▲ 259 points
back
150 comments
In case anyone is wondering, once again nothing will enter the public domain in the United States because of Congress' perpetual habit of retroactively extending copyright on works. The next time anything will enter the public domain in the US is January 1, 2019. source: https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday
As I've said before, insanely long copyright terms are one of the biggest modern cultural tragedies we face.
If things stay as they are (or get worse), I expect to see an interesting side effect for today's authors: the vast majority of people creating today--those who don't produce blockbuster franchises that ageless corporations can milk eternally--will be totally forgotten in fifty or a hundred year's time. And not forgotten in the "who is that, let me look it up" sense, but rather effectively not included in any meaningful records our children's children would access.
Why? Because long copyright prevents volunteers from remembering your work after you're dead.
That's not the case for centuries-old authors today. Thanks to the public domain, volunteers from all over the world at places like Project Gutenberg and Archive.org lovingly scan, transcribe, produce, catalog, store, and make available old works for today's generation to enjoy. Not just famous stuff like Dracula, but obscure works, works that were unpopular in their day, works that didn't matter then and maybe don't even matter now. The public domain makes this possible--it keeps the memory of authors alive, because as humans we instinctively know it's important to our culture.
But the work you produce today, unless it's highly profitable to a corporation, will be shackled by draconian laws and punishments for hundreds of years. Why should volunteers risk their freedom and treasure to transcribe your 150-year-old work still under copyright? They won't, and you and your work will be forgotten, while we keep re-using and sharing obscure writing from 1923.
"The real incentive here is for corporate owners that bought copyrights to lobby Congress for another 20 years of revenue—not for creators who will be long dead once this term extension takes hold."
"I thought it was a moral outrage. There wasn't anyone speaking out for the public interest."
- Sen. Hank Brown, the only Senator to be against extending copyright in the 90s. Shame there were not more like that.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/25...
As one of the saddest plots, look at the below article, showing the lack of availability of books from the middle of the 20th century.
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/the-mi...
They could always put their work in the public domain themselves. However I agree that copyright laws are now insane. Apart from the ridiculous length of the terms, it can be hard to work out if any particular work is public domain since not all author's death dates are known. I really think that if copyright has any reason to exist at all, then a term of 5 years would be sufficient.
Couldn't an author renounce copyright for certain works?
Perhaps if you want to be listed on those sites, you should do that before you die. Or your heirs can if they have no ongoing payments from that work any more.
totally forgotten in the US. The rest of the world can still enjoy old works. Also, volunteers can still scan, transcribe, produce, catalog, store old works without the world knowing it. The moment copyright expires, they can make it available (assuming you are allowed to do the first few things).
The Constitution calls for a limit. I argue that and time frame greater than the average life of a human is virtually unlimited. I doubt the intent if the Founding Fathers was for the limit to be an insane amount of time.
My expectations are that someday before January 1, 2019 there will be a new law reform to extend copyright another 20 years.
Steamboat Willie will never enter the public domain.
I think that politicians should just admit what they're doing, extend copyright only for Disney Corporation, and leave the rest to enter the public domain.
I thought the big value IP that Disney wants to protect from entering the public domain is Winnie the poo. The rights licensing on Winnie and friends is in the billions.
Out of curiosity, what would happen if a Canadian company were to make a movie based off of a book that has entered the public domain in Canada? Would they just not be able to release it in the US without obtaining a license?
Would a US based company be able to do the same if they only released it abroad?
Canada is negotiating with the US via TPP. Some precedent has been set in CETA and NAFTA. Public opinion could influence the outcome of TPP negotiations, as ACTA did.
CETA, Canada-EU: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2014/08/canada-shaped-copyright-r...
"Canadian reforms had an impact on the negotiations. Requirements to extend the term of copyright or create new rights for broadcasters and visual artists were removed from the draft text. Moreover, the digital lock rules and Internet service provider liability provisions were substantially re-written to better reflect the Canadian approach ... the “made-in-Canada” approach is gradually garnering increased attention around the world as a creative, viable alternative ... other countries have been considering adopting the Canadian model on issues such as Internet provider liability or the creation of user-generated content."
NAFTA, Canada-US-Mexico: http://www.barrysookman.com/2011/02/19/is-copyright-part-of-...
TPP, Canada-US-Mexico-Australia-New Zealand-Malaysia-Singapore-Japan-Vietnam-Brunei-Peru-Chile : http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2014/10/new-tpp-leak-canada-emerg...
"..the U.S. wants Canada to eviscerate many of the recent reforms found in copyright and counterfeiting legislation along with court rulings on patent protection. These demands focus on enhanced criminal liability for copyright infringement, eliminating the Canadian approach to Internet service provider liability, extending the term of copyright protection, and expanding patent protection. Canadian negotiators have thus far resisted many of the proposed changes, offering alternatives that are compatible with current law. Yet as the treaty negotiations continue, the pressure to cave to U.S. pressure will no doubt increase, raising serious concerns about whether the TPP will force the Canadian government to overhaul recently enacted legislation that it has steadfastly defended as reflecting a balanced, “made in Canada” approach."
I presume as you suggest the Canadian company couldn't release in the US without a license.
Not sure about a US company releasing abroad. The US copyright holder could probably argue they violated their copyright during production if the film was produced in the US. Then again if the filming was done in London but paid for by the US company they would be alright I guess? Popeye may be an interesting case as he's still copyright in the US but not most other places.
Or, rather, would enter the public domain, if only Congress were not to enact the next Mickey Mouse protection law. Look at this and weep: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Co...
This is absurd and puts a huge damper on creative work.
It seems like the work where a dedicated minority (who stand to collect royalties) pushes against an issue that mildly benefits the majority.
Taxi medallions were a similar phenomenon pre-Lyft and pre-Uber.
Do other countries with less draconian copyright laws gain an advantage?
I've often wondered whether Calder vs. Bull (which courts have long interpreted to mean that the Constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws applies only to 'vital interests' like liberty in criminal cases) isn't subject to an originalist attack.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&...
> The next time anything will enter the public domain in the US is January 1, 2019.
Right, because Congress surely won't extend terms again before that.
I didn't actually know about this. I wonder if this didn't happen and copyright had originally just lasted a persons lifetime if people would be less mad about copyright?
Frighteningly book sellers are also trashing a lot of books they are unable to sell at a profit. So when the laws change the books may not exist to be maintained.
Where is the copyright Uber who will republish some of these works, and take the arguably unconstitutional copyright extensions to court?
It's been to the Supreme Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft[1] and found constitutional, 7-2.
They're right, IMHO. Congress gets to set the terms of copyright, and it's "limited" so long as any particular Congress can allow it to expire at their pleasure. Don't like it? Elect a different Congress.
The courts are no better... they've yanked works out of the public domain and back into copyright captivity.
Somewhat off-topic, but: Piet Mondrian - A Dutch painter whose distinctive grid based creations – horizontal and vertical lines upon a white background adorned with red, blue and yellow blocks – proved one of the most influential experiments with abstraction of the 20th century.
I always thought of Mondrian's work as abstract until the first time I flew to the Netherlands. Dutch people really, really like flowers, and have made them a major agricultural export. Also, a lot of dutch land is reclaimed from the sea and the terrain is pretty flat to begin with. Fly into Schipol at the right time of year and Mondrian's inspiration becomes very obvious - black roads, snow-covered open fields, greenhouses with blocks of vivid color. In a flash, my concept of his work went from 'paintings' to 'pictures'.
Thank you!
In addition to this, I like considering things that should be entering the public domain. Using the initial copyright length of 14 years, renewable for an additional 14, anything published in 1987 should be entering the public domain in the upcoming year.
* Predator
* Robocop
* The Princess Bride
* Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency, by Douglas Adams
* Watchmen, by Alan Moore
* Hatchet, by Gary Paulsen
These should all be open cultural works, ready for new writers to use as a basis. Ready to be used as the backdrop for new stories. Instead, they are locked universes, only containing a small number of stories.
That analysis is based on the assumption that the copyright term from the first US copyright act from 1790 somehow got it right for all time, even for forms of expression that had not yet been invented, and even though the economics of production and copying might vastly change.
Can you justify that assumption?
If only. I'm not sure how one defines what the 'right' term is - some artists don't find their audience straight away, and it would be a shame if someone's work were to become wildly popular after years of obscurity, while the author languished in poverty with no way to legally benefit. So I'm not opposed to 'life of the author' terms for individual creators. On the other hand I see no reason why a dead author's survivors should enjoy the proceeds of both the estate (if any) and economic rents for an additional average human lifespan (ie the 70 years provision in the US and other jurisdictions).
Where a work is the creation of an artificial corporation - like a motion picture, which is almost never the sole creation or intellectual property of an individual - I feel a shorter term should apply. After all, a corporation enjoys full legal rights of contract etc. from the day of its 'birth,' and its 'needs' are highly attenuated compared to those of a person - typically a small annual fee to maintain registration and fulfillment of an obligation to file a tax return. Its commercial 'life' might therefore be thought of in terms of a business cycle or some standard established in law, like some multiple of the traditional 6-year laches term in equity law - a limitation on the time in which civil claims can be made.
There was an interesting case about this earlier this year, in which the Supreme Court held that the doctrine of laches did not apply in copyright claims, because the statute displaces it: http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/09/federal-supreme-holding....
...so anything like this would have to be put in place by Congress, which means the property interest of the general public with continue to come dead last for the foreseeable future.
The interesting part about Watchmen is that DC duped Moore out of the rights to the comics (and later made some pretty bad prequel comics), which deteriorated their relationship. You still hear him talk about it in interviews today. If I'm not mistaken a similar thing happened to the creator of batman. While public domain doesn't give Moore back his rights, I'm sure he'll rest a little easier knowing DC doesn't own his series anymore.
So create a new story. You can't copyright plot.
28 years isn't even long enough for the author to die. As a creator, I want to maintain my copyrights at least as long as I live.
I say go make your own backdrops, your own universe.
The French historian Marc Bloch is one of the ones who makes their runner's up list and deserves wider attention. He was shot by the Gestapo in 1944 and along with Fernand Braudel (who was himself a POW at the time) was the leader of the Annales School, arguably the most influential school of thought among professional historians.
About Saint-Exupery: his plane and chain bracelet have been found in 2004 in La Ciotat bay, so there is no serious doubt anymore about the exact date and place of his death.
Also, for France, Saint-Exupery's body of work will only enter the public domain in 2032. This is the result of a law that extends copyright in the special case when an author dies for their country.
Well, there goes their incentive to produce any new works.
Honestly why doesn't congress do something to encourage them to write more? They've obviously not written anything lately because there's no incentive!
The question is why don't we organize a campaign and get a bill introduced to shorten copyright law? Every year we lament how we should have more in the public domain without doing anything. I'm fairly sure somebody could come up with a catchy slogan or some cool perspective that would make voters hate their senator if they didn't pass that type of bill (copyright shortenting) Conceivably (and most likely), it might not pass on the first time. But basically all I hear here is whining, without any suggestions on how to fix it - possible laws yes, possible action plans no.
We need a couple of good opinion pieces on why copyright is bad, and maybe a couple of light-weight buzzfeed style articles that highlight what things we're missing out (so they can trend on facebook). You wouldn't believe #4...
I read the title and expected more tweaking of the US for how many years it's been since any writers' work has entered the public domain here.
So James Bond is in the public domain in Canada?
So, yes, it seems that James Bond has entered the public domain in Canada. I wonder, though, what kind of legal hammers would be brought down upon someone who tried to do any sort of adaptation or reproduction of the work in another medium. Could an animated adaptation of the novels (or even just an illustrated version) be made, and if so, what limitations would be in place (or what legal ramifications would need to be considered) given that in the US this material is NOT in the public domain, and would at least require licensing (I assume) to be distributed in the US?
It's Public Domain, but not really? :P (I'm from Canada, and I'd love to explore using some of these works creatively, but it's tough to unravel what is and isn't kosher).
Slightly OT, but related: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_I_Kill_You,_Mr._Bond
"In 2000, following a cease and desist order from Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, the game was taken out of print. It was reissued in 2004 as James Ernest's Totally Renamed Spy Game."
So is a bunch of Hemingway.
Interesting list, but sad that the US is once again missing.
Side note: the page is mostly unreadable in Chrome on my Nexus 5. The text runs past the edge of my screen and I can't zoom out.
Every December since the last 3 years we (SavoirsCom1, a collective advocating for cultural commons) publish a Public Domain Advent Calendar.
It's a fun way to anticipate and discover the works of the authors joining the public domain:
http://www.aventdudomainepublic.org/
(In French! But with names, links and pictures it should be useful and interesting to all)
When is Micky Mouse entering public domain? It has been for a long while.
Never.