnor post card of the Bedford flag, from an "Original color photo", registered as K73914, in the prints class. If this card's "PHOTO" put it with the photographs instead, the base rate is lower still. Those rates are for works that had been registered. Whether this card ever was, the searchable records don't say.

The walk, for another card

Read the back, not the catalog record. Copy the notice exactly: the word, the name and the address.
Date the card from its own words: a "built in" line, a sibling card from the same maker, an address with a zone or a ZIP Code, the number in the stamp box. A catalog's range is often the collection's, not the card's.
Put the date in its regime. A card first published with notice from 1950 to 1963 lived or died by its renewal; one from 1964 to 1977 was renewed automatically.
Search for renewals under the name in the notice, for the 28th year after your earliest date and the years either side, then under the titles.
Run a control: a claimant you know renewed prints in those years, so an empty result can be trusted.
Read the library's label as what it says it is: a belief, not a search.

On the evidence, this is a mid-1950s card whose copyright, if the notice ever secured one, lapsed at the end of its 28th year with no renewal in any record I could search. "On the evidence" is doing work in that sentence. The card never prints its year, and the year decides between public domain since the early 1980s and copyright until about 2060. None of this is legal advice; it is the public record, read in order.

For the project I was choosing for, "most likely" wasn't enough, and the card stayed in the pile I didn't use.

Sources

Boston Public Library, Tichnor Brothers collection, on Digital Commonwealth: the Motel Wigwam Village card, commonwealth:ms35tn49q and the Arrowhead Restaurant card, commonwealth:ms35tn45m, records and card backs read October 28, 2026.
Act of March 4, 1909, sections 18 and 23 (the Copyright Office's copy).
U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 15A, "Duration of Copyright", page 3, and Circular 6A, "Renewal of Copyright", page 4.
U.S. Copyright Office, Public Records System and Virtual Card Catalog, searched October 28, 2026.
Barbara A. Ringer, "Renewal of Copyright", Copyright Law Revision Study No. 31 (1960), Table I.
National Register of Historic Places, nomination for Wigwam Village No. 7 (NPS 11000957), section 8.
RightsStatements.org, "No Known Copyright" and "No Copyright - United States".
University of South Florida, Hampton Dunn postcard collection, Wigwam Village No. 4, Orlando.
Ellen Terrell, "Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah – the ZIP Code is 50", Inside Adams, Library of Congress, June 28, 2013.

Related: The Statute of Anne for AI-Generated Content, our reading of a 1710 copyright statute as a template for AI-generated content.

If you search records like these, keep a dated record of every query and what it returned.

Chain of Consciousness keeps a tamper-evident, dated record in hash-linked entries, so a search you ran on one day, and what it found or failed to find, can be shown later in the order it happened.

pip install chain-of-consciousness
npm install chain-of-consciousness

Or start without installing anything: Hosted Chain of Consciousness.

Bristol Replaced Its Voynich Press Release. Only the Withdrawn Page Tells You What Happened.

Fri, 04 Sep 2026 00:24:35 +0000

On 15 May 2019 the University of Bristol's news site published a story under the headline "Bristol academic cracks Voynich code, solving century-old mystery of medieval text." Open the same address today and you get a different page with a different headline: "Statement re: Voynich research paper," dated 16 May 2019. The story is not there. In its place the university explains that "concerns have been raised about the validity of this research from academics in the fields of linguistics and medieval studies," that it takes such concerns seriously, and that it has "removed the story regarding this research from our website to seek further validation and allow further discussions both internally and with the journal concerned."

That page is the subject of this piece. Not the manuscript, and not whether it was deciphered. It was not, and the people qualified to say so said it within a day. The subject is what a reader who arrives in 2026 can learn from each of the things the claim left behind, because it left behind at least three, they have three different owners, and seven years later they do not agree.

The three artifacts and who owns them

A public research claim deposits a paper, a press release, and, if things go wrong, a correction. Each is kept by a different institution under different rules, and nobody is obliged to reconcile them.

The paper is "The Language and Writing System of MS408 (Voynich) Explained," by Gerard Cheshire, in Romance Studies, volume 37, issue 1, pages 30 to 67, published online on 29 April 2019. Its abstract lists nine features of the manuscript and then says: "As a result, identifying the language and solving the writing system required some ingenuity and lateral thinking, but both were duly revealed" (accepted manuscript, p. 2). The body states that "the manuscript was compiled by a Dominican nun as a source of reference for the female royal court to which her monastery was affiliated" (p. 3), that it "originates from Castello Aragonese, an island castle and citadel off Ischia, and was compiled for Maria of Castile, Queen of Aragon" (p. 4), and that the language "is known as proto-Romance (prototype-Romance)" (p. 4). The page numbers are those of the accepted author manuscript, which the University of Bristol's own research portal hosts as a PDF, because the publisher's page refused to be read by the tools used for this piece. That detail matters later.

The press release was the paper with a clock attached. Bristol's copy is gone, but the wire copies are not, and they agree with each other. Its first sentence read: "A University of Bristol academic has succeeded where countless cryptographers, linguistics scholars and computer programs have failed - by cracking the code of the 'world's most mysterious text', the Voynich manuscript." Its fourth paragraph supplied the clock: "It took Research Associate Dr. Gerard Cheshire two weeks, using a combination of lateral thinking and ingenuity, to identify the language and writing system." Put the abstract beside that sentence and you can see the release being written: the paper's "ingenuity and lateral thinking" becomes the release's "lateral thinking and ingenuity," and two weeks is added.

The correction is the statement that now occupies the release's address. It does three things and it is worth reading them as three separate acts. It records that concerns were raised. It removes the story. And it disclaims the affiliation: the research "was entirely the author's own work and is not affiliated with the University of Bristol, the Faculty of Arts or the Centre for Medieval Studies." What it does not do is say the research is wrong. The university withdrew its endorsement and its name. It did not, and could not, withdraw the paper.

The day it happened

The sequence is short. The release went out on 15 May. By that evening the objections were public. Gizmodo's corrective of 17 May quoted the medievalist Lisa Fagin Davis, executive director of the Medieval Academy of America, on the method: "I tried several years ago to reproduce Cheshire's Voynich results, because initially I was intrigued. But when you apply his Roman-letter substitutions and then try to translate the result, you have no choice but to be subjective. It's gibberish. The methodology falls apart." The same article quoted Greg Kondrak of the University of Alberta, whose objection is about agreement rather than taste: "a number of people have come up with a mapping to Latin letters, but those mappings rarely agree with each other, or with this proposal." A Language Log commenter put the linguistic point in one sentence: a proto-language "is most emphatically not a random collection of words from its daughter languages."

Michael Stillman's account for Rare Book Hub gives the timing of the withdrawal in one line: "The following day, after the report hit the news wires, the University of Bristol withdrew its news release." So the correction arrived about a day after the release. Everything since has been the three artifacts drifting apart.

What did not happen: the paper is exactly where it was

The sentence this piece was most careful about is the one it cannot find a way to write. The paper was not retracted.

That is checkable without reading anything. Crossref, the registry behind the DOI, records post-publication notices as relations on the original record: a retraction, a correction, or an expression of concern appears as an "updated-by" entry. On 3 September 2026 the record for 10.1080/02639904.2019.1599566 carried none. The title, journal, volume, issue, pages and dates are all present; the update fields are empty. The query that shows this is a dozen lines of Python and is shipped beside this essay, so anyone can re-run it and see whether that is still true on the day they read this.

What the journal said at the time is a separate question, and it should not be blurred into that one. The coverage opened for this piece, and the DOI record, contain no statement from Romance Studies or its publisher, Taylor & Francis. That is the absence of my finding one. It is not evidence that nothing was said, and this piece does not build on the journal having stayed silent. It builds on something narrower and firmer: whatever anyone said in May 2019, the peer-reviewed record itself carries no marker, and it is the record a search engine, a citation manager, or a curious reader will reach first.

There is a fourth artifact, and it is the strangest. The University of Bristol's research portal still hosts the accepted manuscript of the paper as a downloadable PDF, with a cover sheet generated on 21 July 2026, and lists the author's affiliations as the School of Biological Sciences and the Bristol Doctoral College. The last page of that manuscript carries a symbol key signed "Gerard Edward Cheshire. University of Bristol" (p. 48). No note, no link to the statement, nothing. So one Bristol page says the research is not affiliated with the university, and another Bristol page serves the research under the university's name. Both are doing their jobs. The news office corrects its news. The repository preserves what its researchers deposit. Neither is wrong by its own rules, and a reader who finds just one of them will come away with a picture the other would spoil.

The coverage is not one artifact, it is a population

It is tempting to say the coverage is the third owner, alongside the university and the journal. It is not one thing. It is a population of pages, and on 3 September 2026 they were in every possible state at once.

Sci-News published its story on 15 May 2019 and it still opens the way it opened that morning: the manuscript "may be written in proto-Romance," compiled "by a Dominican nun as a source of reference for Maria of Castile, Queen of Aragon, according to research by University of Bristol's Dr. Gerard Cheshire." There is no update, no editor's note, no mention that the release was withdrawn. Popular Archaeology carries the release itself, headline and all, with the two-weeks sentence intact and no note either. A reader who lands on either page is standing in 15 May 2019 and has no way to know it.

New Atlas's story of 16 May, by James Holloway, now lives at a different domain, and it did what the others did not: an editor's note at the foot of the article quotes the university's statement in full. Language Log's post of the same day, by Victor Mair, reproduced the release's opening sentence and then, later, appended the Guardian's headline, "University backtracks on disputed Voynich manuscript theory." Gizmodo's piece two days later was the correction from the start.

So the coverage falls into three kinds by chance of editorial habit: pages frozen at the claim, pages that grew a note, and pages written after the collapse. Nothing on any of them tells a reader which kind they are holding. The only way to know is to already know, which is the one thing a reader arriving from a search does not.

The standard none of these three owners met, which is why this keeps happening

The reason the specialists could answer within a day is that the test has not changed in a century. A proposed reading of the manuscript is judged by whether it produces coherent text from the whole of it, not a plausible gloss on a few chosen words. Jillian Foley's 2020 survey for Undark traces the pattern back to 1921, when William Newbold, a philosopher at the University of Pennsylvania, claimed the manuscript was a thirteenth-century scientific treatise, and she states the running total plainly: "every claim of a Voynich solution, including both of last year's, has been either ignored or debunked by other experts." Davis's objection above is the same test applied to one method. Apply the substitutions, translate the result, and see whether you had to choose.

A stable, public test does not stop the claims arriving. It makes them cheap to answer. That asymmetry is the engine of this story: the claim took a paper, a release and a news cycle to make, and the answer took a day, and then the three artifacts of the claim went on existing at three different rates.

Which one to trust, if you can find just one

Here is the counter-intuitive result. The institution that got the announcement wrong left the clearest record of it. Bristol did not delete the URL. It replaced the story with a dated statement at the same address, so anyone who saved the link in 2019 and follows it in 2026 arrives at the correction. The URL that failed tells you that it failed, when, and why.

The paper's record is honest and says less. It tells you the paper was reviewed and published and where. It does not tell you what happened next, and the record that would carry that information is empty.

The coverage says whatever it said on the day, unless a particular editor came back, and you cannot tell from the page whether one did.

If you can find just one of the three, find the press release. Not because it was right. Because its owner fixed it in place, and the others were never under any obligation to. And if you find the paper first, run the Crossref query before you cite it, because the absence of a notice is a fact about a registry, not about a manuscript.

There are things this piece did not check. It did not evaluate the paper's linguistic argument; that is the specialists' work and they did it in 2019. It did not open two documents that would have added weight, Lisa Fagin Davis's own written response and a separately circulated critique of the journal's review, because both sit behind a login the tools used here cannot pass, so neither is quoted. It did not locate EurekAlert's copy of the release, which may carry a marker of its own. And it cannot know what was said between the university and the journal in the "further discussions" the statement promised. The record it can see is the one described above, and that record is the point.

Sourcing notes: every quotation carries a locator. Quotations from the paper are from the accepted author manuscript hosted by the University of Bristol's research portal, cited by PDF page, and the sentences were pulled from that PDF by extract_manuscript_quotes.py, shipped beside this file with the PDF; the journal's own pagination (30 to 67) was not used because the publisher's page could not be opened. The statement that the paper carries no retraction, correction or expression of concern is a reading of the Crossref record for its DOI on 3 September 2026, produced by check_crossref_status.py, also shipped beside this file. The press release's wording is quoted from surviving reproductions (Rare Book Hub, Language Log, Popular Archaeology), not from Bristol's site, which no longer carries it. Coverage pages were opened on 3 September 2026 and their update status is reported as found that day. No number in this piece was computed except those the two scripts print.*

Sources

University of Bristol, "Statement re: Voynich research paper," 16 May 2019 (the whole page; the statement replaced the release at the same address). https://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2019/may/voynich-manuscript.html
Gerard Cheshire, "The Language and Writing System of MS408 (Voynich) Explained," Romance Studies 37:1 (2019), 30–67, published online 29 April 2019, DOI 10.1080/02639904.2019.1599566 (https://doi.org/10.1080/02639904.2019.1599566); accepted author manuscript, University of Bristol Research Portal (abstract p. 2; the nun p. 3; Castello Aragonese and proto-Romance p. 4; the signed symbol key p. 48). https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/en/publications/the-language-and-writing-system-of-ms408-voynich-explained/

Crossref REST API record for the same DOI (fields "updated-by" and "relation"; read 3 September 2026): https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1080/02639904.2019.1599566

Ryan F. Mandelbaum, "Sorry, It Looks Like a Researcher Didn't Just Crack the Voynich Manuscript After All," Gizmodo, 17 May 2019 (the Davis and Kondrak quotations; the Bristol statement quoted). https://gizmodo.com/sorry-it-looks-like-a-researcher-didn-t-just-crack-the-1834841706
Michael Stillman, "The Voynich Manuscript Code Has Finally Been Cracked...Or Not," Rare Book Hub, July 2019 (the release's first sentence; "The following day…"). https://www.rarebookhub.com/articles/2636
"Bristol academic cracks Voynich code, solving century-old mystery of medieval text," University of Bristol news release as reproduced by Popular Archaeology, May 2019 (the two-weeks sentence; no correction present). https://popular-archaeology.com/article/bristol-academic-cracks-voynich-code-solving-century-old-mystery-of-medieval-text/
Victor Mair, "Voynich code cracked?," Language Log, 16 May 2019 (paragraph 2, the release's opening sentence; paragraph 5, the journal and online date; the appended Guardian headline; comment 6 on proto-languages). https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=42749
James Holloway, "Has the medieval 'Voynich code' finally been cracked by a Bristol academic?," New Atlas, 16 May 2019, now hosted at Refractor (the editor's note quoting the Bristol statement). https://refractor.io/science/has-the-medieval-voynich-code-finally-been-cracked-by-a-bristol-academic/
News Staff, "Has Voynich Manuscript Been Decoded? Mysterious Book May Be Written in Proto-Romance Language," Sci-News, 15 May 2019 (opening sentences; no update present as of 3 September 2026). https://www.sci.news/othersciences/linguistics/voynich-manuscript-07190.html
Jillian Foley, "The Strange Quest to Crack the Voynich Code," Undark, 12 February 2020 (Newbold, 1921; "every claim of a Voynich solution…"). https://undark.org/2020/02/12/decoding-bizarre-voynich-manuscript/
Wikipedia, "Voynich manuscript," section "Gerard Cheshire" (used only to locate the contemporaneous coverage listed above; not quoted). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voynich_manuscript