Nothing to celebrate in USA on 'Public Domain Day' 2014

[bgalbrecht]

Australia doesn't have any new public domain works either, since they signed a treaty with the US which forced them to raise their copyright from life+50 to life+70 in 2006, so they won't have any new public domain until 2026.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Little.Egret

So all works that are still copyright in the United States of America are copyright because published there and the fact that they have gone out of copyright under Life+x in the country of the author doesn't matter ?

The US does not follow the rule of the shorter term, so only US law is relevant when considering the copyright status of any work in the US.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

Australia doesn't have any new public domain works either, since they signed a treaty with the US which forced them to raise their copyright from life+50 to life+70 in 2006, so they won't have any new public domain until 2026.

This is true, but also, in some ways, good news for Australians, in that Australia didn't make the extension retroactive. Unfortunately, the UK did.

So although Australia won't get any new PD until 2026, all the works that will become PD in the UK from now until 2026 are ALREADY in the public domain in Australia.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

They're talking about the United States of America. I've edited the thread title to reflect that.

No previously copyright work will enter the public domain in the US until 1st January 2019, when works first published in the US in 1923 go out of copyright.

Unless US copyright gets extended. Again. For the umpteenth time.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Unless US copyright gets extended. Again. For the umpteenth time.

It's possible that at some point, the courts might decide that "limited times" cannot be interpreted to mean anything less than infinity. Perhaps not likely, but possible. The intent of the copyright clause is clear, a limited-time monopoly in exchange for the work entering the public domain. The phrase "limited times" was used rather than a fixed number of years to give Congress some flexibility, but at some point, it doesn't qualify as limited anymore.

Perhaps we should just grant Disney an eternal copyright to Mickey Mouse, that would lower the pressure to keep extending copyright eternally.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

It's possible that at some point, the courts might decide that "limited times" cannot be interpreted to mean anything less than infinity. Perhaps not likely, but possible. The intent of the copyright clause is clear, a limited-time monopoly in exchange for the work entering the public domain. The phrase "limited times" was used rather than a fixed number of years to give Congress some flexibility, but at some point, it doesn't qualify as limited anymore.

Perhaps we should just grant Disney an eternal copyright to Mickey Mouse, that would lower the pressure to keep extending copyright eternally.

But with characters like Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny aren't they also a trademark or something not unlike the white polar bear and his bottle of coca cola? Just as the picture of the apple is part of the identity of Apple computers Mickey is linked with Disney. As the quote goes, "It all started with a mouse." Characters like Zorro, Cinderella, Snow White and others on the other hand existed before Walt Disney started his business. So there is a difference between them. Disney didn't invent them he just bought the film rights to the story in those cases.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Unless US copyright gets extended. Again. For the umpteenth time.

Remember SOPA? I think you underestimate netizen power.

Do I think many netizens really care about getting free access to F. Scott Fitzgerald books or Nelson Eddy/Jeanette MacDonald movies? Nope. But depriving the public domain will become a principle-of-the-thing issue, the principle being They Can't Take That Away from Me.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by crich70

But with characters like Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny aren't they also a trademark or something not unlike the white polar bear and his bottle of coca cola? Just as the picture of the apple is part of the identity of Apple computers Mickey is linked with Disney. As the quote goes, "It all started with a mouse." Characters like Zorro, Cinderella, Snow White and others on the other hand existed before Walt Disney started his business. So there is a difference between them. Disney didn't invent them he just bought the film rights to the story in those cases.

If the oldest Mickey Mouse films enter the public domain, it won't mean that just anyone can make Mickey Mouse films, people could just use those films. Still, trademark protection is trickier than copyright protection. Disney doesn't want to let the earliest MM films enter the public domain as it could weaken their trademark. For many years, Disney didn't produce new cartoons with Mickey, but in recent years they have, and that helps them protect their trademark.

Disney might have had to pay for movie rights to Zorro, but not for Cinderella, Snow White, Alice or Pinoccio. these were free for Disney to use as they saw fit.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

If the oldest Mickey Mouse films enter the public domain, it won't mean that just anyone can make Mickey Mouse films, people could just use those films. Still, trademark protection is trickier than copyright protection. Disney doesn't want to let the earliest MM films enter the public domain as it could weaken their trademark. For many years, Disney didn't produce new cartoons with Mickey, but in recent years they have, and that helps them protect their trademark.

Disney might have had to pay for movie rights to Zorro, but not for Cinderella, Snow White, Alice or Pinoccio. these were free for Disney to use as they saw fit.

Point taken. I think I was thinking more of some of his other movies like 20,000 leagues under the seas and Treasure Island but used the fairy tales as examples. Though I do wonder how many years out of copyright some of them were when Disney used them. I mean the Grimm Bros. pretty much just wrote down a lot of the old fairy tales but Pinocchio wasn't one of theirs so I'm not sure of how many yrs out it was at the time. Both it and Treasure Island were published in 1883 and were made into movies by Disney in the 1940's and 50's. The Curse of Capistrano (the story on which Zorro is based) was published in 1919 and Disney made their versions in the 50's. Of course the copyright laws were different back then so who knows. But they weren't part of the Disney Trademark either. Just Mickey.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by crich70

ust as the picture of the apple is part of the identity of Apple computers ...

Not Apple Records?

[crich70]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Not Apple Records?

lol. I had forgotten about them. I meant the multi colored image of an apple with a bite out of it. Apple records works as well as an example I suppose. With a picture of a green apple on one side and a cut away image of that apple on the other.