An author (or heirs) cannot put creative works in the public domain. There is nothing in the statute that allows this. Only after the expiration of the copyright does the work go into public domain.
Copyright stays with the author (or heirs) and is subject to license termination after 35 years. This would mean the declaration of "use freely" can be revoked. Which is why these works cannot treated as if they are in the public domain.
I am aware of a written work on which the author inscribed "Copyright (C) <year> <organization>" and as best I can tell <organization> was fictional, and thus incapable of enforcing any terms of the copyright. What is your opinion as to what would happen if someone attempted to claim that copyright?
Irrespective of what is printed on the artistic work, the copyright is automatic (from 1976 onward) and belongs to the author(s) or their heirs. If there is a question of ownership, a court would need to decide.
Organizations own work-for-hire, and to establish ownership, you would need to prove the non-existence of the organization (reverting the copyright to the author/heirs) or determine the beneficiaries of a possibly ephemeral organization.
Wrong.
An author (or heirs) cannot put creative works in the public domain. There is nothing in the statute that allows this. Only after the expiration of the copyright does the work go into public domain.
Copyright stays with the author (or heirs) and is subject to license termination after 35 years. This would mean the declaration of "use freely" can be revoked. Which is why these works cannot treated as if they are in the public domain.