Authors' Guild Goes After University Book Digitization Projects

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Authors' Guild Goes After University Book Digitization Projects

Posted by Soulskill on Monday September 12, 2011 @12:05PM from the at-least-they're-consistent dept.

An anonymous reader sends this excerpt from Ars Technica: "With the planned settlement between Google and book publishers still on indefinite hold, a legal battle by proxy has started. Google partnered with many libraries at US universities in order to gain access to the works it wants to digitize. Now, several groups that represent book authors have filed suit against those universities, attempting to block both digital lending and an orphaned works project. The suit is being brought by the Authors' Guild, its equivalents in Australia, Quebec, and the UK, and a large group of individual authors. Its target: some major US universities, including Michigan, the University of California system, and Cornell. These libraries partnered with Google to get their book digitization efforts off the ground and, in return, Google has provided them with digital copies of the works. These and many other universities have also become involved with the HathiTrust, an organization set up to help them archive and distribute digital works; the HathiTrust is also named as a defendant."

40 of 170 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Scram by russotto · 2011-09-12 12:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

The courts should rule first of all that the guilds have no standing with respect to works of authors they do not represent... which, despite their name, is a lot of them.
1. Re:Scram by icebike · 2011-09-12 13:05 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Ahem...
  Authors in question are DEAD or unknown.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
2. Re:Scram by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 13:05 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The courts should rule first of all that the guilds have no standing with respect to works of authors they do not represent... which, despite their name, is a lot of them.
  The courts should first hit Google with the maximum penalty for copyright infringement, for each case of infringement they've committed. Because that's kind of what the whole case is about. If I can't photocopy a book and put it on my public website / private computer without permission of the copyright owner, then Google can't scan millions of books and put them into a university's public / semi-public library, nor can they index them on their public web site.
  It's flagrant violation of copyright law, yet if you put a video of your birthday party on youtube, it's only a matter of time before the copyright bots block your video because it triggered on the performance of the copyrighted "Happy Birthday" song.
  That is all wrong. The court can only hit Google with the maximum penalty for each case of copyright infringement for each person who goes to court and asks for it. In this case, it looks like some sort of industry group is suing. Too bad they can only recover for people they represent whose book has been copied. However, it may be worth it because they can sue if they can demonstrate one of their members had a book copied. They can then set a precedent for future cases by all authors.
3. Re:Scram by Hylandr · 2011-09-12 13:55 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  There really needs to be an astroturf rating.
  For SexConker, what icebike said and I have to append. I have a book 200+ years old and I am damn well going to photocopy it, and will give that work up to whatever library wants to have a copy. As for the original book, long into the public domain, will be shoved up the ass of any lawyer or any copyright fist-fuck that tries to say shit.
  I have some other very old books that will be scanned as well, for the preservation of their content. All in the public domain. You think my response is over the top? Copyright, and the trolls that defend it can fuck themselves. It's no longer serving the purpose it was intended for.
  - One pissed off reader.
  
  --
  ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
4. Re:Scram by Moryath · 2011-09-12 15:13 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The real problem is, the longer copyright terms get, the more works are lost for good.
  Don't believe me? Think about how many books "under copyright" may be lost simply because nobody preserves a copy. Think about how many films are lost merely because the original source, moldering under "copyright protection", went bad in the can down in the vaults of some MafiAA member and either is unreadable, or perished in a vault fire (early nitrate stock is NOTORIOUS for being susceptible to both).
  We almost lost an amazing amount of black gospel music before a few concerned citizens stepped in; we STILL risk losing a large amount of it due to MafiAA meddling.
  And that doesn't even discuss the loss of computer programs for formats and computers that won't expire copyright for decades, but are functionally already dead - the guy who built this is having a devil of a time finding software to test it with, merely because disk packs weren't maintained and SGI apparently wiped most of their archives. Or the various game consoles, or early home computers where most software was stored on highly volatile and quickly-degrading floppy disks...
5. Re:Scram by lexsird · 2011-09-12 16:47 · Score: 2
  
  It's all about the greed. But technology is a genie that is out of the bottle and so much is changing. A friend of mine and I debate this a LOT; he's on the side of the MAFIAA and laughs about the teen girl who gets burned for downloading some MP3s. I tell him then that every library should be closed then because they violate copyrights as well. He doesn't like that. I say, think about it, what is the difference? When someone checks out a book, that author isn't getting any money from it. And they have records and movies you can check out, why not close them for the producers of said records, books and movies not making any money?
  He thinks musicians are getting burned by the evil downloaders. I tell him they are like someone who builds a piece of furniture and puts it out on the curb, then complains it gets stolen. If they are going to make criminals out of teenage girls, then shouldn't THEY be outlawed for the good of everyone? He wants to get rich someday as a musician. I tell him to evolve with the times and the technology. The genie isn't going back in the bottle. I am sure the Stage Coach Company feels burned by the railroad and the invention of cars, and it's too bad. This is like the Stage Coach Company people trying to sue to keep trains and cars from taking their business. They are a past era, they are toast. The world has changed and if they are too dumb to change with it, they need to suck it.
  I think they should digitize every book ever made and have it in a giant database. What a wonderful research tool that would be! But we aren't evolved enough to think like that. We are still in some reptile brained greed mode still. The simple logic of the classic line of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one" are still beyond us.
  
  --
  Take the Red Pill.
6. Re:Scram by CodeBuster · 2011-09-12 18:34 · Score: 2
  
  While I am neither attorney nor judge, it seems to me that since the dispute arose out of the digitization project undertaken by Google and given that the circumstances and arguments are likely to be identical or at least similar for any individual work; the Authors Guild could probably make a case that they represent a class of plaintiffs and stand a decent chance of being certified as plaintiffs representing that class. Of course, it might be difficult from a practical standpoint to track down enough individual members who agree to be certified into the class, especially given the large numbers of works involved, but it may be possible depending upon what requirements are imposed by the judge to certify the class.
7. Re:Scram by Attila+Dimedici · 2011-09-12 23:52 · Score: 2
  
  The problem is that the Authors' Guild is trying to become the clearinghouse for permission to copy copyrighted books when you cannot find the copyright holder. If the Authors' Guild was only trying to represent their actual members, I would not have a problem. However, in the Google case the Authors' Guild took the position that they were representing all authors except those that opted out of their representation.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
8. Re:Scram by ObsessiveMathsFreak · 2011-09-13 00:54 · Score: 2
  
  The real problem is, the longer copyright terms get, the more works are lost for good.
  This is not a problem. The function of copyright law is to maximise profit. If these works were profitable, they would have been preserved. They were not, it cost too much to archive them, so they perished. In both cases, profit was best served.
  I'm not making some polemical or rhetorical argument here(not fully anyway). Our modern copyright system revolves around the concept of private profit--not public interest--and as such any other goals you may think it has are completely irrelevant if they stand in opposition of the primary concern of profit.
  If you want the situation to change, then the role of profit in modern copyright law and the practice of that law must be reduced. However, since this is about as likely as reducing the role of the pope in medieval christianity, I think your efforts would be better spent writing an apology to future historians instead.
  
  --
  May the Maths Be with you!
Heaven forbid by MacAndrew · 2011-09-12 12:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

... that people get to read these works!
As a writer I understand the tension between wanting to be read and wanting to be paid. Some want only the former, some the latter; I want both, kind of like eat to live and live to eat combined. Such is my right. But I find the resistence to digitization foolish, a fixation on money and a holdover from dead tree books plus a first use doctrine many publishers and authors never liked. It's obstructionist.
As a reader, full speed ahead. I am so tired of books missing at the library or out of print. Then there's the allure of getting a book within thirty seconds. Yes, I'll pay for the privilege, can we please hurry up with an eye to both principles (get read, get paid)? And books in the public domain? Rapture. (Topic for another day: The insane extension of copyright in the Mickey Mouse / Sonny Bono Act.....)
1. Re:Heaven forbid by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 12:23 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Such is my right.
  Is it, though? Between this and the story about the EU copyright extension, it seems that both authors groups and content owners (and no, they aren't the same) are all supporting infinite copyright extensions with no provision for orphaned works. If your "right" to make money conflicts with society's interest in preserving this content for future generations, which wins out?
2. Re:Heaven forbid by ninetyninebottles · 2011-09-12 13:28 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If your "right" to make money conflicts with society's interest in preserving this content for future generations, which wins out?
  Well, you compromise. That's why copyrights and patents do and should expire.
  Perhaps you misrepresented your position, but why should we compromise between what a special interest wants and what is best for society. Shouldn't laws just be what is best for society?
  
  Without copyright, an author doesn't have spit unless they can negotiate a really really good deal with the very first reader.
  
  Now look, I've made my living primarily as a writer for many years. The idea that copyright is the only viable business model for a writer is just bunk; especially in the internet age. You can post works for free and make money on ads. You can set up a fund whereby you only issue the next episode/issue/chapter when donations reach a certain level. You can use writing to promote a profitable business lecturing.
  I'm not opposed to reasonable copyright law and certainly benefit from copyright laws on the books, but I'm of the very strong opinion that our current laws do more harm than good to society; and that is a trend that is only getting worse. Our society is run by big businesses and in that light the laws being passed make perfect sense. If you think what is good for big business is implicitly good for society, well I'm not sure rational discourse is even possible. We need to stand up and be clear about this complex issue; otherwise the majority will never care and the special interests will destroy what rightfully belongs to our descendants. Many works have vanished and every day the last copy of something gets destroyed. It is intolerable to me, and should be to you and everyone else. Please, think deeply on this topic.
3. Re:Heaven forbid by MacAndrew · 2011-09-12 13:43 · Score: 2
  
  Writers are part of society. What is best for society includes their welfare (food, housing) and, for their readers (all of us), keeping them productive. Finally, this is for better or worse capitalism, so you have some control over the things you make (in Lockean theory). If you want to depart from that principle, fine, but don't just inflict it on the writers because it's easy!
  The rest of your arguments are just that writers like musicians can get into some other business and give their work away. Well, some can, but why force them in the name of the common good? Writing is a profession in itself with real work product taht deserves the respect given other things. (Yes, I know there's a longrunning debate over "words want to be free" or something, but I can't even grasp that one imposed 100%. I *do* love old works that are public domain, i think it's a great thing -- partly because many copyrighted works are for the moment so hard to come by.)
  Preservation of the text obviously takes precedence over losing them! Then everyone loses. Google is engaged in a very important thing and I hope they'll be socially mided about it ... as opposed to (evil) greedbags.
  And I intimated in the original comment that our current laws are stupid. That one's easy.
4. Re:Heaven forbid by artor3 · 2011-09-12 14:06 · Score: 2
  
  Now look, I've made my living primarily as a writer for many years. The idea that copyright is the only viable business model for a writer is just bunk; especially in the internet age. (1) You can post works for free and make money on ads. (2)You can set up a fund whereby you only issue the next episode/issue/chapter when donations reach a certain level. (3)You can use writing to promote a profitable business lecturing.
  
  1) Doesn't work without copyright. I'll just visit your website once, make a copy of your works, and post them on my own site. People will visit mine because it's a "book aggregator" -- all the best books in one place! I get money, you get nothing. Thanks for all your hard work!
  2) Only works if you know exactly how much you expect to make from each work. Set your donations level too high, and it won't be reached and your fans will leave. Set it too low, and you're leaving money, perhaps a lot of money, on the table.
  3) This method works, to be sure, but only if you're writing a very specific type of book. Authors of fiction wouldn't see a dime.
  I don't disagree with you entirely. Our current copyright system is totally FUBAR, primarily thanks to Disney and their ilk. But copyright is a necessary evil. It needs to be reined in, but we could never eliminate it while hoping to maintain a truly vibrant culture.
5. Re:Heaven forbid by JonySuede · 2011-09-12 14:37 · Score: 2
  
  from your link I will remember mostly one thing:
  
  If contracts were fish, then the contract on my house would be an ornamental carp, the book contract would be a bluefin tuna, and the option contract would be an angry great white shark.
  
  --
  Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
6. Re:Heaven forbid by dasunt · 2011-09-12 14:38 · Score: 2
  
  I was using Google books awhile back for some genealogical research. One of the books I was using was the Diary of Joshua Hempstead of New London, Connecticut, published in 1901, which was originally written in 1711-1758.
  It's dull diary entries, mostly describing the weather, what task the author had accomplished that day, any income, and who died.
  Oddly, the book was republished in 2008, in paperback format. I can buy it on Amazon for $39. But I would have never found it. I'm not related to the author. My relatives are mentioned in there, mostly in passing, or noting their deaths. My access to the book on google doesn't result in a lost sale. I wouldn't know the book had information that was relevant without seeing it, nor would I spend $38 on a whim just in case a relative was mentioned in it.
  (By the way, the publishing company (Kessinger Publishing) has been accused of ripping off public domain books digitized by other sources, including google. Here's a thread on that. I don't know if this is true or not, but buyer beware!)
7. Re:Heaven forbid by spearway · 2011-09-12 16:20 · Score: 2
  
  You probably need to modulate the length depending on what the object being copyrighted is. I find it reasonable that Mickey is copyrighted as long as Disney company actively use the character and that can be for a very long time. The same should be true of any work being actively exploited (i.e. being in print or software being distributed). I think we should have a very short expiry time for out of print, probably 10 years out of print for a book should make it fall in the public domain, 3 years for out of distribution software should be reasonable.
Re:oops... sorry google by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2011-09-12 12:30 · Score: 5, Interesting

The JSTOR guy wasn't charged with any copyright violations. JSTOR themselves seem to have distanced themselves from the criminal prosecution too by releasing a statement that they will not pursue civil charges and, by implication, they aren't behind the criminal charges. And then last week JSTOR made all of their public domain articles freely accessible to non-subscribers.
On the other hand, Google does need a slap-down here. The people they are "negotiating" with don't have any standing wrt to abandoned works - if they did, the works would not qualify as abandoned. If Google really wants this, they need to lobby for changes in the law. The MAFIAA has no problem buying senators, Google's got more than enough money to buy practically the entire senate. If they don't have a problem with "defensive" software patents, they shouldn't have a problem with defensive lobbying either....

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Shows importance of Project Gutenberg by rafial · 2011-09-12 12:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

To me, this story shows the importance of keeping Project Gutenberg moving forward, slowly but steadily.
AG == Righthaven? by TiggertheMad · 2011-09-12 12:36 · Score: 2

On the other hand, Google does need a slap-down here. The people they are "negotiating" with don't have any standing wrt to abandoned works - if they did, the works would not qualify as abandoned.

Almost sounds like Righthaven, doesn't it? But why would Google need to get slapped down? I would think that the AG is the one getting out of line here in trying to represent people legally that it has no right to.

IANAL, so....lawyers, is it legal to represent someone without their expressed consent?

--

HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
1. Re:AG == Righthaven? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2011-09-12 12:46 · Score: 2
  
  IANAL, so....lawyers, is it legal to represent someone without their expressed consent?
  That's the job of the attorney general - representing "the people" as a whole. Although, AFAIK no AG has anything to do with the Google Books case.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
2. Re:AG == Righthaven? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2011-09-12 13:03 · Score: 2
  
  Ok. Not used to AG having other meanings in a legal context.
  It isn't that the Author's Guild is right or wrong, it's that Google is wrong.
  As part of society I say abandoned works should be in the public domain and since Google wants to treat them that way then its only fair that everybody get to treat them that way, not just google because they are loaded with more than enough cash to fight anyone who does sue them.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
3. Re:AG == Righthaven? by icebike · 2011-09-12 13:11 · Score: 2
  
  As part of society I say abandoned works should be in the public domain and since Google wants to treat them that way then its only fair that everybody get to treat them that way,
  And Google prevents this HOW?
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
4. Re:AG == Righthaven? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2011-09-12 13:26 · Score: 2
  
  It isn't that google is preventing anything. They are just as beholden to the copyright bargain as anyone else and that includes both sides of the bargain. When they break the bargain not only are breaking it with the authors of the abandoned works they are breaking it with every member of society - we gave those rights to the authors, not to google. Because copyright is merely a temporary loan from the public domain, we as a society have an interest in seeing the bargain upheld or at least renegotiated to reflect the changing circumstances so that it can continue to be upheld.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
5. Re:AG == Righthaven? by icebike · 2011-09-12 13:41 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  we as a society have an interest in seeing the bargain upheld or at least renegotiated to reflect the changing circumstances so that it can continue to be upheld.
  Well then trot out these authors, or the heirs of those who are dead AND have abandoned their works and lets us sit down and renegotiate. Google has long asked for any information to find these people or their heirs. They are a search company. They couldn't find them. Your level of indignation suggests you know where they are and how badly they have been treated.
  Dead before the cut-off date, (i forget the exact date here, but its somewhere in the 20s IIRC) then there is no problem.
  Living and already have given permission or withheld it, again no problem.
  But this middle ground of unknown authors, who are quite probably dead with no heirs accounts for a tiny tiny number books, which Google will immediately remove if the authors should appear. Too date, not a one of them have.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
6. Re:AG == Righthaven? by icebike · 2011-09-12 13:46 · Score: 2
  
  But the AG never had those rights to give, and that deal never succeeded and was struck down. Now the AG wants that deal back, or at least they assert that they still have some say in this matter.
  Look, its simply divide and conqueror, by suing Google in every country where there is even one author that is a member of such a guild. They still haven't any right to represent authors who are unknown, who have not given the AG written permission to represent them.
  AG is a far bigger usurper in this case than Google.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
7. Re:AG == Righthaven? by sjames · 2011-09-12 16:17 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  When the borrower dies or disappears, the loaned item is repatriated by the loaner. The orphan books being digitized are works where the author is unfindable. There is nobody to negotiate with. Unless someone like google preserves the works, they will simply turn to dust and disappear forever. Effectively, the author has reneged on the copyright deal by vanishing without a trace and taking the works with him.
  If google has wronged someone, let that someone or a rightful heir come forward and say so. Their silence tells us they either don't feel wronged or don't care (perhaps they're past caring due to a mild case of dead).
  Consider, if the Author's Guild wins something on the behalf of one of these authors, do you REALLY think they will stick it in a safe until they can track the guy down? Or will they just compound the wrong by stealing the absentee author's rightful awards? Given that copyright has been lengthened several times now, it is quite likely that the authors of some of these orphaned works had every expectation that their books would be in the public domain by now.
Simple solution by Gravis+Zero · 2011-09-12 12:52 · Score: 5, Informative

a) do not digitize any of the books of authors in the Authors Guild that do not request their books be digitized.
b) pull the books of authors in the Authors Guild from the school library and all curriculum that do not give express permission to digitize their books.
be careful what you ask for because you might just get it and more.

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
1. Re:Simple solution by mykos · 2011-09-12 14:47 · Score: 2
  
  Amen. People need to be playing offense, not defense when it comes to copyright bullies.
lol @ "the media" by Charliemopps · 2011-09-12 12:53 · Score: 5, Interesting

Lets get one thing strait here. For a long time The media industry sought to focus the publics interest. It's hard to market to huge audiences with a wide variety of tastes. With free and easy distribution on the internet, the media industries aren't just afraid that people are pirating their content... their true fear is the availability of content not approved by them. They aren't trying to stop piracy, they are trying to stop the alternative distribution systems that are forming outside of their control. They are trying to destroy the systems that could bring new, different and FREE content to their customers not because their afraid of theft, but because they cannot compete with something that's free and tailored to the consumers needs. They want you to have choices limited to what they've chosen for you, in the format they've decided on, at the price they've agreed on with their "competitors."
Sovereign Immunity might bar the lawsuit by pacergh · 2011-09-12 12:58 · Score: 2

You can't sue a State or the federal government unless they specifically allow it. Some States might allow their state universities to be sued, but most do not. There is already caselaw involving courts upholding sovereign immunity in these kinds of cases.
Might be a bit of a stumbling block in regards to suing the entities under the state sovereign immunity umbrella.
"Abducted?" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 13:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

First it was stealing, now it's abducted. The hyperbole increases. How long before we will be accused of 'killing' copyright holders? But it makes sense this time; we're dealing with the guild that supposedly represents people who know how to create inflammatory language.
Let us use our own hyperboles:
"With their infinitely extending copyrights, these guys have been commiting mass murder on the public domain!"
"They have totally vivesected our rights to have ideas come out of copyright."
"It's like they're hacking our limbs off, one by one!"
Rent seeking. by bmo · 2011-09-12 13:27 · Score: 2

Copyright is clearly being abused. It's time to bring it back to 14 years and a 14 year renewal like when they had it in 1790. The framers of the Constitution did not set out to enable you to create one work and sit on your ass for the rest of your life and enrich your grandkids after your demise.
We should all ignore copyright law as it stands, as practicable. Fuck them. Fuck them all.
If you are an author: too bad. Your bad apples have declared war on society at large and stolen from the public domain.
--
BMO
1. Re:Rent seeking. by bmo · 2011-09-12 13:40 · Score: 2
  
  I don't know what your point is, AC, but please do feel free to copy this as many times as you wish. You may even put your own name to it. Have at it.
  Same with all my comments here and in Usenet and on Facebook and wherever.
  --
  BMO
Exactly. by jvonk · 2011-09-12 13:27 · Score: 2

They can then set a precedent for future cases by all authors.
I'm convinced that's exactly what they are trying to accomplish: they want to be the MAFIAA of written works, and seem determined to keep trying until they can bootstrap themselves into that position.

It's like watching The Omen , only real.
copyright isn't a right by markhahn · 2011-09-12 14:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

the US constitution had it right: copyrights and patents exist for the purpose of promoting progress. the primary goal isn't to give people a living - particularly not to guarantee profits to some company. we need to rethink the whole legal infrastructure around the concept of IP...
Re:oops... sorry google by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 14:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

The MAFIAA has no problem buying senators, Google's got more than enough money to buy practically the entire senate.
Wouldn't that be evil?
This is not about public domain works by bgalbrecht · 2011-09-12 15:31 · Score: 4, Informative

They're not suing the universities and HathiTrust over 200 year old books which are in the public domain, they're suing over books which are clearly copyrighted because the US copyright was renewed and has not lapsed, but universities and HathiTrust can't find the current copyright holders. One of the four factors of fair use in the US is the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes. In this case, the universities and HathiTrust claim the digitizing these works and making them available to students and faculty is fair use, and the authors/Authors Guilds are claiming this is too broad an interpretation of this factor in determining fair use.
Suit is about how broad is educational fair use by bgalbrecht · 2011-09-12 16:06 · Score: 2

This suit has nothing to do with public domain works. It is whether the universities and HathiTrust have a fair use right to digitize copyrighted works for which they can't request permission because they can't find the copyright holder and make digital copies available to students and faculty. This fair use claim is based on one of the four factors for determining fair use of a US copyrighted work: the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes. The authors and Authors Guilds are saying the universities and HathiTrust are using a too broad an interpretation of this fair use factor, and besides that, they're using a tainted copy of the digital work because they're getting the copy from Google, which they claim is an unauthorized copy which would fail the fair use tests.
Plane Crazy by tepples · 2011-09-13 04:59 · Score: 2

Why is Mickey so special all of the sudden?
Because its copyright owner was one of the two biggest proponents of the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 (aka the "Bono Act"). Disney holds exclusive license to the four books by A.A. Milne on which the Winnie-the-Pooh franchise is founded, and the first of the four (When We Were Very Young) would have entered the public domain in the United States on January 1, 2000, had the Bono Act not been enacted. The initial Mickey Mouse trilogy (Plane Crazy, The Gallopin' Gaucho, and Steamboat Willie) would have entered the public domain in 2004.
The other was the Gershwin estate. Rhapsody in Blue would have entered the public domain in the United States on January 1, 1999, had the Bono Act not been enacted.