All Copyrighted Works First Published In the US In 1923 Will Enter Public Domain On January 1st (smithsonianmag.com) 276
"At midnight on New Year's Eve, all works first published in the United States in 1923 will enter the public domain," reports Smithsonian Magazine. "It has been 21 years since the last mass expiration of copyright in the U.S.
"After January 1, any record label can issue a dubstep version of the 1923 hit 'Yes! We Have No Bananas,' any middle school can produce Theodore Pratt's stage adaptation of The Picture of Dorian Gray, and any historian can publish Winston Churchill's The World Crisis with her own extensive annotations." From the report: "The public domain has been frozen in time for 20 years, and we're reaching the 20-year thaw," says Jennifer Jenkins, director of Duke Law School's Center for the Study of the Public Domain. The release is unprecedented, and its impact on culture and creativity could be huge. We have never seen such a mass entry into the public domain in the digital age. The last one -- in 1998, when 1922 slipped its copyright bond -- predated Google. "We have shortchanged a generation," said Brewster Kahle, founder of the Internet Archive. "The 20th century is largely missing from the internet."
We can blame Mickey Mouse for the long wait. In 1998, Disney was one of the loudest in a choir of corporate voices advocating for longer copyright protections. At the time, all works published before January 1, 1978, were entitled to copyright protection for 75 years; all author's works published on or after that date were under copyright for the lifetime of the creator, plus 50 years. Steamboat Willie, featuring Mickey Mouse's first appearance on screen, in 1928, was set to enter the public domain in 2004. At the urging of Disney and others, Congress passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, named for the late singer, songwriter and California representative, adding 20 years to the copyright term. Mickey would be protected until 2024 -- and no copyrighted work would enter the public domain again until 2019, creating a bizarre 20-year hiatus between the release of works from 1922 and those from 1923.
"After January 1, any record label can issue a dubstep version of the 1923 hit 'Yes! We Have No Bananas,' any middle school can produce Theodore Pratt's stage adaptation of The Picture of Dorian Gray, and any historian can publish Winston Churchill's The World Crisis with her own extensive annotations." From the report: "The public domain has been frozen in time for 20 years, and we're reaching the 20-year thaw," says Jennifer Jenkins, director of Duke Law School's Center for the Study of the Public Domain. The release is unprecedented, and its impact on culture and creativity could be huge. We have never seen such a mass entry into the public domain in the digital age. The last one -- in 1998, when 1922 slipped its copyright bond -- predated Google. "We have shortchanged a generation," said Brewster Kahle, founder of the Internet Archive. "The 20th century is largely missing from the internet."
We can blame Mickey Mouse for the long wait. In 1998, Disney was one of the loudest in a choir of corporate voices advocating for longer copyright protections. At the time, all works published before January 1, 1978, were entitled to copyright protection for 75 years; all author's works published on or after that date were under copyright for the lifetime of the creator, plus 50 years. Steamboat Willie, featuring Mickey Mouse's first appearance on screen, in 1928, was set to enter the public domain in 2004. At the urging of Disney and others, Congress passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, named for the late singer, songwriter and California representative, adding 20 years to the copyright term. Mickey would be protected until 2024 -- and no copyrighted work would enter the public domain again until 2019, creating a bizarre 20-year hiatus between the release of works from 1922 and those from 1923.
There's still time (Score:3, Funny)
There's still time to pass another extension. All the usual delays of politics go *poof* when it comes to expiring copyright - usually presented as a suddenly appearing crisis that needs to be averted.
Re:There's still time (Score:5, Funny)
Nothing by Disney=no extension this year.
Re:There's still time (Score:4)
That's the nub of it. Wait and watch for lobbying from the mouse. It'll start a year or two, maybe even an election cycle before another of the mouse's properties look like coming up for PD. Give 'em credit, they take the long view - and they've got the deep pockets needed to advance a lobbying campaign over decades, or longer.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the congress has bigger fish to fry then copyright expansion. Being that 96 year old copyright works will be released.
Even for the media companies, these 90+ year IP that they own, pails to the threat that streaming and the internet has. Being that the populations average Nostalgia age starts at around 8-21 where new media heavily influences their place in society. There are very few people alive who hold a special place in their heart for these works, who would pay for them anyways. Putting them
Fiddling while Washington burns (Score:3)
I think the congress has bigger fish to fry then copyright expansion.
While certainly true I'm not convinced that will have any relevance to what they actually do. Congress is great about doing nothing about the big stuff (cutting the deficit, getting health care for everyone, overspending on the military, etc) but always seem to have time for pandering to narrow constituencies.
2024 for Steamboat Willie? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:2024 for Steamboat Willie? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm going to play devil's advocate here.
I have no problem with Disney's most popular characters NOT going into public domain. Disney actively exploits its brand. Good for them. They've kept Mickey Mouse alive for 90 years. They're not patent trolls sitting on copyrighted or patented stuff with the only objective of suing everyone who uses their brand or patent.
How does the world benefit from Mickey Mouse going into public domain? In no way. The world doesn't become a better place. If anything, all that happens is that Disney loses licensing money. Yes, disney IS an evil corporation, but this isn't the point here.
On the other hand, "abandonware", such as older games, SHOULD go into public domain because no one is exploiting them. If no one cares about them, why not release them? That's a good example of stuff going into public domain.
If the person or company who owns the copyright uses it, gives work to other people, and isn't being a dick about suing everyone for patent troll reasons, why take it away from them?
Re:2024 for Steamboat Willie? (Score:5, Informative)
The important thing to remember is that Disney already has a trademark on Mickey, and that will never expire. So it still stops people from producing new works with Mickey in them even if Steamboat Willie goes into the public domain. Haivng Steamboat Willie in the public domain only allows us to make copies of the original without getting autorization from Disney.
Re: (Score:3)
Does your analysis include the effects of Dastar v. Fox, 539 U.S. 23 (2003)?
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't protect them. Once the work goes into the public domain, you can probably take the original work and reproduce it verbatim even with the trademark character included. You probably can't make a NEW steamboat willie off-shoot with an identical character. You probably can make a steamboat willie off-shoot with a different "mouse" character (namely one that is missing the trademark 3-circle ears.)
Re: (Score:2)
I've been thinking that it might be best to make an exception for characters/properties still in use, or possibly even for Steamboat Willie in particular, than to let Disney continue to hold a world of material hostage for forever minus a day over one fucking cartoon.
That's not how copyright is supposed to work (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
the deal is that the government puts it's resources behind protecting your works (keep in mind, your tax dollars are paying for the courts Disney uses to enforce their copyright; more so if you consider how Disney dodges taxes like all major corps)
Disney pays the upfront legal fees and can sue for reimbursement. Unless you are talking about the costs to the actual court (paying a judge, etc.) Are you suggesting that we should switch to a business model where the court charges for it's use?
Re: (Score:3)
"In exchange for that your works eventually become public domain."
Well... your works become public domain either way since everything is public domain without copyright. But this way more of them will see the light of day and more will be produced.
The idea isn't to let Disney profit as long as possible, the idea is let the creator profit the minimum amount of time required to keep new works getting created and shared.
Disney should not have eternal protection (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no problem with Disney's most popular characters NOT going into public domain.
Really? You should. Copyright should not be some eternal thing. They should have to keep inventing new works instead of milking work done by people who have been dead and buried for decades.
Disney actively exploits its brand.
So what? Disney has made a killing off of taking public domain works and making proprietary versions of them. Should work the other way around too. They've had 90 years to do something interesting/useful/valuable with it. Time to let others work on it.
How does the world benefit from Mickey Mouse going into public domain? In no way.
Completely wrong. Disney itself is a perfect example of what could happen. They take public domain works (pretty much 90% of their classic animated movies) and do interesting renditions of them that have huge economic and cultural value. Lots of creative works that you cannot even envision could be brought to life that cannot now. Disney's had a good run but if someone has an interesting take on their oldest work then they should be able to make a go of it. Disney shouldn't enjoy some special status not available to anyone else and the ENTIRE point of copyright and patents is that they provide TEMPORARY protection.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? You should. Copyright should not be some eternal thing. They should have to keep inventing new works instead of milking work done by people who have been dead and buried for decades
While I agree that copyrights should not be eternal, your justification for why it's wrong is flawed and a slippery slope unless you think we should get rid of inheritances all together. Also, if the person who made it is alive, are you saying that it should not be allowed to enter the public domain?
How do you define who made something, when talking about products made under funding of a corporation?
Re: (Score:2)
unless you think we should get rid of inheritances all together
Yeah, that's exactly the point here to a degree. Each person should strive to make great the world that they are given and in aggregate that means each generation approaches the world with the intent to move upward. All that's being done is a bunch of people sitting on their lazy butts not contributing anything additional, but just rehashes of what has already come before. Just more of the same old thing.
your justification for why it's wrong is flawed and a slippery slope
You're sort of right in that it is a slippy slope, if people in general are complete idiots. But re
Re: (Score:2)
"your justification for why it's wrong is flawed and a slippery slope unless you think we should get rid of inheritances all together."
A slippery slope is a type of fallacy. I have no idea if that is the belief of the parent but as it happens, getting rid of inheritances makes perfect sense. Even if you disagree there is a very big difference between the Disney corporation and the creators.
"Also, if the person who made it is alive, are you saying that it should not be allowed to enter the public domain?"
If
Re:Disney should not have eternal protection (Score:5, Informative)
While I agree that copyrights should not be eternal, your justification for why it's wrong is flawed and a slippery slope unless you think we should get rid of inheritances all together.
Inheritance isn't even close to the same thing. As a scarce resource, for an inheritance to bring you any benefit you have to choose to either spend it or invest it. To the extent that you spend it, it isn't eternal—you're using it up. On the other hand, if you invest it then any returns you receive are the product of that investment, which is your own new contribution. Just stuffing your inheritance in a mattress and sitting on it won't do you any good in the current inflationary economy, despite the fact that even that would benefit others indirectly since you are choosing not to bid up prices for goods they want to buy.
Copyright by contrast isn't a scarce material good and can't be "used up" no matter how many copies are made. The copyright holder's revenue is derived purely from artificial restrictions which copyright law places on others to prevent them from providing themselves with new copies of existing works, which they could otherwise do on their own without any cost to the creator or copyright holder.
If a creator wants to save what they've earned from their labor of creating and publishing new works and eventually give those savings as a gift to their children (or anyone else), there is no problem with that. Anyone who receives income is free to make that choice. The issue here is not the ongoing benefit to copyright holders but rather the ongoing burden which copyright imposes on the rest of society.
Frankly, if you're going to attack people for copying something you created then I believe we'd all be better off if you just kept it to yourself, or at least only shared it with people who explicitly opted in to your terms (with recourse limited to those who actually agreed to the terms if they should happen to be broken, as with any other contract). The concept that you would be permitted to impose restrictions on everyone else through a unilateral act of publication is insane.
Re: (Score:3)
That is why there is a clause specifically for works for hire. If "products [are] made under funding of a corporation" the copyright is a fixed 75 years. As an example, a corporation could hire a 2 year old to produce a work of art. That creator could live to 80 and the work would be in the public domain for the last few years of their life.
If you want to talk about slippery slopes, do you think it would be ok for Shakespeare's heirs to still be profiting from his works (and getting to decide who and when t
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
"If new works are still being created around those characters, why shouldn't someone still be able to retain the characters under copyright?"
Because copyright isn't a right, it is a trade. The public has a right to their side of the contract and who knows what would be produced at this point if those characters were made available. There are plenty of other companies with logos based on things in the public domain.
Re: (Score:2)
Disney characters are under trademark so others can't use those characters to create new original works. Trademarks last for as long as they are defended.
Copyright applies to a particular work of art. So you can't make a new work of art using Mickey Mouse (as an example) but if Steamboat Willie were in the public domain you could copy, download, sell, etc. that particular film featuring Mickey Mouse.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem isn't Mickey Mouse per se. It's that in order to defend Mickey Mouse, Disney is keeping everything out of the public domain.
Re: (Score:3)
Then my idea of "use it or lose it" is the best for all. Disney, and everyone else, can keep their copyright if they keep their work alive. If a company has the rights for a book they haven't published in 50 years... tough shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Like I said: use it or lose it. If you've been sitting on an old game for 20-30 years maybe it's time to give it away.
Re:2024 for Steamboat Willie? (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is who defines what's abandoned?
Simple, just charge the copyright owner some amount of money every year (after a reasonable initial period; the original period of 28 years seems to be pretty well received) to keep the work protected. Once they stop paying, the work becomes public domain.
Re: (Score:2)
"How does the world benefit from Mickey Mouse going into public domain? In no way."
False. Children love the mickey mouse character and all sorts of new art, animation, etc can then be made and exist. The public domain is the default that exists if we hadn't created a copyright law to give (now long dead) creators like Disney a limited government granted control over an idea on a temporary basis as a reward for publicizing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, they can do porn parodies without copyright expiring.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're asking the question the wrong way. Steamboat Willie, unlike a person, is not innocent until proven guilty. Quite the opposite. Why should my tax-payer dollars waste expensive court time to enforce censorship on a 95 year old work of fiction to "promote progress of the useful arts and sciences"?
And that's the crux of another matter. Most intellectual property isn't used to collect fair and equitable royalties. 9 times out of 10 it's being used to censor information in a war against competitors an
Re: (Score:2)
> If the person or company who owns the copyright uses it, gives work to other people, and isn't being a dick about suing everyone for patent troll reasons, why take it away from them?
Because copyright is not a "natural" inalienable right. Artificial censorship was never a right to begin with. Some argue censorship shouldn't even exist from a philosophical standpoint. Therefore, if it has some small usefulness for a short term, it must justify every inch of its existence to balance the costs it incurs
Re: (Score:3)
I have no problem with Disney's most popular characters NOT going into public domain. Disney actively exploits its brand. Good for them.
You're thinking of trademark law. This has nothing to do with copyright. Disney would love it if we all get the two confused. Just because I can present or sell copies of Steamboat Willie without paying Disney doesn't mean I get to sell stuffed toys of Mickey mouse or use their trademark in other ways without permission.
How does the world benefit from Mickey Mouse going into public domain? In no way.
We can create new art based on old art. We can make inspiration like our own take on Steamboat Willie except perhaps swap all the genders of the characters and call it Steamboat Wilma. I'm n
Re: (Score:3)
Just because I can present or sell copies of Steamboat Willie without paying Disney doesn't mean I get to sell stuffed toys of Mickey mouse or use their trademark in other ways without permission.
It likely does; trademarks are inferior to copyrights and the loss of the latter will result in the loss of the former. The two cases to look at here are: Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111 (1938) and Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003).
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that popular works have a tendency to become part of the culture at large. Stories become the basis of anecdotes and songs without people necessarily knowing their origins. It becomes a question of how much power you are willing to hand to any one entity to play thought police. Disney provides us with an excellent example. Have you ever heard the song Zipity Doo Dah?
Almost everyone in my generation can sing it, but almost none of them have seen the movie from which it came, Song of the So
Re: (Score:2)
Even on a trademark there should be limits. Letting persist as long as they can be paid for creates an early adopter system where we will reach a critical mass of old companies having all the good trademarks locked down and new companies struggling to come up with something worthwhile.
Re:2024 for Steamboat Willie? (Score:5, Insightful)
But my property is no longer my property upon my death.
If I manage to own something for 95 years and I'm still around to claim it, then it should be mine. If Walt was still alive (or whoever actually drew those characters) you could argue that their property still being their property for the length of their lives would be sensible.
But companies don't die. Nintendo is how old? 129 years? There are banks and industries WAY older than that. It's ridiculous to assign "intellectual" property to an entity that has no intellect of its own.
It's about corporations being seen as entities which "must" exist and continue to own everything they've ever owned, into perpetuity. That's not what copyrights or patents were made for. Trademarks, you could argue, that suits. But not the other two.
However, you can be damn sure that if I died tomorrow, all of my property isn't mine, most doesn't get passed down to kids, and some of it disappears entirely (e.g. all my "intellectual" property rights mean naught once I'm dead and I can't pass my copyright licences to, say, software, onto my estate).
The question that needs to be asked legally is: Do you want a corporation to be able to exclusively own an idea for as long as it exists, even if it exists only to own that idea?
I can't see how that is for the public benefit in any way, shape or form, even if you consider taxing that idea into oblivion (it's then still people who weren't even born when the idea was "invented" that have to pay for it).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It would really stretch the constitutionality of copyright to extend it further. The constitution only allows for the copyright to be "for a time". While technically speaking "for a time" vague enough to be anything, it does mean that the copyright period HAS TO END. Congress cannot keep extending it forever. If congress extends it again, then they would probably be in constitutional violation.
Re: (Score:3)
It would really stretch the constitutionality of copyright to extend it further. The constitution only allows for the copyright to be "for a time". While technically speaking "for a time" vague enough to be anything, it does mean that the copyright period HAS TO END. Congress cannot keep extending it forever. If congress extends it again, then they would probably be in constitutional violation.
The Supreme Court already ruled [wikipedia.org] that it doesn't violate the "limited time" clause.
Re: (Score:3)
If they they consider it property, then I say they can then pay property taxes on it. If they think that Steamboat Willie is worth $1 billion or whatever, then they can pay 5% of that every year that they want to keep it under copyright. Any new works get something like the first 20 years free, then either pay up every year after that or let it fall into the public domain.
Of course, you have the problem of determining the value, but that seems simple enough - let Disney decide whatever value they want, bu
1923 (Score:5, Insightful)
Does anyone need any confirmation that this is absolutely ridiculous? The currently oldest living person is Kane Tanaka [wikipedia.org] from Japan. Born 1903. Now assuming she was a composer and already active before she was 20 years old, we might actually have someone alive whose works drop into PD.
1923 was 95 years ago. We're talking about 4 generations of people reaping the rewards of something their great-grandfather did. Try to find me one other profession where you can milk the exploits of someone you probably never even met because he died long before you were born.
Re:1923 (Score:5, Insightful)
Try to find me one other profession where you can milk the exploits of someone you probably never even met because he died long before you were born.
Monarch/Emperor?
Re:1923 (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe that's why it's called royalties...
Re: (Score:2)
Monarch/Emperor?
Just being the great-grandson of a Rockefeller is a pretty good start. Even if you're the black sheep of the family if they got a billion dollars you're not going to be left in the cold unless you are a total psycho. Those with skill go into the family business, the rest often go a bit freaky because they know they won't ever be flipping burgers or need to worry about job prospects so they can just be a playboy or create art or whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
Hah, a descendant of medieval nobility could only wish they were the great-great grandson of a Rockefeller!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They have investments that have to pay off today. It's not like Rockefeller did something and until this day his descendants get money from that without putting a dime towards it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The original idea behind copyright was to encourage creation by giving people an exclusive right to reap the rewards of their intellectual labor. IIRC it was originally 7 years of exclusive reproduction, which was back then a pretty tight schedule to get it printed, bound, distributed and sold. Usually by the time your book became well known to readers and there was actually some sort of demand, your copyright was expired and your incentive to write another book was pretty high, hoping that your name has al
Re:1923 (Score:5, Informative)
The original copyright law was 14 years with the possibility of a 14 year extension if you made the effort along with a 35 year grandfather clause with the reasoning that it was to promote learning. The Americans copied that into their Constitution with limited time and for the advancement off the arts and sciences, which pretty well covered learning at the time and the first American law was also 14+14.
The real problem was that the publishers of the day, the stationers, managed to come up with this protecting the artist argument when it was always about protecting the publishers, who usually paid a pittance to the artist for unlimited rights.
Re: (Score:2)
No, in practical terms that is exactly what it is. You can make money on investments in your sleep and you can hire people to manage the investment for you for a small fraction of what the investment makes. Yes technically something could go wrong and it takes work (by other people) to maintain, but a stash of gold bars would need security too, and even banks have fees...
Re: (Score:2)
Try to find me one other profession where you can milk the exploits of someone you probably never even met because he died long before you were born.
Being royalty or a member of the aristocracy?
(Using "profession" rather loosely...)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Try to find me one other profession where you can milk the exploits of someone you probably never even met because he died long before you were born. ... there are probably thousands. A mine ...
Farmer. Toll Bridge. Ship Builder. A Car even. A House. Simply being King
Re: (Score:2)
A farmer still gets money from the fruits he harvested last year? Ship builders now sell on installments? You still pay your bricklayers an annual fee for the house you live in?
Re:1923 (Score:4, Insightful)
Big difference here is that the physical asset your grandpappy had would likely have been taxed (via property taxes, etc.) for the past few decades, and some active maintenance would have been required to keep the asset usable.
Meanwhile, intellectual property remains non-taxed (wouldn't it be great to assess and tax Disney's use of the Mouse) and can park for free for years.
Fix the difference (i.e., tax old IP) and I'll be happy.
Re: (Score:3)
The parallel doesn't work. The farmer still has to sow and reap, the sailor still has to sail and maintain the ship, as does the house owner.
The grandparent of the composer only has to hold out his hand and say "gimme!"
Re: (Score:2)
Grandchild, of course.
Exploration and colonization (Score:2)
we might actually have someone alive whose works drop into PD.
That doesn't happen outside the United States for works not of corporate authorship. The international standard for over a century, pursuant to the Berne Convention, has been the life of the last surviving individual author plus two generations.
Try to find me one other profession where you can milk the exploits of someone you probably never even met because he died long before you were born.
Exploration and colonization. Descendants of Europeans are still milking the exploits of the European explorers who explored North and South America and swindled land from Native American nations.
Re:Exploration and colonization (Score:5, Insightful)
We didn't "swindle" land from the Native Americans. We (occasionally) bought land from the First Immigrants (or Second, depending on how accurate that current scientific views vis a vis the various immigration waves to the New World are), or beat the crap out of them and took it.
Pretty much the same way the various inhabitants of every other part of the world did, back in the day.
Or is it okay if your ancestors did it 1000+ years ago, and only bad when they did it 500- years ago?
Re: (Score:2)
The other problem is that after 96 years (because these Copyrights expire in 2019) that nearly 5 generations have passed. So assuming you were just splitting it with your family, with each generation having 2 kids on average you will be splitting the royalties 16 ways, with media which is old and not so popular anymore. So it just gets more complex then what the IP is valued. Sure most of this stuff is actually owned by the company, but still the cost of enforcing and protecting it will get to a point it
Re: (Score:2)
The Walt Disney Company might disagree...
Re: (Score:2)
Believe me when I say that this is a solved problem.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
While a 5 year copyright term would cover this for a lot of works, I'm guess people such as stock photograph producers and composers of background and incidental music probably rely on a couple of decades of re-use before they see a reasonable return, and those are the people we should p
Re: (Score:2)
Except for one-in-a-million, that has nothing to do with the length of copyright... And everything to do with obsolesce, irrelevance, and obscurity of the content and/or authors. Even if they were in the public domain, they'd still be out of print because the demand for them is essentially zero. For every Robert Frost (to take the example quoted in TFA), there's ten thousand other long dead poets that nobody other than the odd descendant or obsessive stu
Re: 1923 (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, that's even more ridiculous. If you want to know just HOW ridiculous, realize that no Beatles song will enter PD before 2068, 100 years after pretty much all of them were written, and even that only if McCartney and Starr bite the dust in the next couple days.
Re: (Score:2)
Tonight we're gonna party like it's 1899.
Ridiculous (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
Mod parent up! Intellectual property laws in their current form aren't for the public good, they are plain and simple rent seeking allowances. They discourage creativity and are in practice draconian. These laws, along with the abomination that is patent law, stifle innovation and keep players out of markets. Only the big boys with their lawyers get to play... and beat everyone else over the head with a large stick while collecting rent -- for ninety-five years!
Re:Ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
In order to maximize public good, copyright may still have a place, but then we need to ask the question: "What time horizon of revenue is necessary to make an artist find it worthwhile to create a new work of art?" The answer is of course not lifetime + 95 years or something similarly stupid.
That is the crux of the issue. Disney obviously wants to protect its very lucrative movie back catalogue so the can release all the Disney Classics to a new generation of kids, so they'll go to great lengths to get laws passed that are favorable to them.
In the day of immediate global distribution, no cost for duplication and very fast changes in what's popular, the argument can be made for 1 year, 5 years or possibly 10 years.
I think the original idea of a fixed term, say 20 or 30 years, plus one 20 or 30 year renewal is reasonable. That gives creators time to benefit from what they did, especially if they take a while to become popular; while still putting things in the public
Re: (Score:2)
I think the original idea of a fixed term, say 20 or 30 years, plus one 20 or 30 year renewal is reasonable.
I agree, but given that Disney will never be happy with that, which means that your proposal would meet extremely well-funded opposition, I think another good option is to allow many more renewal periods, each requiring payment of a small renewal fee. The fact that some formal process and payment of a fee is required to retain copyright beyond the first term would ensure that the vast majority of works quickly fall into the public domain. The fee could be increased with the age of the work, but I suspect th
Re: (Score:2)
Shorter copyright terms, e.g. your mentioned 1 year only plays into the hands of publishing houses.
If I publish an ebook tomorrow, or an App, and after a year the copyright has ran out, I probably have never earned anything worth the time I invested before. Every publishing house that sees the value of my work can simply use its marketing capacity and sell the stuff for insert millions and I never see a dime.
So: why besides having fun (do I have that?) and making a name (do I make that? if the work is not u
Re: (Score:2)
I think the Copyright time should be more reasonable amount of time (under 50 years) But, especially today content can so easily be copied exactly without any loss of quality. Yet people who spend Weeks, Months, Years of their lives not getting paid to make the work, in hopes it can get published and finally get paid, is a large risk on their part. Then to have it finally get popular but being published and sold by the company without paying you back, because there isn't any copyright.
Copyrights are a go
Re:Ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
The original copyright term, in the US at least, was 14 years. After that, you could renew it for another 14 years. I think that's plenty of time. I published a book two years ago. If I live until I'm 90 (and there are no more copyright extensions), then my novel will fall out of copyright in the year 2135. If my youngest son has a child when he's 30, this grandson of mine will be 100 by the time my novel's copyright expires. I don't think my great-great-grandkids need to profit off a book that I wrote. Having the copyright expire in 2030 (2044 if I renew) is enough.
enjoy it for now (Score:2)
and expect another extention in 2024.
Copyright should last as long at Patents. (Score:3, Insightful)
Another thing that should be looked to is coming with some sort of copyright registry; with most valuable property like real estate, automobiles, boats, and even IP like patents & trademarks, there is a pretty easy way to find out who owns what. Copyright doesn't have that, which leads to works being unable to be used since no one knows who owns it. Plus, if IP holders want the government to protect their property, well, they should maybe be taxed on it, with say an assessed tax on the estimated value of the copyright, similar to how property is taxed today. Now, obviously, given the volume of works created, maybe have the tax kick in at values of more than say, $1 million, since trying to tax every little song or short story would be a bookkeeping nightmare.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine if genuine Star Wars fan could have come up with their own set of prequels & sequels to the original series. I am pretty sure at least one group would have given us a better version that what Lucas and later Disney came up with.
They'd still run afoul of trademark law, which is essentially forever. That's what will protect Mickey even if early works cease to have copyright protection. Smart companies will trademark key element so as to prevent them from being used if and when a work falls into the public domain. Yo umight be able to make a Star Wars fanfic film, but you won't be able to call it Star Wars MCLXV.
TM not ersatz copr. Dastar v. Fox (Score:2)
A trademark cannot be used to extend the effective term of an expired U.S. copyright. Dastar v. Fox, 539 U.S. 23 (2003) [wikipedia.org].
Re: Copyright should last as long at Patents. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
While I don't agree with such long copyright, the problem is people using your characters for sub standards story, or even porn version while you are still working on a sequel.
Imagine one movie theater projecting a porn version the same day as the latest star War from the original author.
Trademarks still usually apply and this already happens anyways. Porn versions usually fall under parody and there are already full length Star Wars porn movies.
Melancholy Elephants (Score:2)
I just read "Melancholy Elephants" by Spider Robinson. It's about infinite copyright. Story seems rather appropriate.
http://www.spiderrobinson.com/... [spiderrobinson.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Sooner Boomer pointed out:
I just read "Melancholy Elephants" by Spider Robinson. It's about infinite copyright. Story seems rather appropriate.
http://www.spiderrobinson.com/... [spiderrobinson.com]
And it's worth noting that Spider deliberately chose to copyright Melancholy Elephants in the public domain.
It's free to read - and it will stay that way, permanently ...
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for sharing this.
A couple of years ago I had an idea for a story where an AI would generate all possible stories and the owner of it would own all of that IP.
Interesting things to mull over in the mind.
I'm with the founding fathers (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm with the founding fathers on this ... it should be 7 years, extendable to 14 max.
Stuff from 2004 should be entering public domain, not from 1923. (Though I'll grant you, the stuff from 1923 is probably better.)
Re: (Score:2)
How does the world become a better place with Mickey Mouse going public domain?
Re: (Score:2)
How does the world become a better place with Mickey Mouse going public domain?
That's not the point. That's like saying "who needs privacy; I have nothing to hide!"
The value of Mickey Mouse is a matter of opinion.
Pick something created in the same year as Mickey Mouse that you do like, if that's the only way you can think about it more objectively.
Re: (Score:2)
That's my point. Is the copyright holder sitting on his rights, or is he exploiting it? If he's exploiting the work, publishing, whatever... let him have the copyright.
Is he just keeping the license in a freezer? To public domain it goes.
Use it or lose it.
Re: (Score:2)
By disney employing thousands of people at their mickey parks? And generating millions in revenue and taxes? And investing that money into newer productions, some that bomb, some that are huge successes?
The only difference would be a spike in mickey mouse merchandise being sold on Etsy for nothing, because now mickey mouse is worth nothing. Disney loses its revenue, the government loses tax money (I know disney avoids taxes but for the sake of argument let's assume they pay).
Copyright is NOT a patent. Micke
Re: (Score:2)
By disney employing thousands of people at their mickey parks? And generating millions in revenue and taxes? And investing that money into newer productions, some that bomb, some that are huge successes?
The only difference would be a spike in mickey mouse merchandise being sold on Etsy for nothing, because now mickey mouse is worth nothing. Disney loses its revenue, the government loses tax money (I know disney avoids taxes but for the sake of argument let's assume they pay).
Copyright is NOT a patent. Mickey mouse is entertainment. The world doesn't become a better place if Mickey goes into public domain. And patents going into public domain... we could make the argument, too, that GIFs being protected by patents actually got us the superior PNG format. But in general, the world does benefit from PATENTS going public. Not so much from entertainment.
You seem to be confusing copyright with trademark. When a copyright for an individual work expires it simply means people can copy it without having to obtain authorization or provide compensation to the now-expired copyright owner. In this context, that would mean that whatever movies the copyright expired on could be hosted on YouTube or other sites without having to pay Disney and Disney couldn't demand they be taken down. Since Disney continues to produce properties that use Mickey and vigorously defend
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be confused, and talking about Trademark stuff. "Mickey" doesn't go public domain. The 1923 film, Steamboat Willie, does. That means people can use SW clips, or have it on the TV in the background of a film they're making, or remix it with other things. But only Steamboat Willie. They still can't sell coffee mugs with Mickey on it, they still can't show clips of the Mickey Mouse Christmas special, etc. Disneyland will not close. It only lets them re-use a 95-year-old piece of film, and that's it
1928 (Score:2)
That's the key year. That's when "Steamboat Willie" was released. You're going to have to drive a stake through Disney's heart to have that year pass into the public domain.
Limited Time?? (Score:3)
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
I believe in the benefits of copyrights. However, the current state of intellectual law is unacceptable. Extending copyright coverage to 90 years (Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998) violates the concept of "limited Times". The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) stifles innovation instead of promoting it. And the primary beneficiaries of these laws are not "Authors and Inventors" but corporate publishers, movie studios, and record companies who reap the bounty of others' creativity. If you agree that this situation is intolerable, tell your representatives and senators in Congress.
Only 5 years of public domain (Score:2)
So essentially, we will be getting 5 years of public domain, 1923-1927, upon which legislation that Disney will coerce Congress to pass will extend the copyrights another 20-40 years. So sometimes when I die, we may finally see 1928.
Am I understanding this correctly?
Re: (Score:2)
Square Enix's video game series Kingdom Hearts stars Mickey Mouse and other early era Disney characters. The animated series DuckTales is still being produced and takes place in the same fictional universe as the Mickey Mouse stories.
Pooh and Disney's "I got mine" behavior (Score:2)
It's not about third parties seeking use of Mickey Mouse in particular as much as the effort that The Walt Disney Company has put into making sure nobody can do to twentieth century stories what Disney did to nineteenth century stories. It's also about the Winnie the Pooh books by A. A. Milne, whose U.S. copyright has the same 2024 expiry under current law as the first three Mickey shorts.
Re: (Score:2)
"With their own annotations"
So, only teams of multiple people are allowed to do so? Or is this another case of ridiculous political correctness?