The US's Public Domain Class Of 2013
from the short-list dept
Every year, we talk about how January 1st is public domain day in many parts of the world, but thanks to constant copyright term extension, the US is left waiting and waiting and waiting -- kind of like the famous play by Samuel Beckett, which entered the public domain in many places around the world in 2011, but is still covered by copyright here.The folks at the Public Domain Review have put together a nice list (and photo!) of the "Class of 2013": content creators whose works will be going into the public domain on January 1, 2013 in large parts of the world, including the EU, Brazil, Russia and many other places. To help out, I thought I'd put together the list of content creators whose works are entering the public domain in the US in 2013:
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, europe, public domain, us
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
today, there is more research and disclosure. it's more difficult, by several orders of magnitude, to be as ill-informed as in the past. Wasn't the Bono copyright act passed in the 1970s..? Things have changed since then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, it was passed in 1998. There were, however, extensions added to the length of copyright in the 70s as well (1976).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Copyright Act of 1831: 28 year initial term + 14 year renewal term = 42 years
Copyright Act of 1909: 28 year initial term + 28 year renewal term = 56 years
Copyright Act of 1976: life + 50 years = no definite limit
Copyright Term Extension Act (1998): life + 70 years = no definite limit
(Source: Copyright Timeline: A History of Copyright in the United States)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking whether Public Law 105-298 (112 Stat. 2827) is the same as Public Law 105-304 (112 Stat. 2860) ?
No, they were both enacted by the 105th Congress, and signed into law by President Clinton in October 1998, but they are not the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why do we need to be so reactive? Why wait for next time? Rather than waiting for the next time, we should now ask our senators and representatives to repeal the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act.
Repeal now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The word is moot, not mute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so, that's a wildcard, right ? ? ?
so it should follow that everything reverted to public domain...
it only makes sense...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I want to point out that our culture is greed, therefore, its only adding to it.(This policy is quite greedy)
History will view baby boomers culture, who is largely responsible for much of the greed, in a unfavorable light, and it will be looked upon as a culture of greed. This pattern has bleed into generations beyond that, but i think the millennials will put a stop to it once they are in the majority of power.
at least that's my hope, id like to see my son get old in a far better world then the baby boomers want it to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Destroying the public domain: taking everything, and giving you nothing in return.
Just imagine... a self-righteous corporation could take MY works (in the sense that I made them, not the IP sense) that I put into public domain and wriggle around enough until they have copyrighted it FOR THEMSELVES... meaning that I no longer have any say in the creative process of those works. Yes. I as the original artist could get sued for expanding on my works by a corporation that had FUCK ALL to do with the creative process. The very idea. It makes me physically sick.
Copyright is an absolute piss stain in this respect. And the above point means I have to have it on my works... not because I want to use it to go on a sue-streak against others, but because a company might buy it out of the public domain otherwise and go on the sue-streak themselves... in the name of my works. It is a bit like the recent gun debate going on: even although guns are dangerous apparently it is a good idea to have one because everyone else has one, and that we cannot uninvent the gun and etc etc with the excuses... thankfully we CAN uninvent copyright by simply getting rid of it from law. And then once artists get their incentives from virtual ticket websites like IndieGoGo and Kickstarter we can then look back on copyright and think "what on Earth was all that about?"
The whole point is there shouldn't BE any copyright protection to begin with! That way companies would not be able to destroy the public domain. Copyright is a dangerous buck of power that constantly gets passed around to the highest, most powerful bidder all in the name of "saving the artists from slavery"... can anything be more fucking contemptible? Don't you dare tell me that a mentality that wishes to take the rights and dignity from artists by using works against their will is somehow a mentality that favours the artist more than the corporations.
Eliminate copyright from the equation, get incentives with all-or-nothing crowdfunding, solve the moral issues of defamation, plagiarism, libel, branding and officiality on their own, and take a massive weight off of the artist's shoulders. Occam's Razor holds true here: the simplest explanation is probably the best one. Do not multiply unnecessary constants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Destroying the public domain: taking everything, and giving you nothing in return.
so as technology progresses, it becomes easier to develop a product, less costly too. labels and label management is less needed, and adds less value to the sale of product itself. it's a fairly simple equation, and well, with proper technology, a product such as a music production, that used to require a full band to record, in a studio, can be recorded in someone's basement, with the final product available for sale much sooner, and easier than it was in the past!
there's some videos online worth watching, where companies physically press vinyl music records. back then, it was a very laborious process!
today, you just need an iphone and a copy of itunes to buy a cd, where the artists get paid... and if you don't want any money, just put the music on soundcloud or something FREE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Destroying the public domain: taking everything, and giving you nothing in return.
For new persons who may be reading about this issue for the first time, it should be explained that there is more than just plain copyright, or releasing your work to the public domain for others to plunder and claim copyright on.
Another way to help an artist mitigate the excesses of copyright today (until the day when it can be minimized or abolished completely) is by using a license that bestows rights on those who might wish to use their works.
It's called copyleft...
Creative Commons is an excellent choice that disallows corporate copyright greed. GPL is another.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bloody sucking copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sometimes I wonder why we cant be more like ants in regards to governance they have no central control center every individual in a colony knows what they need to do, we just should set the parameters with easy rules that everybody understand and nobody would need to be arrested, imprisonment should be the last resort to any society not the first tool to be used.
But I digress, telling us makes all the difference in the world, we like ants can change our own worlds, you are master of your home, declare it a copycrap freezone.
I did, what those people in power will do?
Send me to prison?
LoL
Angry (monopolists) in power that are reading this please do so, if you can find me, you can through me in jail or ruin my financial life all you like, but where ever I go it will always be a copyright free zone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIP Forest 1994-2114
^ That saying is copyrighted until the year 2114 by the way. The movie released in 1994 + 120 year copyright term = 2114. That's the year Forest Gump will enter the public domain and my great, great, great, grand kids can watch it for free.
Oh Forest, how right you were about the stupid people. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RIP Forest 1994-2114
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RIP Forest 1994-2114
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RIP Forest 1994-2114
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because those creative persons who care enough to release their works under such public-friendly licenses should be getting some credit - and maybe a bit of supportive publicity -for doing so.
It would be wonderful as each year rolls around to see the vast emptiness of the public domain list emphasized by the steady growth of creativity under copyleft licenses.
In truth, we can mitigate the greed of current copyright until we can minimize or abolish copyright altogether.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Smart article
We should be getting a steady stream of new works coming into the Public Domain, BUT THERE IS NOTHING!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Give me a break with the empty, anti-copyright rhetoric. Culture is alive and well and thriving more than ever. I thought the sky was rising, Mike. Remember?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, culture is alive and thriving now, but it is in DESPITE of copyright, rather than because of it.
So thank you Average_Joe and thank you Disney. Disney had the freedom to take works like Jungle Book and Snow White, works in the public domain, and use the characters and settings there-in to create their own works, safe and secure in the knowledge that no-one could sue them over it. Thank you, for not giving anyone else the same ability, of taking works like Steamboat Willie and using the characters and settings therein to create our own works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is why your kind are so angry, isn't it, because everywhere you look you see a pirate and they are not hiding it and that makes you sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Debate in the House of Representatives on the “Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act”, Congressional Record, Oct 7, 1998
[ Historical note: Following the death of singer, actor and politician Sonny Bono in a freak skiing accident, his widow, Mary Bono, was chosen to fill his seat as congresswoman for California's 44th district. ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You guys are so ridiculously over-dramatic. Copyright terms were extended by 20 years by the CTEA, so that means that there's a period of 20 years where works that would have fallen into the public domain do not. We are still in that 20 year period. That 20 year extension ends in six years (I think), so that means that works will begin falling into the public domain again soon.
What Mike can't ever do is back up his claim that this 20 year bump is negatively affecting culture. It's empty rhetoric based on faith. Mike's own "Sky is Rising" puff piece shows that he's simultaneously arguing that culture is blossoming and being starved. It's silly--and it seems incredibly dishonest.
The fact is, since the 1976 Act makes everything copyrighted upon fixation, the public domain will be greater than ever. You guys want it all right now, but that's not the bargain that copyright strikes. I'm sorry that you can't see past the end of your nose.
But to pretend that culture is suffering is stupid. I am surrounded by so much culture that it's crazy. You can cherry pick a couple of scenarios where someone wanted to do something but couldn't (Techdirt's specialty), but on balance culture is alive an well. Copyright is a trade-off, and it brings us many, many, many wonderful works that we all enjoy. You guys love those works so much that you're willing to violate other people's rights to get them. That sort of says it all, I think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Which side will you support when the next effort is made to extend copyright to prevent those works falling into the public domain?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't think there will be any serious move to extend it yet again, despite the anti-copyright hysteria to the contrary. If someone suggested another extension, I'd be curious to know why they thought it was needed since I don't think it's possible to know what the optimal term of copyright is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Artificial monopolies are bad they create a lot of problems and that is why they should last the minimum possible, in the case of the media industry that should be what 1 to 5 years maybe 10 maximum, which is the time most media stop being profitable at all, except for some rare ones.
But the "franchise" people won't let that happen will they because they want to be the only ones milking that cow until kingdom come.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Can I get my money back since the terms of copyright for works pre 1976 were extended? That's changing the terms of the "bargain" (and a bargain it AIN'T!).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think these jokers are waking up to a bad hangover; the pirate orgy just isn't happening anymore and despite attempts at being willfully blind, they just can't ignore reality anymore.
When I first came here, this place was full of rationalizations for piracy; now it's just an endless stream of complaints about the law finally being enforced.
Just as I predicted would happen, and just as hilarious to watch unfold.
Karma does not spare thieves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Also what pirate orgy?
The one where everybody can copy anything they like?
Do you know how easy it is to copy a Disney movie?
Hint:
Too copy a 99 title from Disney or Spielberg you do the following.
- Dump the contents of the DVD onto a file using normal copy and paste procedures or an archive manager.
- Rename the last IFO, BUP files to something like "VTS_20_0.BUP(renamed)".
- Voila, now it plays in any player on your computer, now just dump the streams you want into a file and delete the folder.
Merry Christmas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
or you could just delete anything beyond the #14 but you loose the making of, if you just rename it you can play the bonus material.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, no need for new copyright laws/treaties or enforcement, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So you're admitting that the report is valid?
Either the report is valid (thereby making the article wrong) and admitting that Mike is right or the report is invalid, making the current article correct (hence making Mike right in this sense), but making your accusation wrong.
Either way, you can't be right unless Mike is right on either the report or the article. He can't be wrong without admitting that you're wrong as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's probably about the level of research and understanding people expect from you. Way to live up to expectations!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public domain books available
http://publicdomainday.org/node/44/2012/authors
I have to laugh at all those who think that public domain screws corporations. If we dropped copyright or shortened it considerably, the corporations would make a killing with all those books that could be turned into movies and games.
Not to mention all those books that could have zombies or sex inserted in for resale. In the last few months, one publisher has been busy inserting erotic scenes into classics like JANE EYRE. Nothing like a little girl on girl action to trash one of the greatest novels ever written.
Let's hear it for the value of public domain to improve culture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public domain books available
Also, so what about erotic scenes in Jane Eyre? Lovers of literature will know to avoid those like the plague and pick up only original text copies. Are you saying that once someone publishes what is basically a fan edit of a classic, that suddenly all the original text copies are now worthless and that no-one will want them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Public domain books available
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public domain books available
Additionally, the site you linked to displays a sidebar, entitled “Links”, which includes the hypertext, “Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States”
In fact, in the United States, no publication will enter the public domain until 2019.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public domain books available
You crashed and burned baby.
Burn baby, burn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public domain books available
and so what if corporations recreate works. That benefits the corporation (recognition) and the public (more works). It's a win-win situation.
The point is that IP doesn't benefit the public, it only helps certain businesses and those are the businesses we want out of business. Businesses aren't inherently a bad thing, businesses benefiting from IP (and businesses who's existence mostly depends on IP and anti-competitive laws) are inherently a bad thing. IP laws, and anti-competitive laws themselves, are a bad thing. We're not anti big businesses. We are against businesses that maintain themselves through anti-competitive laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Public domain books available
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Public domain books available
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't forget about unpublished works...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't forget about unpublished works...
Are there any such works?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't forget about unpublished works...
Interesting... What's the reason for that, though? Maybe I'm just brain-farting, but I thought that unpublished works pre-1976 Act wouldn't have had any federal copyright protection to begin with since the protection began with publication. How can they fall into the public domain if they were never protected in the first place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't forget about unpublished works...
With the 1976 Act, unpublished works were brought into the federal system and given a life + 70 term. So that means, for example, that any unpublished letters, manuscripts, diaries, etc. in the Stefan Zweig collection at SUNY-Fredonia will enter the public domain on 1 January 2013, since Zweig committed suicide in 1942.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Don't forget about unpublished works...
I see it now in Section 303: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/303 Thanks for the info! And good job finding a work falling into the public domain this year. Mike will be so happy, I'm sure. Culture is saved!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
#10 forgets
if they the copyright collective takes your shit does something new with it and copyrights that then guess what THAT IS HOW ITS SUPPOSED TO WORK.
damn retards are half the problem in this fight...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public domain books available
Did you notice that sound over your head? You know the drift - that was the sound of the point you're missing here.
If you're arguing that 2, 3 or even 10 works of art entering the public domain this year, or the next one, is a valid argument against the disgusting stealing of art copyright keeps committing your argument is bullshit. You can add some cherries to it and eat it. That won't make it a cake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Original Balance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Original Balance
E.g. someone publishes a book in 1800, then in 1814 renews the copyright as it expires. Could that person then, in 1828, renew it for another 14 years, or is there a maximum 28 year term?
I haven't been able to get a clear answer on this from my (admittedly precursory) research on the topic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Original Balance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Original Balance
The original term was 14 years with an optional 14 year extension. So it could not be more than 28 years but it could be less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Original Balance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree. Copyright Law as it stands now is disgusting.
The public domain has become the special option rather than the standard option like it should. Because I love the PD so much, I donated three images to Wikimedia Commons with the CC0 tool. Not only that, I wrote my own "Happy Birthday" song which I also dedicated to the public domain with the CC0 tool. It's too bad that nowadays you have to "opt-out" of © instead of "opt-in". :-(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re copywriting public domain movie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public domain class of 2013
[ link to this | view in chronology ]