
What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014 - Tsiolkovsky
http://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2014/pre-1976
======
kevando
For those curious, this is mostly a result of Disney.

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-
switch/wp/2013/10/25...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-
switch/wp/2013/10/25/15-years-ago-congress-kept-mickey-mouse-out-of-the-
public-domain-will-they-do-it-again/)

~~~
bbanyc
It's partly Disney (and the Gershwin estate) but the 56-year term was extended
in 1976 to bring the US in line with the Berne Convention life-plus-50 term
used in the rest of the world. The current life-plus-70 term originated in
Germany, spread to the rest of the EU and then was adopted in the US for
"harmonization" with Europe.

Harmonization is not necessarily a bad thing. Pre-1976 US copyright law had
some outright bizarre restrictions - a book could forfeit its copyright status
if the publisher printed it outside North America and imported it - that we're
better off having eliminated. But when everything has to be harmonized, it's
rare for anyone to question why the policies we're harmonizing with are in
place.

~~~
jellicle
But who pushed for it in Germany, etc.? Oh, right: Disney and the rest of the
copyright industry.

"Harmonization" somehow always ratchets upwards, never downwards. No one said
to Germany: don't ratchet your copyright term upwards, keep it harmonized.

When in the next few years U.S. copyright suddenly "needs" to be extended
another 20 years, no one is going to complain that this will break
harmonization.

The copyright industry does not care at all about harmonization, and you
should not adopt their framing by talking about it. They are copyright
maximalists, pure and simple.

~~~
bbanyc
The Berne Convention (life-plus-50) was adopted in 1886 - before Walt Disney
was born, before the first motion picture was made, when recorded sound was
just a novelty. Publishing houses were small and there was no "copyright
industry" at the time. For the most part, it was the authors themselves, most
prominently Victor Hugo, lobbying for protection.

Now I think even the Berne term is too long and the rights granted too
expansive, but it wasn't just a naked power grab by the not-yet-existent Big
Media.

(The German 20-year extension was probably a naked power grab, but it happened
in the 1960s and was well off the radar of English-language media companies.
The descendants of some German author who died in the '20s are most likely to
blame.)

~~~
Guvante
While the origin of the 20 year extension is unrelated, the persistence is
what he was referring to. Rather than matching others they kept their own.

------
donpdonp
While not a solution per se, an alternative exists. If the license for current
works are unacceptable, start celebrating other works! Notably, works with a
Creative Commons license.

Some Creative Commons cartoons [http://www.seosmarty.com/15-cartoonists-that-
allow-using-the...](http://www.seosmarty.com/15-cartoonists-that-allow-using-
their-web-comics-for-free/)

Creative Commons Music at Jamendo (see the FAQ
[http://www.jamendo.com/en/faq](http://www.jamendo.com/en/faq))

edit: 'per-say' to 'per se' (thx ansimionescu)

~~~
streetnigga
Consequently others can ignore laws and licenses clearly out of line with the
reality around them. I often find that to be far more effective in living life
than seeking squeaky clean legal alternatives.

We really do only have one go around. I'll buy all the knock-off Mickey Mouse
crap I want.

~~~
dublinben
I think that both of these are important, and symbiotic tactics. Officially
support the artists who are doing the right thing, and rip off the ones who
aren't.

~~~
streetnigga
Yea pretty much, that.

------
sentenza
In the EU, we have lifetime plus 70 years. So the first released movie of the
Marx Brothers, "Coacoanuts" (1929) will enter the public domain in 2048, since
Groucho lived to be 87.

System is broken. Please reboot.

~~~
rurban
In the EU had lifetime plus 30 years. The 70 years came from the US movie
industry and was forced upon us.

~~~
marcosdumay
What's interesting is that US people claim their lifetime+70 years terms were
forced onto them by Europe. I suspect there is some manipulation going on.

------
sheff
On a happier note, here is a list of authors whose works will be entering the
public domain tomorrow in various parts of the world.

[http://publicdomainreview.org/2013/12/10/class-
of-2014/](http://publicdomainreview.org/2013/12/10/class-of-2014/)

------
possibilistic
The fairest idea I've come across concerning protecting copyrighted works from
falling into the public domain is actually pretty simple: tax exclusivity
after the initial 30 years has elapsed. If this tax is non-negligible,
companies will be obliged to keep only their best IPs protected and will let
everything else fall into the public domain.

The government taxes every other kind of property, so why not IP?
Additionally, keeping created works out of the public domain is essentially a
tax on the public; this intellectual levy placed on everyone should be
balanced by a reinvestment in favor of public interests.

If Disney wants to keep Mickey Mouse out of the public domain, they should pay
a yearly fee to prevent it from becoming public property. They'd more than
make up for it with the revenue they garner.

I think that this would also encourage less wasteful use of copyrighted
properties.

~~~
SomeCallMeTim
Not just tax, but TRACK anything that you want to keep protected.

Many books, movies, photos, and other IP instances out there are difficult to
track down solid ownership info for. Sometimes the contracts surrounding the
IP are so complex as to make it impossible for even a trained IP lawyer to
determine who owns what. In some cases even IP claimed by a particular company
may not be valid [1].

If there were a national registry that listed who owned what rights to a
particular property, and you had to pay to be included (maybe the initial
copyright registration pays for the first X years, but after that you have to
continue to pay to continue your protection), it could not only clarify who
"owns" what, it could list those people who had specific sub-licenses to the
property in question, and what the details of their licenses are.

To help combat orphan works, you can throw in one other important requirement:
Even if we give them X years (30 or otherwise) for the initial registration
requirement, they would also need to keep their contact information current at
all times, on pain of losing their registration. If you try the forms of
contact and get wrong numbers and returned letters, then you report that fact
to the copyright registry, and if THEY can't contact the owners within, say,
60 days, then ALL the copyrights owned by that entity get released.

I know of some properties (old games in particular) that have such confused
licensing surrounding them (with companies buying "rights" in large packages
and then ignoring them, or the companies closing down with no clear record of
who ended up purchasing those particular rights...) that they are languishing
in limbo. No one can make a sequel, no one can republish them on new
platforms... With a registry, you could look to see WHO is currently paying
the upkeep fee, and with the "keep your contact info public" requirement, at
least you'd be guaranteed that you'd be able to contact the current rights
holder.

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/nyregion/lawsuit-aims-
to-s...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/nyregion/lawsuit-aims-to-strip-
happy-birthday-to-you-of-its-copyright.html?_r=0)

------
huskyr
Another interesting tidbit about US copyright is the Uruguay Round Agreements
Act:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguay_Round_Agreements_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguay_Round_Agreements_Act)

One of the effects of this act is restoring copyright in the U.S. to foreign
works of authors that weren't dead for 70 years on january 1st 1996 in their
home country. Instead, works only enter the PD 95 years after publication.

So for example, the last paintings by Theo van Doesburg, a Dutch artist who
entered the public domain in the Netherlands in 2002, will only be out of
copyright in the U.S. in 2026. And that's why you won't see those works on a
site such as Wikipedia, that is under U.S. law.

------
kriro
The irony that Atlas Shrugged is on the list and massively protected by
government IP law is deliciously sad.

More interesting is that Tesla is part of the class of 2014 for 70 year
countries :) 50 year countries get some nice additions (some real
heavyweights): Robert Frost, Sylvia Plath, William Carlos Williams, Louis
MacNeice, Jean Cocteau, C. S. Lewis, Aldous Huxley

~~~
throwawaykf03
Irony? Rand was a very strong proponent of IP rights. From a quick search:

[http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/patents_and_copyrights.htm...](http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/patents_and_copyrights.html)

[http://hallingblog.com/ayn-rand-on-intellectual-
property/com...](http://hallingblog.com/ayn-rand-on-intellectual-
property/comment-page-1/)

~~~
darkarmani
Wow. This is what passes for logic? Begging the question?

> As an objection to the patent laws, some people cite the fact that two
> inventors may work independently for years on the same invention, but one
> will beat the other to the patent office by an hour or a day and will
> acquire an exclusive monopoly, while the loser’s work will then be totally
> wasted. This type of objection is based on the error of equating the
> potential with the actual. The fact that a man might have been first, does
> not alter the fact that he wasn’t.

~~~
throwawaykf03
I don't see what this has to do with the "irony" context, but:

1) Ayn Rand's writings have had their fair share of criticism, with good
reason. However, I'm not sure what the circular logic is in that snippet.
Could you elaborate?

2) Randian logic aside, multiple people inventing (as opposed to
"discovering") the same thing at the same time is so rare, that the USPTO
changed from first-to-invent to first-to-file.

~~~
darkarmani
> The fact that a man might have been first, does not alter the fact that he
> wasn’t.

This is what the argument is about and shouldn't be the conclusion. The
argument isn't about who is first, it's about why that matters.

------
pessimizer
If this stuff did start to enter the public domain after 28+28 years, the
modern entertainment industry would be screwed because they would have to
compete with it. Rationally, they'd rather it burned than free.

~~~
justin66
There's some interesting stuff on that list but I don't think it'd be
competition to anything. I like the idea that the kids would be watching
Bridge on the River Kwai instead of the latest recruitment video but it
doesn't seem likely.

Of course, the studios would lose the long-tail revenue from controlling
movies like Bridge on the River Kwai (or licensing the movie rights to things
like the old version of 3:10 to Yuma) and that does add up.

~~~
toyg
At this point, it's mostly about preservation. Kwai is one of a zillion war
movies produced more than 40 years ago; unlike the bridge, that movie will
forever endure, but so many of its contemporaries will disappear -- a fate
entirely avoidable in this age of long-tail hyper-specialized scholarly
studies, unlimited data capacity and worldwide p2p redundancy. Art will be
lost because of unbridled greed, and this is the real tragedy.

~~~
judk
Do we need the zillions of other movies? At some point, we need to curate to
not be overwhelmed

~~~
warfangle
How can one curate that which is lost?

------
seandougall
My wife's response: "Although, really, Ayn Rand fan fiction does not sound
like that much fun."

------
javajosh
Am I the only one that thinks that we should almost certainly treat scientific
research entirely differently than entertainment? Frankly, when I think about
it objectively, I could care less if a novel is under copyright for a very
long time - it's not like there's a lack of entertainment options for people,
and that they will suffer because they have to pay something to read a book or
see a movie. But scientific research seems like an entirely different animal:
if we as a society are so into technological progress, why wouldn't we act to
make all scientific research as widely available as possible? It would seem
that in the Internet age the best and easiest way to achieve that as a matter
of policy is simply modifying copyright rules - and if Aaron Swartz is any
indication, there will be many people more than happy to store and disseminate
the information as a public service. (Although I personally believe that it
would be entirely reasonable for the USG to spend a modest sum hosting the
data, sort of like a federal online library. Perhaps this could even be
started by generous endowment from an Internet titan, just as The Smithsonian
was started by such an endowment.)

~~~
njharman
You have a personal bias towards hard science. Many, many people; linguists,
anthropologists, historians, socialists, academics, for example; would
consider what you call entertainment, their scientific research.

------
mrcactu5
Works from 1916 and before are public domain? Not a bad start.

It is a really great to read the beautiful color version of the *First Six
Books of the Elements of Euclid" online for free.
[https://archive.org/details/firstsixbooksofe00byrn](https://archive.org/details/firstsixbooksofe00byrn)

Meanwhile it is selling on Amazon for up to $100
[http://www.amazon.com/Oliver-Byrne-Six-Books-
Euclid/dp/38365...](http://www.amazon.com/Oliver-Byrne-Six-Books-
Euclid/dp/3836544717/)

------
will_brown
I do not see a problem with indefinite copyright protections.

One of the assumptions is that everything being equal the same works would
exist if it were not for copyright protections. However, I would argue without
the extended copyright protections, most of these [future] classic works would
not exist, simply because publishers/studios would not invest in the
creation/distribution of the works initially. In other words, copyright
protections encourages the creation of works.

The OP takes an opposing stance, suggesting if copyright protections existed
historically it would have stifled the creation of many classic works. This
may be the case in certain instances, but to make that argument one must have
an in depth understand of what constitutes copyright infringement in a legal
sense - including all defenses to infringement (i.e. derivative work, fair
use, educational/news worthy use, ect...)- and make the argument on a case by
case basis. Very few people have any idea of what constitutes copyright
infringement - and even among legal scholars, practitioners and judges there
is disagreement.

All I know is if you have ever created anything and had it stolen you
understand the need for legal protection. Plus it would suck to live in a
world where I am financially rewarding thieves because I can not distinguish
if a work was original or a knockoff. Finally, legal protection is just that
protection, there is nothing stopping copyright owners from giving away their
works for free, in other words voluntarily releasing their work(s) to the
public domain.

~~~
horseapples
I can create and distribute any creation for free thanks to the internet. Your
argument assumes that a publisher/studio is required, when this is simply not
the case, and not the direction the world is headed. Copyright and all IP law
stifles creation at the cost of creativity.

I create because I'm a creator, not because there is a fiscal reward. I create
because I want to make a great product, not because I want to make a lot of
money. I don't create so I can make some corporate fat ass rich.

~~~
will_brown
>I can create and distribute any creation for free thanks to the internet. >I
create because I'm a creator, not because there is a fiscal reward.

Then there is nothing stopping you from doing just that...Just because the
protections exist does not mean you must avail yourselves to them, you can
give your work away for free all you want or let others take your work
reproduce it and sell it as their own (maybe even take credit as the original
creator).

However, if your saying you need to create your work off anthers work which is
copyrighted and they want to enforce the same, then I would say IP is not what
is stifling creativity, rather an unoriginal artist with no creativity to
begin with.

~~~
skyebook
> However, if your saying you need to create your work off anthers work which
> is copyrighted and they want to enforce the same, then I would say IP is not
> what is stifling creativity, rather an unoriginal artist with no creativity
> to begin with.

Creativity != originality. Its been pointed out elsewhere in the thread, but
plenty of Disney's works are not original. That doesn't detract from the
quality of the work or the creativity involved in adapting the story.

What you argue for with indefinite control is building on someone else's work
and then being allowed to say "OK, I have the final say. No more is to be done
on this line."

~~~
will_brown
>Creativity != originality. Its been pointed out elsewhere in the thread, but
plenty of Disney's works are not original. That doesn't detract from the
quality of the work or the creativity involved in adapting the story.

I agree with you. When I said "create your work off another" I am referencing
a 1 to 1 copy or at least a work that results in a finding of infringement. If
you create a derivative work that does not infringe on a copyright, more power
to you - but the point is you would not need to have a work in the public
domain to create a derivative work that does not infringe.

------
aestra
Don't forget to check out Project Gutenberg for a collection of works already
in public domain.

[http://www.gutenberg.org/](http://www.gutenberg.org/)

~~~
tunap
Gutenberg.org is great. In the same vein, gotta give honorable mention to
librivox.org & archive.org.

------
BlackDeath3
There's something really ironic about Atlas Shrugged being on that list.

~~~
cafard
How so?

~~~
jellicle
Something about Ayn Rand's heirs suckling off the government teat of copyright
laws for infinite years.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Peikoff](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Peikoff)

"Every dollar I have is because the government has forced every single person
who wants to read a book I had nothing to do with writing to pay me money. I'm
a Libertarian!"

~~~
EarthLaunch
That's not an actual quote. From the very article you linked:

> He also continues Rand's opposition to libertarianism, remaining sharply
> opposed to any description of Objectivist political philosophy as
> "libertarian" and to any collaboration with most libertarian groups. He has
> been critical of American foreign policy, including both neoconservative and
> libertarian views as self-sacrificial.

I will point out that your calling copyright laws "the government teat" is a
Libertarian view that IP rights are coercive. Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff
both argue that proper IP laws are non-coercive. For that reason and others,
Objectivists don't _want_ to be associated with Libertarians.

------
stanmancan
I know nothing on the subject, but would it be possibly for Disney (or any
other creator for that matter) to start a Mickey Mouse company, with Mickey as
the logo and mascot, that sells Mickey Mouse paraphernalia and protect the
characters as a trademark?

~~~
brazzy
Yes, but trademark protection wouldn't prevent people from using or selling
the older works, at least not in general.

From
[http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/trademark.html](http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/trademark.html)
:

> Twentieth Century Fox was the producer of a World War II video series that
> was no longer protected by copyright. When a competitor used it, Fox sued —
> not for copyright infringement (because they couldn’t), but for trademark
> infringment. They lost. See Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.
> et al., 540 US 806 (2003), which you can read here: (
> [http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/support-
> files/dastar.pdf](http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/support-
> files/dastar.pdf) ).

------
VikingCoder
Oh crap, Atlas Shrugged. That would have been awesome. I could have taken Ayn
Rand's words, modified them how I wanted to, published it, and donated all of
the proceeds to the Socialist Party USA.

------
simbolit
i would love to hear from our libertarian friends on what they think about
copyright and the public domain.

~~~
Symmetry
"Government enforced monopolies are bad" is what particularly doctrinaire
libertarians say, but libertarians aren't know for their ability to agree with
each other.

~~~
praxeologist
I guess I am a PDL but I fail to see how any government-enforced monopoly
could be a good thing ever. I genuinely see people who believe such things as
backwards, primitive fucks.

Anyhow, among hardcore libertarian circles there is actually pretty wide
agreement these days that IP laws are unjust. The work you want to look at for
the sea change is Kinsella's Against Intellectual Property free online here:
[http://mises.org/document/3582](http://mises.org/document/3582)

------
kbenson
What saddens me most is that the Bugs Bunny cartoon is held back. The Barber
of Seville cartoon is wonderful as well.

