2018 Is the Last Year of America's Public Domain Drought (vice.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: Happy Public Domain Day, every-some of you! In New Zealand and Canada, published works by artists who died in 1967 -- Rene Magritte, Dorothy Parker, John Coltrane, and many others -- have entered the public domain; Kiwis and Canadians can now freely distribute, perform, and remix a wealth of painting, writing, and music. In Europe, work published by artists who died in 1947 are now public domain. In the United States, well, we get nothing for the 20th year in a row, with one more to go. Our public domain drought is nearly old enough to drink. American copyrights now stretch for 95 years. Since 1998, we've been frozen with a public domain that only applies to works from before 1923 (and government works). Jennifer Jenkins is a clinical professor of law at Duke Law School, which hosts the Center for the Study of the Public Domain. In an email she explained what changed and why nothing has entered American public domain for two decades. "Until 1978, the maximum copyright term was 56 years from the date of publication -- an initial term of 28 years, renewable for another 28 years," she wrote. "In 1998, Congress added 20 years to the copyright term, extending it to the author's lifetime plus 70 years, or 95 years after publication for corporate 'works made for hire.'"

Comments

And suddenly...

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

And suddenly, legislation will appear that will extend the Public Domain timeout period by another 20 or 50 years.

Watch and see if this doesn't happen before the end of the year.

Re:And suddenly...

[Anonymous Coward]

And some wonder why there's so many who don't respect copyright.

The original deal was reneged upon and the public got nothing in return on each extension.

Re:And suddenly...

[rock_climbing_guy]

I did read his "Communist Manifesto". I thought it was interesting that he did specifically dismiss the idea that this economic ideas, if implemented, would lead to laziness. IIRC, I think that he said that people do have a drive to work and to create.

But I think he missed something important. I agree with Marx that laziness is not the problem, but I think he missed another important problem with his economics. The problem is that to implement Communism, you must demand that all individuals submit to a central authority and subsume themselves into a system. Some critics go so far as to say that such a system is inherently violent and repressive because it cannot tolerate individuals deviating from their assigned role in the system. Either way, the problem, as I see it, is that people are individuals and they don't just want to work and create, but they want to work and create in a way that expresses their individuality. To be forced to assimilate into a system in which they have no individuality is completely out of line with man's nature.

Re:PROPERTY

[WrongMonkey]

If I build a house, I can will it to my ancestors

What direction are you travelling through time?

Re:"clinical professor of law"

[Jeremy Erwin]

A clinical professor is a professor that is hired for professional expertise and practical experience. Usually clinical professors supervise a school's clinic, which provide low-cost or free (legal, medical, dental) advice to needy clients. Upper level students provide the labor, and in return, get some practical experience.

Re:PROPERTY

[arth1]

However, with the current unconstitutional laws in effect, you are rewarded for an absurdly long period, until long after you and probably your children are dead.

Part of the problem here is that copyrights are transferable and can be owned by corporations. The original copyright holder quickly loses his rights, if he even held them in the first place, and people with no affiliation whatsoever to the works or the artist gets to reap the benefits.

Make copyrights non-transferable from the actual creator(s), and only licensable for no longer than 5 years at a time.
If a corporation wants to continue using a creation, they need to continue to compensate the creator, until the work falls into public domain.

Re:PROPERTY

[Calydor]

Because my children (not even grandkids) will not derive any income from my writing, I'll have to shelve my idea of this book and go do "real work". That's the line of thinking I was alluding to. The creator — or his wife — would certainly think/say such a thing.

And this right here is why no art, no music, no movies and no books were created before the 95 year copyright rule.

Right?

The extension was done all wrong

[Solandri]

Existing works should've continued to be subject to their original copyright term. The new copyright duration should've only applied to new works - things created after the copyright extension act was passed. Kinda the inverse of grandfathering and ex post facto laws. This prevents an immediate beneficiary of the change to the law from unduly influencing the process of changing the law. Everyone takes a step back and considers the entire ramifications of the change to the law, instead of considering only the tiny immediate effect of the change.

The rationale for this is that the whole point of copyright is to encourage the creation of artistic works. Since the pre-existing work has already been made, copyright has already has served its function and encouraged its creation. So there is nothing to be gained by extending the duration of pre-existing copyrighted works. You can't encourage a pre-existing work to be created over again.