Today is Public Domain Day

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by captcrouton

I am an American citizen.
I live in Ukraine.
I do alot of international travel.

So when it comes to books, am I allowed to download public domain works according to Ukrainian law while I'm residing in Ukraine? If so, must I delete them every time I cross the border? Obviously that won't happen, but on paper, is that what's expected of me?

Yes, you can download material that's PD in the Ukraine while in the Ukraine. No, you don't have to delete it when travelling to a country in which it's not PD. But you shouldn't make /further/ copies of it while in such a country, except as allowed under the laws of that country (fair use, for example, in the US).

[HarryT]

Absolutely. While in Ukraine, you are subject to Ukrainian copyright law; your own citizenship is of no relevance.

[AprilHare]

As documented here, we'll have to wait a fair while longer to celebrate Public Domain Day here in Australia :/ 2026 to be exact. (If that 2012 movie is true - never? )

[SensualPoet]

It's a pity we aren't evolving to a new place, given the amount of content on the Internet and the relative ease of access to more every day.

I'd like to see something more flexible: 20 year authorship copyright from date of creation / initial publication, renewable every ten years for up to 50 years from creation. Works being renewed would be required to be deposited in a global repository. Those not actively protecting their rights would have copyright lapse after 20, 30, 40 and finally and permanently, after 50 years.

Copyright would continue to apply to the written word, speech, recordings, photos, moving images, etc. Characters, like Mickey Mouse, could be protected as trademarks; but whole works, like Fantasia, could not. However, Disney could control the source material and watermark, etc, of any copies -- plus continue to be the "authentic authoritative source" for such works after PD applies, including adding newer material which would, of course, have its own 50 year span. By packaging new material with PD, it could effectively "add new value" and continue to "monetize" its original lapsed copyright material.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by AprilHare

As documented here, we'll have to wait a fair while longer to celebrate Public Domain Day here in Australia :/ 2026 to be exact. (If that 2012 movie is true - never? )

Oh, we don't celebrate it here in the US.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Oh, we don't celebrate it here in the US.

Now, now, Nate. I celebrate it with a finger gesture in the direction of Hollywood every year.....

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Now, now, Nate. I celebrate it with a finger gesture in the direction of Hollywood every year.....

At some point I plan to start a New Year's Day tradition of visiting Sunny Bono's grave to spit on it. Until then I will have to be content with simply burning him in effigy.
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg...e=gr&GRid=2312

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

At some point I plan to start a New Year's Day tradition of visiting Sunny Bono's grave to spit on it.

My choice is a little lower......

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Until then I will have to be content with simply burning him in effigy.
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg...e=gr&GRid=2312

A nice warm fire is always nice in DC in January. For a big fire, just throw on a couple of politicians....

[WT Sharpe]

Great villains in the recent history of copyright and trademark laws:

1943: The Prankster, one of Superman’s enemies, copyrights the alphabet. No magazines, newspapers, or books can be printed without paying him a royalty. (Superman #22)

1998: Sonny Bono's Copyright Term Extension Act, AKA the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, AKA the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, becomes law. Vengeance from the grave.

2004: Donald Trump, inspired by the Prankster’s dastardly deed in the 40s, tries to trademark the phrase "You're Fired!" Had he succeeded, he would have profited greatly after the global economic collapse of 2008.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by SensualPoet

It's a pity we aren't evolving to a new place, given the amount of content on the Internet and the relative ease of access to more every day.

I'd like to see something more flexible: 20 year authorship copyright from date of creation / initial publication, renewable every ten years for up to 50 years from creation. Works being renewed would be required to be deposited in a global repository. Those not actively protecting their rights would have copyright lapse after 20, 30, 40 and finally and permanently, after 50 years.

That bids fair to become a record keeping nightmare. Talk to the folks at Project Gutenberg about "Rule 6" clearances on works copyrighted in the US before it became a signatory to the Berne convention, and the hoops they have to jump through to be relatively confident some works are now in the public domain. (And look at the fun and games because the same work may be both in the public domain and copyrighted: works got published as serials in magazines, and that copyright lapsed, but the book version is still under copyright...)

Right now, it's simple: either life + 50 years or life + 70 years, depending upon where you live. And you don't need to do formal registration to have copyright: that exists automatically upon creation of the work. Registration is still advisable in many cases because it establishes a formal date from which copyright applies, and allows for recovery of larger damages in the case of infringement.

Copyright was created in the first place to encourage creators, by giving them an exclusive right to benefit from their creations, and copyright period is intended to benefir the author and the author's heirs.

Going to a 20 years, plus renewals every ten years, re-introduces the whole idea of formal registration to have copyright. Who keeps the records? With whom do you renew? How do you do so, and what does it cost?

Copyright would continue to apply to the written word, speech, recordings, photos, moving images, etc. Characters, like Mickey Mouse, could be protected as trademarks; but whole works, like Fantasia, could not. However, Disney could control the source material and watermark, etc, of any copies -- plus continue to be the "authentic authoritative source" for such works after PD applies, including adding newer material which would, of course, have its own 50 year span. By packaging new material with PD, it could effectively "add new value" and continue to "monetize" its original lapsed copyright material.

Look more closely at trademark law before you make that assumption. It's a lot more complex than copyright. Taking Mickey as an example, he's undergone significant changes since the original "Steamboat Willie", and I very much doubt a trademark would protect all of them.

The general advice is that yes, you can theoretically file for a trademark on your own, but you really don't want to. If it's valuable enough to trademark, you really want a lawyer to help you navigate the process.
______
Dennis

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

That bids fair to become a record keeping nightmare. Talk to the folks at Project Gutenberg about "Rule 6" clearances on works copyrighted in the US before it became a signatory to the Berne convention, and the hoops they have to jump through to be relatively confident some works are now in the public domain. (And look at the fun and games because the same work may be both in the public domain and copyrighted: works got published as serials in magazines, and that copyright lapsed, but the book version is still under copyright...)

Dennis, that has always confused me. According to one part of the copyright law, you can't claim a copyright extension by refiling a new copyright unless the material has had significant changes, but authors copyright their books that were in original magazines. If there were no changes, how can the copyright by the author hold up. Can you explain? I'm seriously curious....


(And the US is still not a true follower of Berne, because of all those post 1923, extension exceptions... It's not just life + 50 or 70....)

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Right now, it's simple: either life + 50 years or life + 70 years, depending upon where you live. And you don't need to do formal registration to have copyright: that exists automatically upon creation of the work. Registration is still advisable in many cases because it establishes a formal date from which copyright applies, and allows for recovery of larger damages in the case of infringement.

Copyright was created in the first place to encourage creators, by giving them an exclusive right to benefit from their creations, and copyright period is intended to benefir the author and the author's heirs.

Going to a 20 years, plus renewals every ten years, re-introduces the whole idea of formal registration to have copyright. Who keeps the records? With whom do you renew? How do you do so, and what does it cost?

I believe there should be a formal copyright process and repository, and it should not be free. Copyright is, above all, about economic value. Even in the Old West of America, the people who got to keep the land paid to have it surveyed, and registered. By not requiring registration, you get all the "orphan works" problems we are wrestling with now....

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Look more closely at trademark law before you make that assumption. It's a lot more complex than copyright. Taking Mickey as an example, he's undergone significant changes since the original "Steamboat Willie", and I very much doubt a trademark would protect all of them.

The general advice is that yes, you can theoretically file for a trademark on your own, but you really don't want to. If it's valuable enough to trademark, you really want a lawyer to help you navigate the process.
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Dennis, that has always confused me. According to one part of the copyright law, you can't claim a copyright extension by refiling a new copyright unless the material has had significant changes, but authors copyright their books that were in original magazines. If there were no changes, how can the copyright by the author hold up. Can you explain? I'm seriously curious....

I'm not fully conversant with the rules myself.

In some cases, back in the really old days, I believe magazines bought all rights, which would be one matter. In other cases, you had things like stories in a connected world which were published as novelettes in a magazine, and then stuck together to make a book. So you get E. E. Smith's _Triplanetary_, the first of the Lensman series, available from PG, because that version is from the Amazing Stories serialized version, but the other Lensman books aren't PD. Or two different versions of some H. Beam Piper stuff, one from a magazine publication, and one from a book edition.

(And the US is still not a true follower of Berne, because of all those post 1923, extension exceptions... It's not just life + 50 or 70....)

No, but it's simpler than it was.

I believe there should be a formal copyright process and repository, and it should not be free. Copyright is, above all, about economic value. Even in the Old West of America, the people who got to keep the land paid to have it surveyed, and registered. By not requiring registration, you get all the "orphan works" problems we are wrestling with now....

You get orphan works problems with registration.

One contact locally is an Orthodox Jew. He had a treasured copy of a rare work on Jewish mysticism, that had been passed around the Jewish community in Xerox copies because the original book was nearly impossible to find. He wanted to publish a new edition, but the author was dead and the publishing house that had issued it no longer existed. It was possible the author had an heir that technically owned the rights, but go ahead, find him/her to get permission.

Most of the "orphan works" problems I can think of date from the period before the US joined the Berne convention, but no matter. They're orphaned because it's not clear who owns the rights. "Okay, Joe Schmoe wrote this, but it was published by Puddleglum Press, who normally bought all rights, so Joe's heirs don't have an interest, but Puddlegum went belly up many years ago, and we can't find any records to clarify whether they renewed the copyright, or what happened to the rights when they croaked..."

And in any case, I don't want to see a return to the days when you had to file with a ay a fee to the Library of Congress simply to have a copyright. The analogy with settlers on land doesn't hold up, as land has physical existence and can be surveyed and deeded. Intellectual property covered by copyright is a different matter.

And finally, while I'd love to see a rights repository where you could check on the status of a work, it really needs to international.
______
Dennis

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

I'm not fully conversant with the rules myself.

In some cases, back in the really old days, I believe magazines bought all rights, which would be one matter. In other cases, you had things like stories in a connected world which were published as novelettes in a magazine, and then stuck together to make a book. So you get E. E. Smith's _Triplanetary_, the first of the Lensman series, available from PG, because that version is from the Amazing Stories serialized version, but the other Lensman books aren't PD. Or two different versions of some H. Beam Piper stuff, one from a magazine publication, and one from a book edition.


No, but it's simpler than it was.


You get orphan works problems with registration.

One contact locally is an Orthodox Jew. He had a treasured copy of a rare work on Jewish mysticism, that had been passed around the Jewish community in Xerox copies because the original book was nearly impossible to find. He wanted to publish a new edition, but the author was dead and the publishing house that had issued it no longer existed. It was possible the author had an heir that technically owned the rights, but go ahead, find him/her to get permission.

Most of the "orphan works" problems I can think of date from the period before the US joined the Berne convention, but no matter. They're orphaned because it's not clear who owns the rights. "Okay, Joe Schmoe wrote this, but it was published by Puddleglum Press, who normally bought all rights, so Joe's heirs don't have an interest, but Puddlegum went belly up many years ago, and we can't find any records to clarify whether they renewed the copyright, or what happened to the rights when they croaked..."

And in any case, I don't want to see a return to the days when you had to file with a ay a fee to the Library of Congress simply to have a copyright. The analogy with settlers on land doesn't hold up, as land has physical existence and can be surveyed and deeded. Intellectual property covered by copyright is a different matter.

And finally, while I'd love to see a rights repository where you could check on the status of a work, it really needs to international.
______
Dennis

That's the problem with the US copyright laws. If we truly followed Berne, all you needed to know was when the Author died, and work from that. But we don't follow Berne, to protect Hollywood's sound pictures.

Actually I don't believe in Berne's Life + x. It should be life. If the Author croaks, the copyright ends. Or flat length x or life, whichever is longer...

We have the worst of all worlds in the US....


(I use the land analogy because it was unclaimed by anybody (just like an item is uncreated until somebody creates it), but to claim it, and put it into the economic stream, somebody had to do certain work to formalize the claim and set legal title. Then it could be bought or sold, assigned, traded, ect. Copyright holders want all the privileges of property without any of the cost and work attached. I think that's cheating. And it's bad for copyright itself.)

[SensualPoet]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I believe there should be a formal copyright process and repository, and it should not be free. Copyright is, above all, about economic value. Even in the Old West of America, the people who got to keep the land paid to have it surveyed, and registered. By not requiring registration, you get all the "orphan works" problems we are wrestling with now....

Exactly, and well put. That's why I like a 20 year post publication rule, with the ability to extend if the author is living (or his estate) and chooses to register. If the author makes no attempt, then the work goes PD at the expiry date.

The same would apply to works "created" by a corporation: the existing copyright holder during the original 20 year period can renew, or transfer, every 10 years up to 50 years post publication.

The underlying rule is 20 year post publication with optional 10 year registered renewals up to 50 years for the "protected life" of any work.

If the original author / copyright holder does nothing, he / she / it is signalling there is no economic value to be protected and the work can then gracefully lapse into PD.

The registration body would be "easy": we manage to track Internet domains currently with global and regional bodies. There is no reason a similar process couldn't be created for anyone wishing to protect their material beyond the non-registration initial 20 year period.

All existing rules could gracefully flow into this process with all extant works protected for up to 50 years under this process or less under the old rules.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by AprilHare

As documented here, we'll have to wait a fair while longer to celebrate Public Domain Day here in Australia :/ 2026 to be exact. (If that 2012 movie is true - never? )

But, to be fair, Australia already has in the public domain all those books that most of us (except the US) are still gaining year-on-year; we'll be "in step" again in 2026.