> The film was released in 1954; however, there was an error with the Roman numerals in the copyright notice showing "MCMXLIV" (1944), meaning the term of copyright started 10 years before the film was released.[8] Thus, the normal 28-year copyright term ended just 18 years after the film was released, and MGM neglected to renew it presumably because they believed there was still 10 years left in the term.[8] The film entered the public domain in the United States in 1972.
> The defendant attacks the plaintiff's case on three grounds: ... second, because the notice of copyright stated the year in Roman numerals, not Arabic ...
> Nor do I find any difficulty in deciding that Roman numerals conform to the notice prescribed by the statute. Roman numerals are a part of the language of this country. They are constantly in use upon monumental architecture of all sorts and for serial purposes upon books, and they are a part of the language as taught in the public schools, and understood by all but the most illiterate. Nor can one seriously contend that the notice required by the statute could be fulfilled only by Arabic numerals. If the letters were written out in words, it would certainly be a compliance. I regard the writing of it here in Roman numerals as more nearly a literal compliance with the statute than to write out the year in words.
> The film was released in 1954; however, there was an error with the Roman numerals in the copyright notice showing "MCMXLIV" (1944), meaning the term of copyright started 10 years before the film was released.[8] Thus, the normal 28-year copyright term ended just 18 years after the film was released, and MGM neglected to renew it presumably because they believed there was still 10 years left in the term.[8] The film entered the public domain in the United States in 1972.
In 1910 there was a court case on the legality of using Roman numerals in a copyright assignment. Stern et al. v. Jerome H. Remick & Co. https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/stern-v-jerome-h-894639394
> The defendant attacks the plaintiff's case on three grounds: ... second, because the notice of copyright stated the year in Roman numerals, not Arabic ...
> Nor do I find any difficulty in deciding that Roman numerals conform to the notice prescribed by the statute. Roman numerals are a part of the language of this country. They are constantly in use upon monumental architecture of all sorts and for serial purposes upon books, and they are a part of the language as taught in the public schools, and understood by all but the most illiterate. Nor can one seriously contend that the notice required by the statute could be fulfilled only by Arabic numerals. If the letters were written out in words, it would certainly be a compliance. I regard the writing of it here in Roman numerals as more nearly a literal compliance with the statute than to write out the year in words.
(The link I gave doesn't give the full quote. See https://archive.org/details/lawofmotionpictu0000froh/page/51... or https://archive.org/details/atreatiseonlawc00halegoog/page/n... for the continuation.)