Public Domain Day 2013

[Lynx-lynx]

Yes, Johnny Howard wasn't given enough room to suck that further bit up the yanks doodle dandy that's why it wasn't made retrospective.

[Ninjalawyer]

Items that did not enter the U.S. public domain yesterday:


[Click to enlarge]

On the plus side for the American posters, you'll only have to wait until 2019 before items begin entering the public domain (well, 2056 for the above pictured items)! While that might seem like a long time to wait, take comfort in the fact that the American copyright system is protecting important works from the public that the creators have, in most cases, long since stopped caring about.

Duke Law puts the situation this way:

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the current copyright term is that in most cases, the cultural harm is not offset by any benefit to an author or rights holder. Unlike the famous works highlighted here, the vast majority of works from 1956 do not retain commercial value.3 This means that no one is benefiting from continued copyright, while the works remain both commercially unavailable and culturally off limits. The public loses the possibility of meaningful access for no good reason.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Items that did not enter the U.S. public domain yesterday:

Cool

[caleb72]

Originally Posted by HarryT

There is an aspect of copyright law called "the rule of the shorter term", which says that if a work is in the public domain in the country that it was originally published in, it will be in the public domain elsewhere, too. The copyright law of some countries (Australia, for example) includes the rule of the shorter term, while that of other countries does not.

Does this mean that although Australia has Life+70, if a work was produced in a Life+50 country and enters into the public domain, that this work would also be considered public domain in Australia?

This stuff is so confusing. Given the extremely easy and carefree way we can break the law if we want to, it certainly makes me sorely tempted to consistently apply whatever law I think makes sense and damn everything else.

[Lynx-lynx]

Caleb the short answer is no.

Irrespective of what the copyright ruling is in the country in which the book was published, the ruling is how it affects Australia.

So, a US author who published a book you want to read in the US and died in 1954 or before - is in the public domain in Australia.

Likewise, an author who published a book in the UK and died anywhere in the world in 1954 or before, is in the public domain in Australia.

All authors (and their work) that died in 1954 or before is in the public domain in Australia irrespective of where it was published.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by caleb72

Does this mean that although Australia has Life+70, if a work was produced in a Life+50 country and enters into the public domain, that this work would also be considered public domain in Australia?

Yes, that's exactly what it means. If a work is in the public domain in its source country, then it's also in the public domain in Australia, because Australian copyright law incorporates the rule of the shorter term.

[BookCat]

Strange. I thought that L M Montgomery's books had been PD in the UK for years! I have read several of the "Anne" books on my ereader.

[Lynx-lynx]

Caleb here is the link to:

Find an Answer - Australian Copyright Council

And here is a link to the:

Introduction to copyright brochure


The para in particular you might be interested in is:

-------------------------
How long does copyright last?

Until 1 January 2005, copyright generally lasted for the life of the relevant creator plus 50 years.

There were various exceptions to this rule, including:
• where a work was not published, performed or broadcast during a creatorʼs lifetime; and
• where something was published anonymously or under a pseudonym, and the identity of the creator couldnʼt reasonably be ascertained.

(In each of these cases, copyright lasted for 50 years from the end of the year the work was, with permission, first published, performed or broadcast.)

Under the Free Trade Agreement with the United States, Australia agreed to extend the general duration of copyright. As a result, the rules now are that copyright generally lasts for the life of the creator plus 70 years and where duration depends on year of publication, it lasts until 70 years after it is first published.

The Free Trade Agreement did not, however, include any obligation to revive copyright if copyright had already expired. This means that if, under the old rules, copyright had already expired by 1 January 2005, it stays expired and the material can be used freely under Australian law.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Lynx-lynx

How long does copyright last?

Until 1 January 2005, copyright generally lasted for the life of the relevant creator plus 50 years.

There were various exceptions to this rule, including:
• where a work was not published, performed or broadcast during a creatorʼs lifetime; and
• where something was published anonymously or under a pseudonym, and the identity of the creator couldnʼt reasonably be ascertained.

(In each of these cases, copyright lasted for 50 years from the end of the year the work was, with permission, first published, performed or broadcast.)

Under the Free Trade Agreement with the United States, Australia agreed to extend the general duration of copyright. As a result, the rules now are that copyright generally lasts for the life of the creator plus 70 years and where duration depends on year of publication, it lasts until 70 years after it is first published.

The Free Trade Agreement did not, however, include any obligation to revive copyright if copyright had already expired. This means that if, under the old rules, copyright had already expired by 1 January 2005, it stays expired and the material can be used freely under Australian law.

This applies to works published in Australia. For foreign works, as I said, since Australian copyright law incorporates the rule of the shorter term, if a shorter copyright term exists in the source country of that work, that shorter term also applies in Australia.

See item 5 of the Australian Copyright (International Protection) Regulations 1969 (consolidated as of 1 January 2005) Act (Pages 11 and 12 of the document):

5. Copyright not to subsist in overseas editions in certain cases

(1) Copyright that, under the Act, subsists in a published edition of a work or works by reason only of the operation of these Regulations subsists only so long as protection in the nature of copyright subsists in relation to the edition under the law of a relevant country.

(2) In this regulation:

relevant country means a Berne Convention country, a UCC country, a WCT country or a WTO country:

(a) in which the edition was first published; or
(b) of which the publisher of the edition was a citizen or national at a material time; or
(c) in which the publisher, being an individual, was resident at a material time; or
(d) under the law of which the publisher, being a body corporate, was incorporated at a material time.

(Emphasis mine)

ie, If a foreign work would, under Australian copyright law, be under copyright protection, then that protection only exists as long as it's also protected by copyright in its source country. Or, turning it around, if it's in the public domain in its source country, it's also in the public domain in Australia.

This Item 5 is a statement of the rule of the shorter term, as I've said in previous posts.

[Lynx-lynx]

Harry, none of those words you captured were mine, they all came from the Australian Copyright Council.

And clearly where no copyright exists - then none exists.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Lynx-lynx

Harry, none of those words you captured were mine, they all came from the Australian Copyright Council.

Yes, I completely appreciate that .

And clearly where no copyright exists - then none exists.

Forgive me if I'm labouring the point, but it's really not a case of "clearly".

Let's consider the case of a Canadian author who died in 1960. Because Canada has a "life+50" copyright law, the works of this author are now in the public domain in Canada (they entered the Canadian public domain on 1st Jan 2011). One might think that these works are still protected by copyright in Australia (and they would be if they were Australian works), but due to the fact that Australian copyright law incorporates the rule of the shorter term, Canadian editions of these works are also in the public domain in Australia.

[jbcohen]

Is there a list of american writers who are now in the public domain?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by jbcohen

Is there a list of american writers who are now in the public domain?

Look at the list of authors at Project Gutenberg. While not exhaustive, it's reasonably comprehensive.

[Ralph Sir Edward]

Originally Posted by jbcohen

Is there a list of american writers who are now in the public domain?

All works published before 1923, no matter how long the author lived...Plus various other works that were not renewed under US copyright law (pre 1978). That's the short answer. The long answer would take pages....

(Here's an example - Britsh author wrtes story in 1940. Story is first published in the US. US copyright is for 28 years (at the time) with one 28 year renewal, which must be done in a particular time frame to be valid. Copyright was not renewed. PD is the US? Nobody knows...(Project Gutenberg won't touch because of the internation copyright implication... I know, I asked...) Probably under copyright due to the recent SCOTUS "Peter and the Wolf" ruling...)

[gweeks]

Originally Posted by jbcohen

Is there a list of american writers who are now in the public domain?

The U.S. doesn't have authors that are in the public domain. It has WORKS that are in the public domain. The life+ rules haven't been in affect long enough to have any authors PD status affected by them.

Greg