Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ask Slashdot: How To "Prove" a Work Is Public Domain?

Posted by samzenpus on from the work-of-the-people dept.

New submitter eporue writes: YouTube claims that I haven't been able to prove that I have commercial rights to this video of Superman. They are asking me to submit documentation saying "We need to verify that you are authorized to commercially use all of the visual and audio elements in your video. Please confirm your material is in the public domain." I submitted a link to the Wikipedia page of the Superman cartoons from the 40s where it explains that the copyright expired, and to the Archive page from where I got it. And still is not enough to "prove" that I have the commercial rights. So, how do you "prove" public domain status ?

12 of 213 comments (clear)

  1. Half the story by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just because the story is in the public domain, that doesn't mean you have the ability to use the trademarks.

    1. Re:Half the story by BenJeremy · · Score: 1, Insightful

      THIS.

      I believe trademarks are where corporations should be able to protect characters of a franchise that is still being actively monetized.

      Once the copyright expires on a cartoon... you should be able to copy it freely, of course, but that shouldn't mean you have a right to monetize it when it contains trademarked characters.

      It is a simple fix to our current laws, but unfortunately, the people are no longer served by our so-called "representatives" in Congress.

    2. Re:Half the story by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That doesn't make any sense. If this were a trademark issue, they wouldn't be asking him to show that the material is in the public domain.

    3. Re:Half the story by JMJimmy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I believe trademarks are where corporations should be able to protect characters of a franchise that is still being actively monetized.

      Congratulations you've just created infinite copyright by that standard.

    4. Re:Half the story by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I believe trademarks are where corporations should be able to protect characters of a franchise that is still being actively monetized.

      I hear where you are coming from, but then mickey mouse never enters the public domain.

      And if Bill S, had incorporated and transferred his copyrights and trademarks to the coproration than the characters of Romeo and Julliette, Hamlet, Shylock, and all the rest would still be protected... from ever being used or referenced.

      WHY is that ok? Culturally these characters should eventually be public domain. Can you imagine how much art and culture of today involves the use classical heroes and villains.

      From Hercules to Dorian Gray, from Hades to Dr. Frankenstein. Would you prefer that all these characters belong to corporations forever trademarked?

      One day another 50 or 100 years from now... why shouldn't the chracters of Mickey Mouse and Superman be equally available to screen writers and authors to incorporate, remix, and re-imagine?

      From the countless Shakespeare reimaginings to TV series like Penny Dreadful that mix the Dracula tale with Dorian Gray and other "period' heroes and villains to the constant mining of greek mythology for new stories... culminating in stuff like Percy Jackson... this is a good thing.

      Why exactly do you think today's "trademarked" characters SHOULD forever belong to corporations?

  2. Silly Person by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Oh you silly person. There's no such thing as Public Domain. It's a theoretical construct at this point, and might as well be considered as mythical and unlikely now as unicorns and a third party POTUS.

    Believe me, within 20 years, Homer's and Shakespeare's works will be owned by Walt Disney or Sony, and anyone putting on a production of Hamlet will have to pay royalties. This is the world that evil lawyers and culpable, retarded politicians are creating.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re:Silly Person by StikyPad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      YouTube is asking people to prove a negative. Their system is set up for showing that the uploader owns the copyright on a work, but when no-one has that copyright it breaks down.

      Exactly, and that's the opposite of reality. Everything is in the public domain unless someone asserts their copyright.

      --
      https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
  3. Re: What problem? by bistromath007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That is specifically what public domain does NOT mean. Anyone can make money off things in the public domain, if they can find a way to make them valuable to others, up to and including simple reprinting or rebroadcast.

  4. Wait a moment... by jolyonr · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So, you put a video online that someone else made, onto a service that someone else pays the bandwidth fees for and you're bitching because you aren't getting any money from it?

    What exactly do you think your ten minutes of time in downloading the video from one place and uploading it to another are worth?

    --


    Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
  5. Re: What problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's not preventing Google from putting different requirements for making money on their service. They can refuse to pay you if the work isn't yours if it is public domain. Since the work is public domain, you cannot require them to pay you for use of the work itself either. (Formats, and the simple act of uploading a copy, aren't copyrightable, so your act of uploading it doesn't matter.)

  6. You can't, in general by mbone · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.

    You can't in general prove that something published post-1923 is public domain. We do not have (any more) a requirement to register copyrights, plus we now have very long copyright terms. Either would be bad, the combination is (quite deliberately) pernicious. It means that, while you may have good reasons to assume that something is PD, you can almost never know for sure. There are two major exceptions - works that have been declared to be PD by their owner, and works by the US Government (which are PD from birth). US Government works are generally pretty safe, but works declared PD are not always (as you have no way to prove the donor actually owns them).

    If you think that this implies that our copyright laws need to be changed, you are IMO correct. I would go for a term of 14 years, one renewal possible, with registration required. The wailing from the rent-seeking entertainment industries would, of course, in that case be something to behold, but that would have some entertainment value in its own right.

  7. Re: What problem? by donscarletti · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If the video you post is, for whatever reason, popular enough that it could bring in ad revenue that makes it profitable vs. not continuing to host and distribute it, there is absolutely no basis for them to refuse to pay you.

    If it's public domain, they don't have to pay anyone. Google has just as much rights to make money from a public domain video as anyone else, if you don't like it, host it yourself.

    The bald faced hypocrisy of "this work is public domain, damn Google for not paying me for it!" just discredits everyone here calling for more works to enter the public domain. Google is doing what a good publisher should do, sharing public domain work and collecting a small revenue to pay for its trouble, "eporue" on the other hand is a parasite, seeing rent on something he didn't create, like some feudal baron. Adam Smith and Karl Marx agree on one thing and one thing only, rent seeking is inherently bad, so whether you are a conservative or a socialist you should join together and pillory this leech.

    --
    When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem