
Writers who will be entering the public domain in 2015 in many countries - benbreen
http://publicdomainreview.org/collections/class-of-2015/
======
audiodude
In case anyone is wondering, once again nothing will enter the public domain
in the United States because of Congress' perpetual habit of retroactively
extending copyright on works. The next time anything will enter the public
domain in the US is January 1, 2019. source:
[https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday](https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday)

~~~
acabal
As I've said before, insanely long copyright terms are one of the biggest
modern cultural tragedies we face.

If things stay as they are (or get worse), I expect to see an interesting side
effect for today's authors: the vast majority of people creating today--those
who don't produce blockbuster franchises that ageless corporations can milk
eternally--will be _totally forgotten_ in fifty or a hundred year's time. And
not forgotten in the "who is that, let me look it up" sense, but rather
effectively not included in any meaningful records our children's children
would access.

Why? Because long copyright prevents volunteers from remembering your work
after you're dead.

That's not the case for centuries-old authors today. Thanks to the public
domain, volunteers from all over the world at places like Project Gutenberg
and Archive.org lovingly scan, transcribe, produce, catalog, store, and make
available old works for today's generation to enjoy. Not just famous stuff
like Dracula, but obscure works, works that were unpopular in their day, works
that didn't matter then and maybe don't even matter now. The public domain
makes this possible--it keeps the memory of authors alive, because as humans
we instinctively know it's important to our culture.

But the work you produce today, unless it's highly profitable to a
corporation, will be shackled by draconian laws and punishments for hundreds
of years. Why should volunteers risk their freedom and treasure to transcribe
your 150-year-old work still under copyright? They won't, and you and your
work will be forgotten, while we keep re-using and sharing obscure writing
from 1923.

~~~
tim333
"The real incentive here is for corporate owners that bought copyrights to
lobby Congress for another 20 years of revenue—not for creators who will be
long dead once this term extension takes hold."

"I thought it was a moral outrage. There wasn't anyone speaking out for the
public interest."

\- Sen. Hank Brown, the only Senator to be against extending copyright in the
90s. Shame there were not more like that.

[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/)

~~~
zmmmmm
It bugs me that there is never any accounting for the "loss" to the public.
When a work that would otherwise enter the public domain is instead kept
copyrighted, that is essentially privatisation of public property. If congress
decided to sell national parks to private owners there would be a massive
outcry. The idea that they would just _give_ them to private owners for free
would be considered utterly absurd. Yet this is exactly what extension of
copyrights is. At very least, people would insist a proper valuation be put on
them and the benefactors asked to pay a commensurate amount to the public to
compensate the loss of public property. Yet none of this happens, these
extensions are made as donations to private benefactors as if it means nothing
to society.

~~~
csallen
This is because copyright law is unintuitive, and most don't understand its
origins. People don't _feel_ that creative works rightfully belong to the
public. The existence of terms like "intellectual property" doesn't help.

~~~
joepie91_
Very much this. It is plain unhealthy how many people perceive copyright as
being a 'measure to ensure income for artists'.

~~~
throwawaykf05
Hmm, at least in the US, the relevant sentence is: "To 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."

The way I read it, the _intent_ of latter half of the sentence clearly is to
enable artists to profit from their works. Note that it does not say "all
artists shall be paid no matter what". But by having exclusive rights to their
works, it can work roughly like any other property in a capitalistic society:
that is, artists may be able to capture rewards proportionate to the amount of
the value they provide.

~~~
yohui
I am not a legal scholar, but to me the _intent_ of the latter half is clearly
stated by the first half: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful
Arts".

~~~
chrismcb
One way to promote scientists and creators is to allow them to warn money so
they can keep sciencing and creating.

~~~
sanderjd
Nobody is arguing that. What people are arguing is that if copyright does not
promote the progress of science and useful arts, it fails to fulfill the
intent of its existence. The follow-on argument is then that indefinitely
extending copyright undermines that promotion of progress. If you buy both
arguments, then you see why many people find the extensions so objectionable
on Constitutional grounds. I don't think many people disagree with the first
argument, because it's right there in the text (which is the point I believe
your parent was making), but of course lots of people disagree with the second
argument, believing that longer copyright terms better promote creation.

------
anigbrowl
Somewhat off-topic, but: _Piet Mondrian - A Dutch painter whose distinctive
grid based creations – horizontal and vertical lines upon a white background
adorned with red, blue and yellow blocks – proved one of the most influential
experiments with abstraction of the 20th century._

I always thought of Mondrian's work as abstract until the first time I flew to
the Netherlands. Dutch people really, _really_ like flowers, and have made
them a major agricultural export. Also, a lot of dutch land is reclaimed from
the sea and the terrain is pretty flat to begin with. Fly into Schipol at the
right time of year and Mondrian's inspiration becomes very obvious - black
roads, snow-covered open fields, greenhouses with blocks of vivid color. In a
flash, my concept of his work went from 'paintings' to 'pictures'.

~~~
amathstudent
Thank you!

------
MereInterest
In addition to this, I like considering things that _should_ be entering the
public domain. Using the initial copyright length of 14 years, renewable for
an additional 14, anything published in 1987 should be entering the public
domain in the upcoming year.

* Predator

* Robocop

* The Princess Bride

* Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency, by Douglas Adams

* Watchmen, by Alan Moore

* Hatchet, by Gary Paulsen

These should all be open cultural works, ready for new writers to use as a
basis. Ready to be used as the backdrop for new stories. Instead, they are
locked universes, only containing a small number of stories.

~~~
andrewljohnson
28 years isn't even long enough for the author to die. As a creator, I want to
maintain my copyrights at least as long as I live.

I say go make your own backdrops, your own universe.

~~~
MereInterest
28 years is long enough for a child to be raised on newly published works,
then grow up to make their own stories. The child who play-pretends as
Sherlock Holmes or as The Dread Pirate Robert should be able to grow up and
write those stories.

~~~
andrewljohnson
How do we know that is even beneficial? Why can't the child create her own
characters?

It's a warm and fuzzy statement you make, but what's the argument about why
this is good, for child or society?

~~~
MereInterest
[http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2007/07/research-
optima...](http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2007/07/research-optimal-
copyright-term-is-14-years/)

The purpose of copyright is explicitly stated to be "to promote the sciences
and useful arts". Copyright's temporary monopoly over works is designed to
compensate the author for having written them. Without public domain, there is
no advancement, as future authors cannot build upon earlier works.

If I ever reference the sword Excalibur, or the outlaw Robin Hood, or the
raising of Lazarus, I am using cultural references. Under the reign of
permanent copyright, these references, which can enrich a work considerably,
would not be allowed. In 100 years, authors will not be allowed to make
reference to Harry Potter, or Frodo, or Luke Skywalker, a great cultural loss.

~~~
anigbrowl
It's a bit pedantic of me, but I think your argument has presented has a lot
of holes. You can always write original work that doesn't depend on existing
cultural references, and the ability to reference things is not as limited as
you suggest. I can write an publish a book tomorrow in which a character reads
a Harry Potter novel and muses on the content. What I can't do is write a book
featuring Harry Potter, boy wizard, as a character, unless it's some sort of
parody - but in that case I may well have to expend money and legal effort on
defending against a lawsuit while a court decides whether the derivative work
falls within some permissible exception.

Incidentally JRR Tolkien died in 1973 so you'll be able to recycle characters
from _Lord of the Rings_ to your heart's content in 29 years as long as the
law doesn't change; you just won't be able to use the footage from the movies
or quote the script insofar as it differs from the novel. A literary parody
has been around for a few decades already, I think it's called _Bored of the
Rings_.

------
benbreen
The French historian Marc Bloch is one of the ones who makes their runner's up
list and deserves wider attention. He was shot by the Gestapo in 1944 and
along with Fernand Braudel (who was himself a POW at the time) was the leader
of the Annales School, arguably the most influential school of thought among
professional historians.

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

------
wazoox
About Saint-Exupery: his plane and chain bracelet have been found in 2004 in
La Ciotat bay, so there is no serious doubt anymore about the exact date and
place of his death.

~~~
crousto
Also, for France, Saint-Exupery's body of work will only enter the public
domain in 2032. This is the result of a law that extends copyright in the
special case when an author dies for their country.

------
jdeisenberg
Well, there goes _their_ incentive to produce any new works.

~~~
mmanfrin
_Honestly_ why doesn't congress do something to encourage them to write more?
They've obviously not written anything lately because there's no incentive!

------
swsieber
The question is why don't we organize a campaign and get a bill introduced to
shorten copyright law? Every year we lament how we should have more in the
public domain without doing anything. I'm fairly sure somebody could come up
with a catchy slogan or some cool perspective that would make voters hate
their senator if they didn't pass that type of bill (copyright shortenting)
Conceivably (and most likely), it might not pass on the first time. But
basically all I hear here is whining, without any suggestions on how to fix it
- possible laws yes, possible action plans no.

We need a couple of good opinion pieces on why copyright is bad, and maybe a
couple of light-weight buzzfeed style articles that highlight what things
we're missing out (so they can trend on facebook). You wouldn't believe #4...

------
angelbob
I read the title and expected more tweaking of the US for how many years it's
been since _any_ writers' work has entered the public domain here.

------
herge
So James Bond is in the public domain in Canada?

~~~
Marcus316
So, yes, it seems that James Bond has entered the public domain in Canada. I
wonder, though, what kind of legal hammers would be brought down upon someone
who tried to do any sort of adaptation or reproduction of the work in another
medium. Could an animated adaptation of the novels (or even just an
illustrated version) be made, and if so, what limitations would be in place
(or what legal ramifications would need to be considered) given that in the US
this material is NOT in the public domain, and would at least require
licensing (I assume) to be distributed in the US?

It's Public Domain, but not really? :P (I'm from Canada, and I'd love to
explore using some of these works creatively, but it's tough to unravel what
is and isn't kosher).

~~~
hrktb
The name "James Bond" would still be trademarked, so I'm not sure there would
be anything freely allowed from a commercial point of view.

~~~
Marcus316
Interestingly enough, I did do a quick Trademark search, and it turns out
that, while the "James Bond 007 & Gun"[0] is a registered trademark in Canada,
the name "James Bond" is not yet trademarked[1]. There is a search done and a
proposed usage, but a registration has not yet taken place. Looks like the
next action taken on the file will be on Jan 31st, 2015.

I admit, though, it's pretty murky territory. Even the government site I used
to search this indicates that the information may not be reliable, as some of
it is provided via 3rd party.

[0][http://www.cipo.ic.gc.ca/app/opic-
cipo/trdmrks/srch/vwTrdmrk...](http://www.cipo.ic.gc.ca/app/opic-
cipo/trdmrks/srch/vwTrdmrk.do?lang=eng&status=OK&fileNumber=0742137&extension=0&startingDocumentIndexOnPage=1)
[1][http://www.cipo.ic.gc.ca/app/opic-
cipo/trdmrks/srch/vwTrdmrk...](http://www.cipo.ic.gc.ca/app/opic-
cipo/trdmrks/srch/vwTrdmrk.do?lang=eng&status=OK&fileNumber=1647365&extension=0&startingDocumentIndexOnPage=1)

~~~
valleyer
Remember that in the U.S., trademarks don't need to be registered to be valid,
if it can be shown that use of the trademark would confuse customers.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Yes, registered trademarks are a different beast to mere trademarks where as
you say it is normally required to prove confusion.

But the "confusion" in question is not just that this mark sounds like another
it is that the public will be confused about the origin of the goods that the
trademark is applied to. Trademarks indicate the origin of goods or services.

So, if your film is "valleyer's presentation of James Bond, not associated
with the estate of A R Broccoli" then clearly no member of the public will be
confused and by rights you should then be free to use an unregistered mark.
Sadly money has a way of talking louder than democracy.

------
mgraczyk
Interesting list, but sad that the US is once again missing.

Side note: the page is mostly unreadable in Chrome on my Nexus 5. The text
runs past the edge of my screen and I can't zoom out.

------
juliendorra
Every December since the last 3 years we (SavoirsCom1, a collective advocating
for cultural commons) publish a _Public Domain Advent Calendar_. It's a fun
way to anticipate and discover the works of the authors joining the public
domain:

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

(In French! But with names, links and pictures it should be useful and
interesting to all)

------
ww520
When is Micky Mouse entering public domain? It has been for a long while.

~~~
pervycreeper
Never.

