Public Domain

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

The next real copyright battle will occur in 2042. The main driver of copyright lengthening is not publishers, but Hollywood.

You currently have a bet on with a 2022 end date.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

You currently have a bet on with a 2022 end date.

And I will pay in 2022. I should have read the fine print of the 1998 Act before making the bet.

[pdurrant]

I haven't been able to find a reference to this 120 years for films. Can you point me in the right direction?

[Greg Anos]

I misread. It only applies to copyright granted after 1978.

However, the Classics Protection and Access Act federalized the <soundtrack musical> portion of a video, until the following.

"The CPA Act, as enacted, provides to sound recordings a term of 95 years of protection from the date of first publication (the maximum term allowed to pre-1978 works under existing law), plus a “transition period” of between 3 and 15 years. [17 U.S.C. §1401(a)(2)(A)] As with other copyrighted works, all terms are extended to December 31 of the year in which they otherwise would expire; except that no protection is provided to pre-1972 sound recordings after February 15, 2067. The “transition period” is 3 years after the date of enactment for sound recordings published before 1923; 5 years for sound recordings first published in 1923-1946; and 15 years for sound recordings first published in 1947-1956. All other sound recordings get a transition period that expires on February 15, 2067. [17 U.S.C. 1401(a)(2)(B)]

Thus, all sound recordings first published before 1923 will enter the public domain on January 1, 2022. Sound recordings first published between 1923 and 1946 will get 100 years of protection. Sound recordings first published between 1947 and 1956 will get 110 years of protection. Sound recordings first published between 1957 and 1972 will get protection until February 15, 2067, resulting in a variable terms of protection of between 110 years and 95 years. Finally, previously unpublished sound recordings will be protected until February 15, 2067 (even if they are published by the rights owner in the meantime). Due to the preemption provisions (described below), these terms preempt any state laws to the contrary, even where state law would provide shorter protection.

What does it mean for a sound recording to be “published”? Before 1978, courts had held that a musical work was “published” only when sheet music was distributed to the public. Distribution of a sound recording of a musical work was not considered a “publication” of the musical work within the meaning of copyright law. (The distinction dates back to a 1908 Supreme Court decision, White-Smith Music Publishing Co. v. Apollo Co.,which held that piano rolls for player pianos were not “copies” of a musical work within the meaning of copyright law. Essentially, a “copy” had to be visible to the eye.) Indeed, when the Ninth Circuit later held that distribution of a phonorecord was a “publication” of the musical work, Congress overturned the decision by enacting 17 U.S.C. §303(b): “The distribution before January 1, 1978, of a phonorecord shall not for any purpose constitute a publication of any musical work, dramatic work, or literary work embodied therein.” Of course, this statute (and the rationale underlying it) did not apply to the sound recordings themselves, which (unlike musical works) could only be distributed in the form of phonorecords. Nonetheless, the New York Court of Appeals relied on this statute in holding (in the Capitol Records v. Naxos case) that pre-1972 sound recordings had never been “published” at all, even when phonorecords of the recordings had been distributed to the public. If this restricted definition of “publication” were used, then Congress’s transition periods would have been rendered meaningless, as all pre-1972 sound recordings would have been “unpublished” and therefore protected until February 15, 2067.

Fortunately, Congress anticipated this ambiguity and resolved it. Section 1401(f)(6) provides that “Any term used in this section that is defined in section 101 shall have the meaning given that term in section 101.” Section 101 defines “publication” as “the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending” (emphasis added). Thus, for purposes of term of protection, a sound recording was first “published” when phonorecords were first sold to the public— an eminently sensible result."

https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archive...-blog-post.htm

Whether or not this meets the term of the bet, as an extension of copyright, (Only a limited extension of certain types of copyrights was added), is certainly arguable.

Your input is welcome.

(Note, this was signed into law October 24, 2018.)

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by leebase

I guess "in Lee's perfect world" I'd have copyright for works of fiction be perpetual as long as the copyright holder was tending to the work (keeping it in print, for example).

I don't see a reason for anyone but Disney to be able to create Mickey Mouse material. I know...Disney took many of there stores from old fair tales and the like. But, that would be an example of "if the copyright holder isn't using their works, then other people can".

I say this for FICTION, not science or medicine and the like where society needs there to be further building upon.

Nobody NEEDS to build upon Mickey Mouse. It's fiction. You have unlimited ability to create your own fictional characters. Much in the way of the Sword of Shanara being a scene for scene rip off of the Lord of the Rings....but changed enough (we could argue that point).

So you don't get to own "magic", but you do get to own Harry Potter and Hogwarts....forever if you keep the work available.

It doesn't quite work that way in the real world of writing. All you have to do is look at massive group of lawsuits over Sherlock Holmes. Unfortunately, copyright lawsuits isn't only for simply replicating copyrighted works, but also includes derivative works. Derivative works is a mighty slippery slope and in the end comes down to how aggressive a copyright holder is and what you can convince a judge and jury of.

Derivative works is the reason for public domain and is very, very common in music. I personally would liberalize the rules for derivative works quite a bit. The sword that was broken is a common theme in norse mythology and fantasy literature. Does that mean that Tolkien violated copyright by including a sword that was broken? Boramir blowing his horn was lifted from Song of Roland. Same question. Pretty much any literary work is derived in some way from another work.

Obviously, all fanflic is a violation of copyright, as we currently use the term, yet most authors turn a blind eye to fanflic for rather obvious reasons.

Of course, in the US, copyright is part of the US Constitution and you would need a Constitutional amendment to make the scheme you favor legal.

[leebase]

Correct, fanfic is copyright violation. Mind you, I was speaking of the world as I would have it be, not the laws that exist.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Whether or not this meets the term of the bet, as an extension of copyright, (Only a limited extension of certain types of copyrights was added), is certainly arguable.

Your input is welcome.

I think the bet needs to be considered in the context of the thread it was made. Does the copyright change extend the copyright on Steamboat Willie?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I think the bet needs to be considered in the context of the thread it was made. Does the copyright change extend the copyright on Steamboat Willie?

Yes, by 5 years. Steamboat Willie had synchronized sound.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steamboat_Willie

Not much, but still an extension.

The original bill would have extended it to 2067 - 44 more years worth. This was the passed compromise.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by leebase

Correct, fanfic is copyright violation. Mind you, I was speaking of the world as I would have it be, not the laws that exist.

The real issue with eternal copyright is derivative works. As much as I would like a copy of some orphaned work, it's hard to argue that I am harmed by not having it. On the other hand, depending on the judge and jury, Rowling could claim that any book placed in a wizarding school is a derivative of Harry Potter, and might well win the case. Hobbits was an invention of JRR Tolkien, but how many fantasy works include hobbit or halflings? Once again, possibly a technical violation of copyright with an aggressive enough copyright holder.

In addition, literary works tend to depend on a shared culture. "Call me Ishmael" is arguably the most famous opening line in literature, yet is basically meaningless if you have the shared culture to understand the Biblical reference. Most books are loaded with such references.

In classical music, it's common to compose a work that is "variations on a theme by". A modern example is Philip Glass's Low Symphony, which was based on a David Bowie album. You have the whole MC Hammer "Can't touch this" which was derivatived from Rick James' Superfreak. Most guitar riffs are derived from a riff that the guitarist heard somewhere else.

All that stuff is a technical violation of copyright if you have an aggressive copyright holder. My contention is that it shouldn't be.

[Greg Anos]

On the other hand, various states have various sound performance copyright lengths, a few had none. Some some got shortened, but some got lengthened.

Even I don't want to dive into the legal ramifications of a soundtrack being under state copyright in one state and not in another.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Rowling could claim that any book placed in a wizarding school is a derivative of Harry Potter, and might well win the case.

She could claim it. But "might well win"? No she wouldn't. She wasn't the first (and it's too vague). She herself would be derivative if that's the standard. No judge in their right mind would decide that any book merely set in a wizarding school is derivative of HP. No more than any judge would decide that any book that takes place on Mars is derivative of The Martian. There is SOME common sense that prevails in this regard.

[exscentric]

I have seen similar discussions before and have often wondered about a point that may relate.

A person writing produces fruit, why should they not be allowed to control/profit from their fruit according to their own desires? If they die why should their heirs not be able to control that fruit which they inherited.

Seems we allow rich people that make their fruit to control most of their fruit as well as pass it on to kids (realizing taxes are heavy, they still control a fair portion).

Personally, I allow free distribution of my work, though have no idea why anyone would want to - but that was a personal choice of how my labor is used not the choice of someone else wanting to control my work.

now crawling back under my rock.

[leebase]

Come on. There can be wizards and schools without it being Harry Potter. I’m completely ok with Rawling and her heirs owning Harry Potter forever.

I’m not ok with books disappearing because nobody knows where the authors heirs are, if any.

But again, I’m not saying my ideas are current law. I’m just not upset when copyright is extended for fiction

[Tarana]

Originally Posted by Ricky D'Angelo

IMHO, more books should be in the public domain. According to the following source works up to 1923 are currently in public domain in the US.

https://law.duke.edu/cspd/

I know it's not as simple as picking an arbitrary year but perhaps all books up to 1950 should be in public domain. To argue otherwise seems to be more in the interest of censorship (i.e., making books less readily available) rather than profits. Thoughts?

The old copyright scheme was reasonable, but then Disney Corp. and Sonny Bono got involved because of greed. Then US pushed for copyright extensions in other countries. Sad mess.

[SleepyBob]

Originally Posted by leebase

Come on. There can be wizards and schools without it being Harry Potter. I’m completely ok with Rawling and her heirs owning Harry Potter forever.

But can there be dementors and patroni without being Harry Potter? Muggles or horcruxes? House elves? Without limits on copyright and derivative works, ideas themselves get held hostage.