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.
The honest truth is that copyrighted works fall into four categories:
1) Massive mega hits that make their creators millions in the first 10 years, then make consistent profits every year for decade after decade. They are re-released every few years.
2) Successful commercial work that makes profit in the first 5 years then barely get any sales after that. Most of the time you have to purchase a copy made in the first 5 years, but every couple of decades some of them get reprints - that make a reliable, small profit for the distributors but no significant money for the actual artists.
3) Artistic success that do not make money in the first 5-10 years but eventually grow into successful commercial works, getting re-issued every couple of decades.
4) Total failures that never make any money.
Honestly, it makes no sense to extend copyright for original work more than 10 years. In case 1 it turns millionaires into multi-millionaires who never need to create again. In case 2 and 3, it provides no real help to the original artist, just the distributors. In the internet age, the internet does it better. In case 4 no one ever makes money.
The only real reason the distributors want extended copyright is "SEQUEL". That's where the profit is for the distributors - built in market, no real effort needed for them, instant profit.
Copyright should grant eternal credit, direct profit for 10 years, and sequel rights could be granted for 50 years (Even Star Wars's sequels profit has more to do with the new artists than the original creators.)
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
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 why Disney feels the need to.
Even if the earliest Mickey Mouse cartoons go public domain, they still have a TRADEMARK on the character Mickey Mouse, and that doesn't expire.
You can't create a new Mickey Mouse cartoon without Disney's permission, regardless of copyright on the old films.
Are the oldest cartoons making Disney much money these days? They're amusing, but I doubt they're selling a boatload of copies. Disney should let this go.
http://cdas.com/court-finds-that-use-of-registered-trademark-to-identify-public-domain-cartoon-character-is-not-infringement/
Trademarks on public domain characters are weaker.
Not that that would stop Disney lawyers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Uncensored_Mouse
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