
What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2012? - mtgx
http://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2012/pre-1976
======
chimeracoder
Also still under copyright:

"I Have a Dream" until 2038[1]. This is particularly frustrating because the
copyright holders include the estate of the person who delivered the speech,
but not the estate of the two other people who wrote it (and likely most of
it) - not to mention the fact that, by any web-era definition, it was a public
performance and also a 'general publication'.

"Happy Birthday" (certainly in the EU until 2016, and potentially in the US
too until 2030 though this is disputed[2]).

There is also one movie - whose name escapes me now - which entered the public
domain and was then _put back under copyright protection_ subsequently.

In the case of "I Have a Dream", think of the societal cost of raising _two
generations_ of students without a complete copy of the speech in their
textbooks (as is generally the case).

Alternatively, think of how a 2012 version of "I Have a Dream" would happen
today. If hundreds of cell phone recordings of the speech were distributed
halfway around the world within mere minutes after the speech, of what
relevance would copyright protection be?

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_a_Dream#Copyright_disput...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_a_Dream#Copyright_dispute)
[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You>

~~~
dfc
_"In the case of "I Have a Dream", think of the societal cost of raising two
generations of students without a complete copy of the speech in their
textbooks (as is generally the case)."_

While I completely agree that it is a shame that Dr. King's speeches are
protected by copyright I really do not think that there is a great societal
cost due to textbooks without a verbatim transcript. With the exception of the
Gettysburg Address I can not think of any speeches that should be included
verbatim in a high school social studies textbook. Textbooks have a lot of
material to cover and summarize.

~~~
indiecore
Not an American but why should the Gettysburg Address be in full while other
ones aren't?

~~~
antoko
I'd assume it is because it is so short rather than because it is any more
significant than other historical works.

268 words total.

 _Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent,
a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all
men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any
nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great
battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as
a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation
might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate—we cannot consecrate—we cannot
hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have
consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will
little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what
they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the
unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It
is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before
us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for
which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve
that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall
have a new birth of freedom— and that government of the people, by the people,
for the people, shall not perish from the earth._

------
btilly
The sad thing is that the abuse of copyright law by Disney was entirely
unnecessary. All along they had a much more appropriate way to defend Mickey
Mouse - trademark law.

Really. The maintenance of iconic symbols with commercial value is exactly
what trademarks are for.

But no, instead they destroyed copyright. Then went to put criminal penalties
on it. And ridiculous statutory penalties. Then they tried scaring the whole
country with their BS. Multiple countries in fact.

If the public was given a choice, they'd lose immediately. Which is why they
were so desperate to kill the trial balloon that the Republicans recently
floated.

------
ComputerGuru
Really makes you hate good, old Walt Disney, doesn't it?

~~~
tzs
No, I like long copyright terms. They ensure that there is a very good chance
that I will never be subjected to advertisements featuring Calvin and Hobbes
promoting breakfast cereal and toys.

I'd be OK with giving different terms to the different rights that compose the
bundle of copyright rights. Make the derivative work right term for literary
and artistic works very very long, but make the reproduction right term short.
That would give the public the benefit of wide, affordable (or free)
availability of literary and artistic works, without making them available for
advertisers to use to rape the memory of my youth.

~~~
nitrogen
What about fan fiction and mashups? I think that things like _Harry Potter and
the Methods of Rationality_ and maybe _Pride and Prejudice and Zombies_ should
be permitted sooner than unlicensed advertising.

~~~
lmm
Legally there's no distinction between the two (and how could you draw a line?
HPMoR is in many ways one big advert for the centre for modern rationality).

But yeah, I think the good of unlicensed reuse of characters is worth putting
up with the bad.

~~~
nitrogen
Maybe you'd have to provide a separate right to the characters in a fictional
work, so that characters can be reused in other fictional works, but not in a
way that implies that the original character/author supports some other entity
or product, such as the aforementioned Calvin and Hobbes promoting cereal and
toys.

~~~
lmm
Like I said, I'm pretty sure that would rule out HPMoR (Harry might not
explicitly join a rationality organization, but the story exists to promote
them).

~~~
nitrogen
HPMoR has significant value as a standalone work of fiction. There's a lot of
new creative work. It's possible to read HPMoR on fanfic.net without ever
knowing that the author, "Lesswrong," is Eliezer Yudkowsky, or what his
affiliation is with the Center for Applied Rationality. I'd say that's a far
cry from Harry appearing in a breakfast cereal commercial.

Of course, I probably agree with you that it would be much easier to avoid
making the distinction at all. I'm just trying to point out that, if someone
insists on making the distinction, it's possible to draw the line exactly
where I want it ;-).

------
evoxed
And here I am, still waiting for the old Kurosawa films to enter the public
domain... for more (in English) see the brief summary here:
[http://akirakurosawa.info/2008/08/01/intellectual-
property-h...](http://akirakurosawa.info/2008/08/01/intellectual-property-
high-court-rules-kurosawa-still-under-copyright/)

------
edanm
This initially seemed like a really good argument.

Then I realized that you could make an even better sounding argument like
this: "Imagine if copyright was only 10 years. Look at all the works that
would now be public domain: Seinfeld, Friends, The Batman Movies, etc. etc.".
This argument will probably be even more persuasive for the people who liked
the original argument, since works from 10 years ago are even more
recognizable.

In other words, this argument isn't actually saying anything interesting -
it's simply an emotional appeal. Why should or shouldn't copyright be 10, 20,
or 70 years? Why is the 1978 law wrong? Why was it created in the first place?
I don't know from this article.

~~~
darkarmani
> Why is the 1978 law wrong? Why was it created in the first place? I don't
> know from this article.

It's not as wrong (i'm still against it) to extend copyright for new works,
but this horrible law extended copyright retroactively for previously created
works. There was no compelling reason for extending old works. It breaks all
measures of fairness no matter how you approach it.

It's equivalent to having the banks extend your home loan by 30 years and
saying you owe additional payments. You get nothing out of it. There is no
trade. You get nothing and existing copyright owners get given additional
years.

------
tome
If the current length of copyright is 70 years, does that mean Casablanca
should be public domain this year? It was made in 1942.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casablanca_%28film%29>

~~~
waiwai933
The basic rule is 70 years after the author's death, not after creation or
publication. In addition, works by corporations have different terms, but it's
always going to be more than 70 years about publication, at least according to
current law.

To calculate when Casablanca specifically would enter the public domain would
mean cross-referencing several laws, which I'll leave to someone else since
it's all too likely there's an easy online tool that I don't know about.

------
qwerta
It is even worse. There were some publications which already entered public
domain, but High Court extended copyright period retroactively. So stuff which
was already under PD got copyrighted again. (I dont have link, please add it)

~~~
jeffool
It's A Wonderful Life entered the public domain and was taken back from us.
The rights holder forgot to apply for an extension. After it lapsed they
argued that done they held the rights to the story it was based on, the rights
to derive from that story, the score, etc., they should have the film too.

I can not, with humor, get across how dumb that sounds to me. So I'll state it
plainly. That's amazingly stupid. And it worked.

------
javert
Oh noes, we have to pay a few dollars for these things.

~~~
ghshephard
I suspect you are going to be downvoted into oblivion - So, on the faith that
you aren't trolling, the issue isn't paying copyright holders for the
intellectual property that they've created, and thereby incentivizing content
creators to create more intellectual property. Nor, is the issue, that these
people have a half-century government supported monopoly on their work.

The issues are (A) that the expiration for copyrights (government supported
monopolies) keeps getting moved further and further into the future, far
beyond any date required to incent content creators, and (B) perhaps even
worse, content that is completely orphaned, and is serving no commercial value
to anyone, also can't be distributed because it's locked up on copyrights that
nobody is interested in any more.

~~~
javert
I'm not trolling.

What makes you think that you should _ever_ be able to take for free,
something that someone else created?

I think a content creator should be able to place _any_ copyright terms on
their work.

~~~
ComputerGuru
And then they die, and the estate doesn't know what the F they want to do with
the IP and doesn't want to bother sorting it out, and it (legally) never sees
the light of day thereafter. Copyrights _EXPIRE_ for a reason. There isn't
anyone (not in Hollywood, not in Congress, nowhere) that says copyrights
should never, ever expire. It's a question of when.

~~~
javert
Fine, make it so they have to be renewed every year, but can be renewed ad
infinitum.

But that's not the actual debate about copyright that is taking place in
society. In other words, the problem you're talking about is not the actual
issue.

~~~
UnoriginalGuy
So someone should be rewarded just for being born into a family that happens
to own the rights to a certain popular piece of content? Even if they
themselves never did anything either creatively or in terms of hard work in
their lives?

Aren't you just suggesting a tax free way of passing money between generations
of a family (as current inheritance is subject to taxation)?

Also doesn't this kind of thing just discourage the creation of new artistic
works? If there are tons of big popular individuals and companies, then how is
the little guy meant to make a splash?

