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 ?

15 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 Purity+Of+Essence · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There are more than a dozen companies distributing these cartoons on DVD and not paying anyone or asking permission. If they want to name-check "Superman", they can do that too. It's factual information, not product branding.

      Where there might be a legitimate copyright issue is copying someone else's film transfer or encoded video, if something creative was done with the presentation, possibly including restoration. In similar cases, the court has ruled that exact duplication, even that requiring a high degree of skill, has no creative element and not covered by copyright.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....

      --
      +0 Meh
    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 NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 4, Informative

      As I was saying, if this were about trademarks, they wouldn't be asking him to prove that the material is in the public domain; public domain is a copyright issue, not a trademark issue.

      More importantly, though, you misunderstand the purpose of trademark law. Trademark law doesn't exist to "protect characters" or other intellectual creations, trademark law exists in order make sure that when customers buy something, they know who actually produced it. Applying trademark law to a 70 year old cartoon character does not serve such a purpose.

    4. 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.

    5. 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?

    6. Re:Half the story by flopsquad · · Score: 5, Informative

      Bingo. In fact, the Supreme Court has explicitly come out and said that trademark is not to be used as back door perpetual copyright. See, e.g., Dastar.

      --
      Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
  2. Re: What problem? by JMJimmy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Public domain just means anyone can use it for free. If you can get some sap to pay money for something that's free, good on you.

  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. Re: What problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Public domain just means anyone can use it for free. If you can get some sap to pay money for something that's free, good on you.

    I've given up on trying to talk sense into morons like him, who know absolutely nothing about a topic yet decide they just have to comment on it anyway. For every one you set straight, several more takes his place. It's like the Hydra of stupidity. Stupidity, or a very, very desperate need for attention.

  5. Re: What problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oh shit, this guy's on to us.

  6. Dastar v. Fox by tepples · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The court ruled in Dastar v. Fox that a trademark cannot be used as an ersatz copyright.

  7. A wikipedia page claiming something isn't proof?!? by nedlohs · · Score: 4, Informative

    Who would have thought!

  8. Project Gutenberg procedures might help by gbnewby · · Score: 5, Informative

    This might help: https://www.gutenberg.org/wiki...
    And, the updated "Rule 6 How-To" at https://copy.pglaf.org/

    For something published in the US after 1923 and before 1964, renewal of copyright was necessary to get a further 28-year extension. (Term extensions in 1998 extended copyright of items published in 1964 onward, and removed the need to renew.)

    The Rule 6 how-to has a template for non-renewal research that might satisfy YouTube, if you do the research and send it in.

    Only around 10% of items published from 1923 onwards were renewed. (It's no longer required, but you can still renew today.) The US Library of Congress has records of copyright registrations and renewals, and the Rule 6 How-To describes where to get the records. For items from 1923-1963, the renewals for printed items are comprehensive.

    Serialization is sometimes a problem. Items might have been published, then published in another form (say, a magazine article that was published as a book), and if the timing is close enough one renewal might cover both items.

    Proving something is in the public domain in the US, for printed items, is not that hard for items published from 1923-1963. It takes some time and expertise, and there is always a chance there is a renewal that you didn't find. Proving it is still copyrighted is also easy: show me the renewal.

        - Greg

  9. Good luck... by Chozabu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A video of a game I made was refused.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    As evidence - I submitted the link to android market place, where I am selling the game - offered source code, source assets, etc. Several times, along with asking what would do for valid evidence.

    150k views later, lots of evidence and questions from me... "monetization rejected" and still ignored.

    And that's with A video I made, of a Game I made!