Interesting Public Domain news

[Marti Talbott]

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/akwd7b/best-of-public-domain-day-2020?fbclid=IwAR08oz4naKCG_m4BELuw3rWY1DGYrUgaVesrxsMZMZC3B1YMiS3GXMusjQs

[Post-Doctorate D]

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not sure they've got things quite right in their article.

In the U.S., copyright lasts the life of the author plus 70 years for works first published on or after January 1, 1978.  Before that date, copyright terms lasted fixed periods of years.

For works first published in the U.S. between 1923 and 1964, the copyright term was 28 years and renewal granted an additional 47 years.  That was extended to 67 years in 1998, but only for works that hadn't already expired.  I think the 28 years plus 47 years is where Vice is getting their 75 year number.  But, that's based on when the work was published and it doesn't matter when the author died.

So, works first published in the U.S. in 1924 should have gone into the public domain in 1999, but Congress passed an act in 1998 putting it off for another twenty years.

Works first published between 1923 and 1963 in the U.S. are in the public domain in the U.S. if they were not renewed on time.  That's often difficult to determine, which is why the 95 years becomes the magic number, because if they were renewed on time, the maximum period of time those works would be under copyright protection in the U.S. is 95 years.

Bottom line is that, for those works, you needn't worry about when the author died.

For works first published outside the U.S., it gets more complicated.  You also need to be careful of situations where something might be public domain in the U.S. but still under copyright protection elsewhere in the world, especially if you're using it in some way and are publishing your work outside the U.S.

Again, though, I'm not a lawyer.

[Marti Talbott]

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not sure they've got things quite right in their article.

In the U.S., copyright lasts the life of the author plus 70 years for works first published on or after January 1, 1978.  Before that date, copyright terms lasted fixed periods of years.

For works first published in the U.S. between 1923 and 1964, the copyright term was 28 years and renewal granted an additional 47 years.  That was extended to 67 years in 1998, but only for works that hadn't already expired.  I think the 28 years plus 47 years is where Vice is getting their 75 year number.  But, that's based on when the work was published and it doesn't matter when the author died.

So, works first published in the U.S. in 1924 should have gone into the public domain in 1999, but Congress passed an act in 1998 putting it off for another twenty years.

Works first published between 1923 and 1963 in the U.S. are in the public domain in the U.S. if they were not renewed on time.  That's often difficult to determine, which is why the 95 years becomes the magic number, because if they were renewed on time, the maximum period of time those works would be under copyright protection in the U.S. is 95 years.

Bottom line is that, for those works, you needn't worry about when the author died.

For works first published outside the U.S., it gets more complicated.  You also need to be careful of situations where something might be public domain in the U.S. but still under copyright protection elsewhere in the world, especially if you're using it in some way and are publishing your work outside the U.S.

Again, though, I'm not a lawyer.

I'm not completely familiar with the law either, but this article reminds us that our descendants could lose the rights to our work, if they are not aware and know how to maintain the copyright. Agatha Christie doesn't have any descendants? Surprised to see one of her books listed.

[Post-Doctorate D]

I'm not completely familiar with the law either, but this article reminds us that our descendants could lose the rights to our work, if they are not aware and know how to maintain the copyright.

If you're a U.S. author first published in the U.S., I don't know that there would be anything to maintain unless you have works published before 1978.  After that, it's life plus 70 years.  No renewals.

Of course, laws can change, so any heirs would need to keep on top of any copyright law changes.

Agatha Christie doesn't have any descendants? Surprised to see one of her books listed.

She had a daughter and also at least one nephew.  But she was an English writer so I'm not familiar with the copyright laws there, aside from the perpetual Crown copyright.

[Marti Talbott]

I'm not completely familiar with the law either, but this article reminds us that our descendants could lose the rights to our work, if they are not aware and know how to maintain the copyright.

If you're a U.S. author first published in the U.S., I don't know that there would be anything to maintain unless you have works published before 1978.  After that, it's life plus 70 years.  No renewals.

Of course, laws can change, so any heirs would need to keep on top of any copyright law changes.

Agatha Christie doesn't have any descendants? Surprised to see one of her books listed.

She had a daughter and also at least one nephew.  But she was an English writer so I'm not familiar with the copyright laws there, aside from the perpetual Crown copyright.

Life plus 70 years and our children can't renew copyright? Wow, that's not fair. Look at how many movie remakes there are these days. I have always suspected they do that because they already own the rights, but didn't imagine the rights had expired. Frankly, I love the old movies more than the remakes, but it works for people who haven't seen the original. Thinking of Midway remake which has gotten many bad reviews.

[Post-Doctorate D]

Life plus 70 years and our children can't renew copyright? Wow, that's not fair.

Some people argue that life plus 70 years is too long.  (I'm not among them.)

[Lynn]

Life plus 70 years and our children can't renew copyright? Wow, that's not fair.

Some people argue that life plus 70 years is too long.  (I'm not among them.)

My son argues that. We can no longer talk about copyright. Our viewpoints have diverged far too much! Oh for the days when he just took what I said and believed anything I told him. ;-)

[DCRWrites]

It really depends on the purpose of copyright. I prefer shorter copyrights because I believe a richer public domain provides a better creative environment and reduces the chance of works becoming lost after the author passes. I would be fine with life plus 50 or even life plus 25.

The only real beneficiaries of greatly extended copyrights are corporations which can continue to profit from IP decades after the death of the original creators. Disney benefits from copyrights on Mickey Mouse just as Warner’s benefits from those on The Joker.

The real question is how to balance the right of the creator to control and be compensated for their works with the benefits to society of letting others take that inspiration and build on it.

I have been thinking a lot lately about what creative control really means to me because I have a role playing game supplement coming out and I had to adjust to the idea that other people will be creating (though not publishing) their own stories based on my characters and world.

[Al Stevens]

Gershwin died in 1937. Rhapsody in Blue was written in 1924. The article is confused.

[Bill Hiatt]

It really depends on the purpose of copyright. I prefer shorter copyrights because I believe a richer public domain provides a better creative environment and reduces the chance of works becoming lost after the author passes. I would be fine with life plus 50 or even life plus 25.

The only real beneficiaries of greatly extended copyrights are corporations which can continue to profit from IP decades after the death of the original creators. Disney benefits from copyrights on Mickey Mouse just as Warner’s benefits from those on The Joker.

The real question is how to balance the right of the creator to control and be compensated for their works with the benefits to society of letting others take that inspiration and build on it.

I have been thinking a lot lately about what creative control really means to me because I have a role playing game supplement coming out and I had to adjust to the idea that other people will be creating (though not publishing) their own stories based on my characters and world.

I think life plus 70 years is a good balance between an author's desire to provide for his or her heirs and the social importance of a vigorous public domain. 70 years is long enough that most heirs the author knew personally would likely be dead by then. On the other hand, particularly in the age of digital formats, it's not so long that a potential classic will be lost because the heirs didn't know what they were doing. (In the age of print only, it was much easier for a literary work to vanish completely.)

We've had some very passionate threads on this issue. For most of our heirs, it's probably not going to matter that  much. As we all know, when authors stop publishing, even if they're still alive, their works gradually fade from sight, with the partial exception of people with huge followings. Works also fade from sight if they aren't being actively promoted. So unless an indie has a huge following and/or savvy heirs who manage to keep the books visible, within a short period of time, the royalties will end up amounting to a cup of coffee every month or so.

There will, of course, be exceptions. Authors who have become household names will continue to be read, but few indies have achieved that status. And if a work becomes enough of a classic to be studied in school, there'll be a steady flow of royalties from then on.

[Lynn]

The only real beneficiaries of greatly extended copyrights are corporations which can continue to profit from IP decades after the death of the original creators. Disney benefits from copyrights on Mickey Mouse just as Warner’s benefits from those on The Joker.

Which is exactly why I, as a contrarian, do prefer that copyrights extend longer, because if some corporation is going profit off my work, I want them to have to pay at least a token amount to someone for the privilege. If it's public domain, corporations can spit out as much junk as they want and don't have to pay a dime for the right. :D

[Bill Hiatt]

The only real beneficiaries of greatly extended copyrights are corporations which can continue to profit from IP decades after the death of the original creators. Disney benefits from copyrights on Mickey Mouse just as Warner’s benefits from those on The Joker.

Which is exactly why I, as a contrarian, do prefer that copyrights extend longer, because if some corporation is going profit off my work, I want them to have to pay at least a token amount to someone for the privilege. If it's public domain, corporations can spit out as much junk as they want and don't have to pay a dime for the right. :D

I think DCRWrites had in mind a scenario in which the corporation owns the copyright in the first place, the material having been created as work for hire.

If something is public domain, corporations can still exploit it, but so can anyone else. If something is held under a corporate copyright (which, if the corps had their way, would be perpetual), then they and they alone would profit.

[Simon Haynes]

When I told my adult daughters that their grandchildren might still be earning royalties from my books they were shocked.

By the way, wasn't it extended to 90 years recently? (The traditional moving of the goal posts to ensure Mickey Mouse never enters the public domain.)

Personally I think life plus X is fine, but there should be an option for someone (related to the ownership of the copyright) to pay an eye-watering amount to extend it. That would allow the three or four huge corporations who want to protect their assets to do so, while allowing everything else to fall naturally into the public domain.

[Bill Hiatt]

When I told my adult daughters that their grandchildren might still be earning royalties from my books they were shocked.

By the way, wasn't it extended to 90 years recently? (The traditional moving of the goal posts to ensure Mickey Mouse never enters the public domain.)

Personally I think life plus X is fine, but there should be an option for someone (related to the ownership of the copyright) to pay an eye-watering amount to extend it. That would allow the three or four huge corporations who want to protect their assets to do so, while allowing everything else to fall naturally into the public domain.

The copyright office still says life plus 70. But work for hire material is 95 from first publication or 120 from first creation, whichever expires first. Those are typically the terms for corporate-owned material. Of course, publishers with contractual relations with authors would be under the life-plus terms.

[Al Stevens]

By the way, wasn't it extended to 90 years recently? (The traditional moving of the goal posts to ensure Mickey Mouse never enters the public domain.)

Mickey is protected by trademark law, which does not expire when renewed properly. His movies, comic books, etc. fall under copyright law.