
What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2016? - pwg
https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2016/pre-1976
======
btilly
The fact that nobody benefits much is very much worth pointing out.
Furthermore absolutely no viable public purpose can be served today by
backdating new rules to past works. We didn't create any new works from the
1950s by passing laws in the 1970s. Those works were already created on
incentives that authors already received. It is just a giveaway to the tiny
minority of said authors whose work achieved success.

Of course the main driver of this is Disney, which is trying to keep Mickey
Mouse under copyright. (Never mind the fact that trademark is a better fit for
how they use it...)

Also I'd like to highlight the 1987 part of the argument.

The early computer era saw a lot of games written for platforms like Apple ][
by companies that went out of business and the copyright ownership went to
places unknown (though they theoretically exist). You can't make and pass
around legal copies of them from the floppies that they originally came from.
Some of the games (Ultima, PacMan, etc) would likely see copyright renewed.
But a lot of them would not. And that would be great for people like me that
want to revisit our childhoods.

In fact historically there were stories that only became popular BECAUSE they
fell out of copyright. The most famous example is
[https://www.globalipmatters.com/2015/12/17/when-a-quirk-
of-c...](https://www.globalipmatters.com/2015/12/17/when-a-quirk-of-copyright-
law-creates-a-christmas-classic-its-a-wonderful-life-and-the-public-domain)
but it isn't alone. Just think what new cultural gems we might create if
artists of today could safely refer back to works from a generation or two
ago.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> The fact that nobody benefits much is very much worth pointing out.

> Of course the main driver of this is Disney, which is trying to keep Mickey
> Mouse under copyright.

I read an analysis that didn't think much of this view. It said we should look
at ever-extending copyright protections as a form of economic protectionism
against the past, forcing the public to buy potentially-inferior modern IP
rather than fall back on older IP.

You suggest this yourself, with

> historically there were stories that only became popular BECAUSE they fell
> out of copyright

and I think it's worth thinking about. In particular, I'm pretty sure "the
fact that nobody benefits much" isn't actually a fact.

~~~
bograt
The problem with this analysis is that, if such a course of "ever-extending
copyright protections" were pursued, it would run the 'well of creativity'
dry.

The 'creative commons' is a recognition that cultural works are not created ex
nihilo but by building on the works of previous generations; as creators
benefit, so must they contribute.

~~~
zanny
> so must they contribute.

A tremendous swath of people have been born or published works since 1928 and
have since died, whose works remain under the perpetual Disney copyright.

So no, we have had _generations_ die now that never contributed back to the
commons because Disney said so.

------
oofabz
I notice every artist on this list is dead. These long copyright terms do not
help artists, programmers, or anyone else who creates intellectual property.
They only benefit capital holders - people who purchased the rights and want a
return on their benefit. Such people are wealthy already, they do not need
government handouts.

Companies like Disney do not require regulations like this in order to
survive; they would do fine with less onerous copyright terms, and everyone
else in society would benefit.

~~~
avar
I don't agree with the current state of copyright, but I think pointing out
that every one of these people are dead is a nonsensical argument. The
question is what incentives should we give people to create creative works,
and what should the cost to society be?

If you're a smart guy with Robert Heinlein and copyright is more limited to a
few years would you ever have written Starship Troopers? Or would you have
gone into something like the real estate business which can last generations
and keep your children and grandchildren happy & fed after you're long dead?

Would the 1998 Starship Troopers movie have been released based on the 1959
book if copyright had been at its original 14 years?

How about a lot of the "cult classic" works of today that only became really
popular and earned money tens of years after their original release?

I don't know what the right answer is, but it's a fallacy to assume that we'd
have the same state of affairs if the incentives we can gave people to create
creative works automatically expired after their death.

~~~
Turbo_hedgehog
Let's assume Lord of the Rings was out of term and then a bunch of shoddily
made movies got made based on the story and didn't reap much. Would New Line
Cinema have laid out the budget for Peter Jackson to make the quality LOTR
film trilogy if they didn't have exclusive rights to produce the movies? Those
films generated huge amounts of revenue - would we have missed out on that if
the books were in the public domain, or would the same revenue have been
produced by now with it in the public domain?

~~~
josho
The answer is yes. Because Disney did it with Snow White, Cinderella, etc. A
more recent example is Tangled--all those stories are derived from public
domain characters. Don't even try to make the case that Disney wouldn't have
made Tangled if the length of copyright was rolled back to the previous
standard.

------
Ologn
I have an Android app which contained (among other things) two works which are
in the public domain in the US - one is 93 years old and one is 95 years old.

A media conglomerate sent a DMCA notice to Google for my app, and Google took
it down. Then my Admob was cut off for the app (luckily I had ad mediation).
The DMCA notice said the 93 and 95 year old works were in copyright in some
country, although they were not specific as to which country exactly.

I had to go through a whole rigmarole to get my app back on Google Play, which
almost didn't happen (I had to appeal). I removed those two works and shut off
access for my app to Australia, the UK, India and Canada. Not that this was
required but I can't go through this again and lose the income.

It wasn't Disney, but Disney is big in supporting these laws. Yet Disney
started off by ripping off Alice in Wonderland in a cartoon. Disney made his
money ripping off a book published not long before he rips it off, now they
have a media monopoly and want to shut the gates up behind them for eternity.
Which is not even possible, because the nature of the Internet, mobile etc. is
such that this doesn't work any more. It's an old model which does not and can
not work and will not work as things are and as they are going to be, yet
there will be a lot of waste and problems as they continue to try to do this.

~~~
exodust
Why not mention what the works are?

~~~
deciplex
+1

Unless you legally restricted from doing so, there is no reason to protect
these assholes. Tell everyone who did this and for which works.

------
samueloph
Sometimes I think i'm too dramatic because this kind of things really pisses
me of, i mean REALLY, imagine all kind of artistic AND scientific works we've
lost due to the stupid IP laws that the world has. And don't get me started on
acessibility, because the fall of these laws would give us a huge increase in
globalization and acessibility to 3rd world countries.

Even, this things only serve to profit rich people based on blocking everyone
from making progress, and by progress i mean both technology and art.

I sincerely think some action is needed for yesterday, we need to take this
down ASAP.

Also, Aaron Swartz may have made me a little extremist about this.

~~~
cooper12
Yeah this made me really disappointed as well. We've probably already lost so
many works because the original distributors have long gone out of business
and we're not legally allowed to preserve them. Not to mention that most of
the original authors are dead so it's not like this is for their benefit. Such
onerous terms are only there for the benefit of bloated megacorps. Aaron's
case is also relevant to how our government views the matter: the prosecutor
wanted to use him as an example even though JSTOR only cared about getting the
articles back and it also made up a ridiculous sum for their monetary losses.
These copyright terms are not built for the good of society.

------
espadrine
One aspect of having the copyright law increase the time after the author's
death is that it creates a shadow during which nothing enters the public
domain. In France, we are still in a shadow.

I made a graph of all shadows that ever existed in France:
[http://espadrine.tumblr.com/post/136054168016/public-
domain-...](http://espadrine.tumblr.com/post/136054168016/public-domain-
shadow).

------
ianstormtaylor
Does anyone have a link to (or can write) a good explanation of the benefits
of things entering the public domain? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it. I
think lobbying to extend copyright terms is disingenuous. But I don't have a
great argument for why we should want things to enter the public domain other
than "your local theater can show it for free" , which the article noted.
People seem to already be sharing things easily enough.

~~~
andersonvom
One very good reason can be seen today: after some of the books from the
Sherlock Holmes series went into public domain, artists today are free to use
and create derivative works based on/off of them.

Case in point: "Elementary" [1] is a Sherlock Holmes series where both
Moriarty and Watson are women, Sherlock Holmes lives in NY and he doesn't get
along with Inspector Lestrade.

If things never fall into public domain, doing something like this can be
either very expensive (e.g. paying royalties) or plain impossible (e.g. the
author simply doesn't allow it).

Copyright laws were meant to incentivize authors to create more, but no amount
of incentives will make Sir Arthur Conan Doyle create more interesting
stories, about Sherlock Holmes or otherwise.

[1]:
[http://thetvdb.com/?tab=series&id=255316](http://thetvdb.com/?tab=series&id=255316)

~~~
Turbo_hedgehog
Sherlock Holmes is interesting - some new characters created by Doyle in the
1920s are not yet in the public domain and thus must be licensed from his
estate if you want to use those characters.

------
zanethomas
Hollywood films pretty-much make their money or not in the first few years.
Giving them extended copyright is ridiculous.

------
maxharris
Here's an opposing view:

[https://medium.com/@jkdegen/5-seriously-dumb-myths-about-
cop...](https://medium.com/@jkdegen/5-seriously-dumb-myths-about-copyright-
the-media-should-stop-repeating-a92e934f12a4#.afhx9ckfo)

~~~
andersonvom
The so-called "myths" the author highlights are more like fallacies than
actual facts. He briefly touches some points related to copyright and claims
that that's all there is to it.

> Myth #5. Artists Feel Restricted by Copyright

Remixing works under copyright means you need the author's permission to do
so, usually by paying royalties. This would be fine if copyrights ended at
some point. Currently, in the US, they last way past the death of the author.

> Myth #4. Copyright Harms the Public Domain

He mentions The Little Prince as if all works are really popular. There are
tons of works that are not popular, their authors don't even care about them
anymore or are dead or companies have gone bankrupt, and remain under
copyright. This makes it illegal for people to make copies and keep these
works alive. Access to such usually also requires payment and what's
affordable for some may not be so affordable for others.

> Myth #3. Copyright is an Attack on Artistic Freedom

He only mentions the freedom of the original author. Indeed, their freedom is
not touched. Everybody else is hurt, though. Nobody else can express their
artistic freedom on works under copyright without permission (which usually
means paying royalties, but can also be impossible if the author doesn't
approve the derived work).

> Myth #2. Copyright Costs Consumers

Nobody argues that authors need to be compensated for their work. How much is
"fair" is a whole different story. Should they keep being compensated 25
years, 50 years, 100 years, 500 years, forever?

> Myth #1. Copyright only helps Corporations

Copyright, in general, is a good thing. Perpetual copyright is not. Copyright
that extends beyond the life of the original author is not. After some time,
only corporations will benefit, since their heirs will live much beyond the
original authors and will profit on someone else's work.

EDIT: Here's a nice video on why eternal copyright is bad:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4)

~~~
CuriousSkeptic
Just to counter your #2

I don't think the compensation argument is a good one. First of all its
wielded as if work somehow is valuable in it self and thus warrants
"compensation". Which cannot be true, there are many things not worth doing,
and even some things better not done at all. In reality though not even
copyright ensures any work is compensated. Which, even further makes the
connection between copyright and creative work incentives weak.

As others in this thread has pointed out, there are other motivations than
monetary. So it's not even given that "compensation" is needed at all
(whatever we mean by "needed")

But even if we deem compensation required, what is to say that a free market
would fail to provide compensation? As a developer most of the code I produce
is paid for buy clients with no specific dependency on copyright. What makes
other creative industries different?

So not only do I question your #2, even #1 is suspect in my mind. I don't
believe copyright in general is a good thing, and in my mind the burden of
proof that it is lies on those promoting it.

~~~
andersonvom
When I say compensation I'm not restricting it to "monetary compensation". In
this sense, the years of "monopoly" over someone's work to benefit from it as
they see fit is the actual compensation I was referring to.

As a developer, most likely your clients hold the copyright to the code you
write, especially if this is not explicit in any other way. And even if you go
one step further, the entire free software movement is based on copyright: the
existence of copyright is what guarantees software remains free once
published. Otherwise, people could just fork the code and close the source
again.

To your last point, given that copyright already exists, is in place, and
lasts for way too long, I believe it's the other way around: the burden of the
proof lies on whoever wants to change it.

