All Copyrighted Works First Published In the US In 1923 Will Enter Public Domain On January 1st (smithsonianmag.com)

"At midnight on New Year's Eve, all works first published in the United States in 1923 will enter the public domain," reports Smithsonian Magazine. "It has been 21 years since the last mass expiration of copyright in the U.S.

"After January 1, any record label can issue a dubstep version of the 1923 hit 'Yes! We Have No Bananas,' any middle school can produce Theodore Pratt's stage adaptation of The Picture of Dorian Gray, and any historian can publish Winston Churchill's The World Crisis with her own extensive annotations." From the report: "The public domain has been frozen in time for 20 years, and we're reaching the 20-year thaw," says Jennifer Jenkins, director of Duke Law School's Center for the Study of the Public Domain. The release is unprecedented, and its impact on culture and creativity could be huge. We have never seen such a mass entry into the public domain in the digital age. The last one -- in 1998, when 1922 slipped its copyright bond -- predated Google. "We have shortchanged a generation," said Brewster Kahle, founder of the Internet Archive. "The 20th century is largely missing from the internet."

We can blame Mickey Mouse for the long wait. In 1998, Disney was one of the loudest in a choir of corporate voices advocating for longer copyright protections. At the time, all works published before January 1, 1978, were entitled to copyright protection for 75 years; all author's works published on or after that date were under copyright for the lifetime of the creator, plus 50 years. Steamboat Willie, featuring Mickey Mouse's first appearance on screen, in 1928, was set to enter the public domain in 2004. At the urging of Disney and others, Congress passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, named for the late singer, songwriter and California representative, adding 20 years to the copyright term. Mickey would be protected until 2024 -- and no copyrighted work would enter the public domain again until 2019, creating a bizarre 20-year hiatus between the release of works from 1922 and those from 1923.

Comments

2024 for Steamboat Willie?

[kurkosdr]

Wouldn't be surprised if, by 2023, the copyright code gets magically extended for another 20 years and Steamboat Willie "coincidentally" remains copyrighted for another 20 years. This is the problem with loaded language. Extensive use of the term "intellectual property" by companies like Disney and pro-Disney politicians (Mickey Mouse politicians) to refer to their copyrights has resulted in the public thinking copyrights are property, and, if a house or a car doesn't become public property after 90 years or whatever why should "intellectual property"? Vote fewer Mickey Mouse politicians in power I guess.

Re:2024 for Steamboat Willie?

[ledow]

But my property is no longer my property upon my death.

If I manage to own something for 95 years and I'm still around to claim it, then it should be mine. If Walt was still alive (or whoever actually drew those characters) you could argue that their property still being their property for the length of their lives would be sensible.

But companies don't die. Nintendo is how old? 129 years? There are banks and industries WAY older than that. It's ridiculous to assign "intellectual" property to an entity that has no intellect of its own.

It's about corporations being seen as entities which "must" exist and continue to own everything they've ever owned, into perpetuity. That's not what copyrights or patents were made for. Trademarks, you could argue, that suits. But not the other two.

However, you can be damn sure that if I died tomorrow, all of my property isn't mine, most doesn't get passed down to kids, and some of it disappears entirely (e.g. all my "intellectual" property rights mean naught once I'm dead and I can't pass my copyright licences to, say, software, onto my estate).

The question that needs to be asked legally is: Do you want a corporation to be able to exclusively own an idea for as long as it exists, even if it exists only to own that idea?

I can't see how that is for the public benefit in any way, shape or form, even if you consider taxing that idea into oblivion (it's then still people who weren't even born when the idea was "invented" that have to pay for it).

1923

[Opportunist]

Does anyone need any confirmation that this is absolutely ridiculous? The currently oldest living person is Kane Tanaka from Japan. Born 1903. Now assuming she was a composer and already active before she was 20 years old, we might actually have someone alive whose works drop into PD.

1923 was 95 years ago. We're talking about 4 generations of people reaping the rewards of something their great-grandfather did. Try to find me one other profession where you can milk the exploits of someone you probably never even met because he died long before you were born.

Re:1923

[SqueakyMouse]

Try to find me one other profession where you can milk the exploits of someone you probably never even met because he died long before you were born.

Monarch/Emperor?

Re:1923

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> Farmers can still farm the land their grand pa made farmable. Ships my grandfather build still sail the sees and I get revenue from the passengers. The house my grandpa build I still can rent out.

Big difference here is that the physical asset your grandpappy had would likely have been taxed (via property taxes, etc.) for the past few decades, and some active maintenance would have been required to keep the asset usable.

Meanwhile, intellectual property remains non-taxed (wouldn't it be great to assess and tax Disney's use of the Mouse) and can park for free for years.

Fix the difference (i.e., tax old IP) and I'll be happy.

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up! Intellectual property laws in their current form aren't for the public good, they are plain and simple rent seeking allowances. They discourage creativity and are in practice draconian. These laws, along with the abomination that is patent law, stifle innovation and keep players out of markets. Only the big boys with their lawyers get to play... and beat everyone else over the head with a large stick while collecting rent -- for ninety-five years!

Re:Ridiculous

[treymichaelcook]

Patent laws are actually pretty reasonable, at least length-wise: 20 years, which is long enough to payoff off various high R&D cost inventions, like new pharmaceuticals, while still allowing people to see the patent go public domain within a fraction of the typical human lifespan. I think that setting copyright at the same 20 years would be a good idea.

Copyright should last as long at Patents.

[treymichaelcook]

I think that copyright length should be rolled back to the same length as patents, 20 years. It just seems strange to me that cheesy romance novels & generic action movies get longer amounts of protection than life saving drugs, new battery chemistries, or improved engines. 20 years should be plenty for any book, movie, or game to recoup its development cost, but would allow adults to take the media of their youth and put their owns spins on it, coming up with all sorts of interesting things. Imagine if genuine Star Wars fan could have come up with their own set of prequels & sequels to the original series. I am pretty sure at least one group would have given us a better version that what Lucas and later Disney came up with.
Another thing that should be looked to is coming with some sort of copyright registry; with most valuable property like real estate, automobiles, boats, and even IP like patents & trademarks, there is a pretty easy way to find out who owns what. Copyright doesn't have that, which leads to works being unable to be used since no one knows who owns it. Plus, if IP holders want the government to protect their property, well, they should maybe be taxed on it, with say an assessed tax on the estimated value of the copyright, similar to how property is taxed today. Now, obviously, given the volume of works created, maybe have the tax kick in at values of more than say, $1 million, since trying to tax every little song or short story would be a bookkeeping nightmare.

I'm with the founding fathers

[cascadingstylesheet]

I'm with the founding fathers on this ... it should be 7 years, extendable to 14 max.

Stuff from 2004 should be entering public domain, not from 1923. (Though I'll grant you, the stuff from 1923 is probably better.)

That's not how copyright is supposed to work

[rsilvergun]

the deal is that the government puts it's resources behind protecting your works (keep in mind, your tax dollars are paying for the courts Disney uses to enforce their copyright; more so if you consider how Disney dodges taxes like all major corps). In exchange for that your works eventually become public domain. It was a social contract, and they broke it by extending their benefits indefinitely.

Disney should not have eternal protection

[sjbe]

I have no problem with Disney's most popular characters NOT going into public domain.

Really? You should. Copyright should not be some eternal thing. They should have to keep inventing new works instead of milking work done by people who have been dead and buried for decades.

Disney actively exploits its brand.

So what? Disney has made a killing off of taking public domain works and making proprietary versions of them. Should work the other way around too. They've had 90 years to do something interesting/useful/valuable with it. Time to let others work on it.

How does the world benefit from Mickey Mouse going into public domain? In no way.

Completely wrong. Disney itself is a perfect example of what could happen. They take public domain works (pretty much 90% of their classic animated movies) and do interesting renditions of them that have huge economic and cultural value. Lots of creative works that you cannot even envision could be brought to life that cannot now. Disney's had a good run but if someone has an interesting take on their oldest work then they should be able to make a go of it. Disney shouldn't enjoy some special status not available to anyone else and the ENTIRE point of copyright and patents is that they provide TEMPORARY protection.

Re:Ridiculous

[Jason Levine]

The original copyright term, in the US at least, was 14 years. After that, you could renew it for another 14 years. I think that's plenty of time. I published a book two years ago. If I live until I'm 90 (and there are no more copyright extensions), then my novel will fall out of copyright in the year 2135. If my youngest son has a child when he's 30, this grandson of mine will be 100 by the time my novel's copyright expires. I don't think my great-great-grandkids need to profit off a book that I wrote. Having the copyright expire in 2030 (2044 if I renew) is enough.

Re:Exploration and colonization

[CrimsonAvenger]

Exploration and colonization. Descendants of Europeans are still milking the exploits of the European explorers who explored North and South America and swindled land from Native American nations.

We didn't "swindle" land from the Native Americans. We (occasionally) bought land from the First Immigrants (or Second, depending on how accurate that current scientific views vis a vis the various immigration waves to the New World are), or beat the crap out of them and took it.

Pretty much the same way the various inhabitants of every other part of the world did, back in the day.

Or is it okay if your ancestors did it 1000+ years ago, and only bad when they did it 500- years ago?