Slashdot Mirror
A Mass of Copyrighted Works Will Soon Enter the Public Domain (theatlantic.com)
For the first time in two decades, a huge number of books, films, and other works will escape U.S. copyright law. From a report: The Great American Novel enters the public domain on January 1, 2019 -- quite literally. Not the concept, but the book by William Carlos Williams. It will be joined by hundreds of thousands of other books, musical scores, and films first published in the United States during 1923. It's the first time since 1998 for a mass shift to the public domain of material protected under copyright. It's also the beginning of a new annual tradition: For several decades from 2019 onward, each New Year's Day will unleash a full year's worth of works published 95 years earlier.
This coming January, Charlie Chaplin's film The Pilgrim and Cecil B. DeMille's The 10 Commandments will slip the shackles of ownership, allowing any individual or company to release them freely, mash them up with other work, or sell them with no restriction. This will be true also for some compositions by Bela Bartok, Aldous Huxley's Antic Hay, Winston Churchill's The World Crisis, Carl Sandburg's Rootabaga Pigeons, E.E. Cummings's Tulips and Chimneys, Noel Coward's London Calling! musical, Edith Wharton's A Son at the Front, many stories by P.G. Wodehouse, and hosts upon hosts of forgotten works, according to research by the Duke University School of Law's Center for the Study of the Public Domain.
Throughout the 20th century, changes in copyright law led to longer periods of protection for works that had been created decades earlier, which altered a pattern of relatively brief copyright protection that dates back to the founding of the nation. This came from two separate impetuses. First, the United States had long stood alone in defining copyright as a fixed period of time instead of using an author's life plus a certain number of years following it, which most of the world had agreed to in 1886. Second, the ever-increasing value of intellectual property could be exploited with a longer term. But extending American copyright law and bringing it into international harmony meant applying "patches" retroactively to work already created and published. And that led, in turn, to lengthy delays in copyright expiring on works that now date back almost a century.
This coming January, Charlie Chaplin's film The Pilgrim and Cecil B. DeMille's The 10 Commandments will slip the shackles of ownership, allowing any individual or company to release them freely, mash them up with other work, or sell them with no restriction. This will be true also for some compositions by Bela Bartok, Aldous Huxley's Antic Hay, Winston Churchill's The World Crisis, Carl Sandburg's Rootabaga Pigeons, E.E. Cummings's Tulips and Chimneys, Noel Coward's London Calling! musical, Edith Wharton's A Son at the Front, many stories by P.G. Wodehouse, and hosts upon hosts of forgotten works, according to research by the Duke University School of Law's Center for the Study of the Public Domain.
Throughout the 20th century, changes in copyright law led to longer periods of protection for works that had been created decades earlier, which altered a pattern of relatively brief copyright protection that dates back to the founding of the nation. This came from two separate impetuses. First, the United States had long stood alone in defining copyright as a fixed period of time instead of using an author's life plus a certain number of years following it, which most of the world had agreed to in 1886. Second, the ever-increasing value of intellectual property could be exploited with a longer term. But extending American copyright law and bringing it into international harmony meant applying "patches" retroactively to work already created and published. And that led, in turn, to lengthy delays in copyright expiring on works that now date back almost a century.
they still have 6 months to legislate an extension.
Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
Only 0.01% of the population born in 1923 or before are still alive. For 99.99% of the US public in 1923, the copyrights granted were unlimited.
One that cannot be taken down by any arbitrary authority. Then we won't have to worry how long the damn copyright lasts. This is just one of the social problems we have that only technology can solve. The goal is to tear down the walls and throw the tyrants into the abyss.
A mass = 1 fuckton.
When upholding the 1998 extension in Eldred v. Ashcroft, the Supreme Court did so on grounds that it was harmonizing the copyright term to that of a major market for U.S. works, specifically distinguishing it from the sort of "legislative misbehavior" that commons advocates would refer to as "perpetual copyright on the installment plan." At the time, the European Union had recently extended the term from life plus 50 years to life plus 70 years to reflect the trend to start a family later, as the rationale for life plus 50 in the first place had been the life of those heirs whom the author knew personally.
So to what major market would a third successive extension be billed as harmonizing? No good answer would probably mean the third strike shows "legislative misbehavior."
I wonder if Disney can, yet again, push to protect the Mouse. That has been the key player in all the copyright pushes in the last 40 years. I think they have 5 more years (1928)
You'll see.
I'm actually fine with unlimited/really long copyrights that apply only with respect to making profits from the work in question. Meaning, if you're going to make some money off it, I don't see any reason why you can't share that with whomever created the work in the first place. And I'd include in that works that are "technically distinct" but highly derivative (i.e., the Russian publisher that took Harry Potter, changed the names and a few meaningless details, reworded it some and published as an original work).
On the other hand, I think the copyrights as applied to non-profit use (friends passing copies amongst themselves, making available for free download, etc), should be quite short. 20 years at absolute most and in the digital age even that seems overly long.
The 10 Commandments (1923) is different than The 10 Commandments (1956). Both were directed and produced by Cecil B. DeMille, but the former is a silent film that is set to be released into the public domain, whereas the latter stars Charlton Heston and Yul Brynner and is the one with which I suspect most of us here are more familiar.
Article I Section 8. Clause 8 â" Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution. [The Congress shall have power] âoeTo 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.â
In order to maximize "progress of science and useful arts", the Constitutional requirement of "limited times" must be optimized. Note that that progress applies to the nation as a whole, and not to the authors and inventors.
Zero time obviously has no benefit. Infinite time may have some benefit, but less than something between nothing and perpetuity.
So what is the optimum? I contend that it is something considerably shorter than the current duration. And that just because other regimes choose poorly, does not mean the US has to follow suit. Congress should show some evidence before legislating.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
In the beginning, I would have thought that somebody was mocking you.
But I have come to know you pretty well and now I know that you're delusional enough to view a 1 subscriber gain as 6.25% and be happy about it completely disregarding the fact that your youtube channel is going down the drain since youtube flagged your unorthodox behavior!
Well, creimer is a very special person so it makes sense that youtube has special flags for his channel.
The Berne Convention was accepted September 1886. That's over 131 years.
Mexico is nowhere near the sort of harmonization target that the European Union was for several reasons.
EU shares a language At the time of the 1998 extension, the EU had two countries sharing English as its primary official and working language (though one is soon to leave). EU is richer The EU's GDP per capita is about four times Mexico's. This gives residents of EU countries on the whole more disposable income to purchase lawfully made copies of US works. EU observes rule of the shorter term The EU extension was worded in such a way that if a copyright expires in the country of first publication, it would expire in EU countries as well. Thus an extension was "needed" to prevent copyrights in US works from expiring in EU countries. Mexico doesn't have this rule of the shorter term.What a farce.
each New Year's Day will unleash a full year's worth of works published 95 years earlier.
I get what you're saying, but that had to be hard to put down with a straight face.
The fact that this IS kinda shocking is... man, this whole fucking this is just so obviously a farce.
Copyrights should be 25 yrs + exponential payments after that every decade.
The goal is to protect the author so she may get a return on the investment, not have income forever.
There are lots of works that aren't worth maintaining copyright over after 25 yrs, yet those are still locked up. There needs to be an automatic method for them to be freed, sooner, unless payment is made. Say $100K for years 26-35, then $1M for years 36-45, then $10M for 46-55 after release. Keep adding a zero every 10 yrs with a cap at 95 yrs, period.
Disney has already addressed the copyright running out through trademarks of the mouse. It is a core image for their business and actively used. I don't have any issue with that. To maintain their copyright, paying $100M+/10 yrs seems reasonable.
Just because APK subscribed as creimer promised APK he would fuck him in the ass some more to keep the rage down on slashdot doesn't mean anything. I hear APK likes the soy boys like creimer.and himself.
The many extensions of copyright are due in large part to the lobbying of companies such as Disney, who were desperately afraid that Mickey would pass into the public domain and all those Chinese companies would be able to make legal Mickey Mouse hats and shirts. The music business is the same. George Gershwin's grandchildren are still going to lunch on the royalties from all of his music, whose copyright the Gershwin Foundation's lawyers enforce vigorously. The protection of copyright is no longer just to protect artists and authors; it is used to protect corporations as well.
in 3... 2... 1...
Disney's death has nothing to do with it. All of the Disney movies are works for hire
The definition of a "work made for hire" or "work of corporate authorship" in the copyright law of other countries may differ from that of the United States, particularly the EU countries whose Copyright Duration Directive formed the basis for the 1998 extension in the United States.