
The Public Domain Starts Growing Again Next Year - kawera
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/01/public-domain-starts-growing-again-next-year-and-its-about-timethe-public-domain
======
tommoor
> Disney hasn’t been the best in allowing its own works to become part of the
> public domain

Well that's the understatement of the century.

~~~
paulus_magnus2
Fairy tales have provided a source of inspiration for the Disney studio....

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

~~~
scarecrowbob
But it is... difficult... to use Disney's fairy tales as an inspiration for
your own work.

------
walterbell
Hollywood is not going to contest: [https://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/2018/01/hollywood-says-i...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/2018/01/hollywood-says-its-not-planning-another-copyright-extension-
push/)

 _" We are not aware of any such efforts, and it's not something we are
pursuing," an RIAA spokesman told us when we asked about legislation to
retroactively extend copyright terms.

"While copyright term has been a longstanding topic of conversation in policy
circles, we are not aware of any legislative proposals to address the issue,"
the MPAA told us._

~~~
jobu
The copyright for Mickey Mouse doesn't expire until 2023, so they still have
some time.

~~~
Aloha
The copyright for Mickey Mouse will never expire so long as they keep making
new art of Mickey Mouse - the copyright for the earliest Mickey Mouse cartoon
however will expire in 2023.

Copyright is not like a patent where once it expires anyone can use the novel
work.

Something else, while someone could repackage the earliest Mickey Mouse shorts
once the copyrights expire, it is unlikely that someone could make new Mickey
Mouse related stories, because of trademark and other issues - beyond that,
1923 mickey and 2017 mickey only have a passing resemblance.

[http://createwebquest.com/sites/default/files/images/mickeym...](http://createwebquest.com/sites/default/files/images/mickeymouse.jpg)

What we identify (as in most consumers of mickey related cartoons) identify as
mickey mouse - didn't exist until fantasia in 1940. So long as WDC continues
to make artwork with that character in it, and continues to keep up the
trademark - the character itself will never leave copyright or trademark.

~~~
officemonkey
In case you have not been paying attention, Disney Animation Studio is using
the most famous clip from "Steamboat Willie" as part of their trademark.

By the time the movie enters the Public Domain, Disney will be able to defend
the clip with a trademark defense.

~~~
Aloha
That would be an interesting court case to read - but I suspect they'd not
make the argument - trademark is not blanket, its for the purpose specified -
so merely copying or redistributing the work wouldnt trigger it, unless you
try to use it to promote animation works or similar.

~~~
officemonkey
OTOH, Disney is aggressively pushing trademark where it hasn't gone before.
For example, they're asserting that "Movies about Snow White" are a thing only
Disney can do, because "Snow White" is a trademark.

I could absolutely see Disney saying "That clip of Steamboat Willie is a
trademark of Disney Animation Studios. If you use that in animation, you're
diluting our trademark."

------
jmcphers
If you're wondering how we got into this mess: it's mostly Mickey Mouse's
fault.

[https://priceonomics.com/how-mickey-mouse-evades-the-
public-...](https://priceonomics.com/how-mickey-mouse-evades-the-public-
domain/)

~~~
tzs
That's not really accurate. According to your link, Disney copyrights have
been extended twice.

The first was with the Copyright Act of 1976. The main purposes of the 1976
Act were to update US copyright law to better conform to the Universal
Copyright Convention and to prepare for the US to later join the Berne
Convention; to update it to take into account new technology developed since
the 1909 Act such as television, movies, radio, and sound recordings; and to
codify various doctrines from case law include fair use.

The copyright extension in the 1976 Act was a side effect of changing terms to
match those of Berne countries.

As far as I've been able to tell, the 1976 Act had very little opposition.
Disney almost certainly was in favor of it, but I've found no evidence that
they had any particular influence in drafting it or getting it passed, or even
spent any lobbying money on it. There was no need for them to do so.

Disney did lobby for the 1998 extension (as did most major content creators),
which extended US copyright terms to match those of Europe.

I don't know how Disney successfully lobbying _once_ (as part of a large
group) for a copyright extension turned into the internet myth that they have
constantly been getting copyright extensions.

~~~
mncharity
> the 1976 Act had very little opposition

In the late 1980's, I talked with one of the government-side principals of the
1976 Act. They were at pains to explain that the Act should be viewed not as a
failure, but as a success - a successful act of public policy damage control.
Because you should have seen all the crazy [bleep] [Disney/Hollywood] wanted.

It seems I've been seeing a "oh, 1976 was just Berne, and Berne was no big
deal" narrative more often of late. Perhaps as Disney spins up for extension-
next.

Which isn't to say that some people don't honestly believe that narrative.
Hollywood doing filter-bubble groupthink on copyright law has long been part
of the picture. The angry public denunciations after SOPA, of a dishonest tech
industry buying corrupt congressmen, was particularly striking. But after all,
when everyone you know agrees that something is a great thing, anyone who
opposes it can only be a bad actor.

~~~
adrianratnapala
> anyone who opposes it can only be a bad actor.

Are you saying Holloywood doesn't know what is and is not a bad actor? Who
would have thought it!

------
Gustomaximus
I'm always amazed how aligned nations are on copyright. I believe US actively
pushed this in trade negotiations. I assume this is why.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries%27_copyright...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries%27_copyright_lengths)

~~~
shmerl
Yes indeed, this junk spreads through WIPO.

------
jlgray
I always feel like the right solution would be to have a significantly shorter
copyright duration, but make it extendable for a large and increasing annual
fee.

I don't care if Disney gets to keep the rights to Mickey Mouse. The real
problem is all the other stuff that gets swept along in the bargain.

~~~
confounded
Why even bother making it extendable? If the goal is to incentivize novel
creations, I can't think why 20 years isn't very generous.

~~~
fardo
It respects the people in society who believe that, as long as a commercial
work continues to make significant amounts of money, they are entitled to the
profits of their labors.

It also respects the statistic that most creative works stop being
commercially exploited within about 28 years [1]. A shorter default copyright
allows society to reap the benefits of the default effect [2], in which a
creator who is no longer interested in the sale of their work is
psychologically more likely to just let the default option happen, which in a
world with regular extensions of copyright would mean their work would enter
the public domain and others could make use of their work.

It also forces creatives and companies to back up, with results, that they
believe their works are, for their own benefit, worth denying the public
access to. If a work deserves or needs more than 20 years of profit to justify
its existence, fine, but your belief being backed up with a $20,000 deposit,
and the knowledge that the cost to you is only going to go up from that point,
speaks a lot stronger than just one's word.

[1] Average result of articles linked in
[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/oct/07/shorter-c...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/oct/07/shorter-
copyright-term)

[2][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_effect_(psychology)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_effect_\(psychology\))

~~~
politician
"Proof-of-Stake" as applied to copyright. I like it.

------
pmoriarty
I almost wish this would be kept quiet. I'm afraid that if news of it gets
out, corporations with an interest in extending copyright will wake up and
start lobbying.

~~~
shervinafshar
Although I agree with you that this visibility might backfire, but I believe
the transparency is of higher value in such debates compared to strategical
opaqueness.

~~~
Xeoncross
> transparency is of higher value in such debates compared to strategical
> opaqueness

I want to put this on a plaque and hang it in every public office.

------
ggm
Lets hear it for Sonny Bono!

------
crispytx
Our copyright laws are ridiculous.

------
okonomiyaki3000
Don't get your hopes up.

------
chb
Again?
[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=public%20domain&sort=byDate&pr...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=public%20domain&sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story)

------
Noos
Problem is material in the public domain quickly becomes worthless. We already
have many things, like the Fleischer Superman cartoons, for example. You just
end up with cheap people bundling hundreds of public domain stuff with no real
curation or quality for a few bucks in either physical or digital media form.
Eventually, they stop bothering once they realize no one buys them; and it
just gets thrown on youtube for fraction of pennies per ad click.

Doesn't even help creatives, because public domain stuff sees little to no
creative half-life apart from the very best of the best. It's great for public
in the same way f2p mobile games are great, as an endless mill of free content
they can consume and forget, but once the brief flurry of monetization passes,
the works become dead because there's no rights owner willing to spend the
money to market or preserve the IP.

~~~
fardo
>Problem is, material in the public domain quickly becomes worthless

I wonder if Disney, which built its empire on repurposing public domain Hans
Christian Anderson stories as animated films, would have agreed with your
assessment.

The value of the public domain isn’t in its literal resale, nor is it supposed
to be: the value is in being a direct, continuing, and explicitly legal source
of inspiration for the new.

~~~
Noos
Disney could tell you about all the competitors whose works have all
languished in the public domain and have been forgotten where they survived. I
don't see people making new Tom Swift movies, falling in love with The Shadow,
or a massive Woody Woodpecker revival, for example.

People focus on the biggest of the big as if that solves anything.

~~~
pwinnski
The earliest Woody Woodpecker clips won't enter the public domain util 2035.

The Shadow debuted in 1930, so it is also not yet in the public domain, but
was also in a movie as recently as 1994, and it still appearing in licensed
comics in 2015 and ongoing.

Some Tom Swift books have entered the public domain, but not all, and the
character is still covered under trademark law also.

You're making a great point about how copyright is too long, leaving
characters to languish, but none of your examples are actually in the public
domain.

