Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014

web.law.duke.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 165 posts

Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014

#91

Post by will_brown »

aestra wrote: post #83
will_brown wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should I on the death of an author be able to reproduce their work and sell it? Why should that be the case after 28 years or 75 years after the death of the creator be able to take their work and profit from it? >So if you were an author, you would not write a book because royalties would cease coming in to your grandchildren X years after your death? The chilling effect on work is not a result of the author, bu…

It isn't just about "stealing." Allowing works to enter the public domain actually encourages more works to be created. People are free to remake and remix works in the public domain. Think: A REAL lot of old Disney movies (Alice and Wonderland, Jungle Book, Pinocchio...) Pride and Prejudice with Zombies That Romeo and Juliet movie with Leonardo DiCaprio and guns. A Christmas Carol in play form (it lends itself reall…

Your post is very helpful because of the examples.

Lets take the Disney example. Lets assume the non-disney original Snow White had a Copyright and was not in the public domain. That does not mean Disney's version violates the copyright, it is very likely there was enough change in Disney's version from the original that Disney would not be found to infringe.

Pride and Prejudice with Zombies: Assuming the creator of Pride and Prejudice had a valid copyright, without being familiar with either work I can almost guarantee this would not be Copyright infringement because it would be valid under the satirical exemption to Copyright infringement.

The Clueless and West Side Story examples are more difficult because I am not familiar with the works and the verbiage "inspired by" "based on" is all I am going off of. But this was my whole point regarding the OP that there is an assumption of copyright infringement. Just because a work is "inspired by" or "based on" does legally mean there is infringement. These individual examples would need to be analyzed on a case by case basis to determine if they violate copyright law or not.

All I advocate for is extension of the term of a copyright not an expansion of the right itself. In which case I would argue most of your examples would not rely on the underlying works being in the public domain, because they were changed enough to not constitute infringement as opposed to say a 1 on 1 copy of the original work.

Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014

#92

Post by will_brown »

skyebook wrote: post #84
will_brown wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I can create and distribute any creation for free thanks to the internet. >I create because I'm a creator, not because there is a fiscal reward. Then there is nothing stopping you from doing just that...Just because the protections exist does not mean you must avail yourselves to them, you can give your work away for free all you want or let others take your work reproduce it and sell it as their own (maybe even tak…

> However, if your saying you need to create your work off anthers work which is copyrighted and they want to enforce the same, then I would say IP is not what is stifling creativity, rather an unoriginal artist with no creativity to begin with. Creativity != originality. Its been pointed out elsewhere in the thread, but plenty of Disney's works are not original. That doesn't detract from the quality of the work or t…

>Creativity != originality. Its been pointed out elsewhere in the thread, but plenty of Disney's works are not original. That doesn't detract from the quality of the work or the creativity involved in adapting the story.

I agree with you. When I said "create your work off another" I am referencing a 1 to 1 copy or at least a work that results in a finding of infringement. If you create a derivative work that does not infringe on a copyright, more power to you - but the point is you would not need to have a work in the public domain to create a derivative work that does not infringe.

Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014

#93

Post by zanny »

stinkytaco wrote: post #63
jessriedel wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're confused. Disney is free to make new Mickey Mouse movies, and those will be protected by copyright. Likewise, they can register Mickey Mouse as a trademark for certain business situations so no one is ever tricked into thinking a 3rd party product is endorsed by Disney. Buy what they absolutely shouldn't have is the ability to prevent other people from writing new Mickey stories, from watching 70 year…

While I agree with you in principle, some of the specifics I take issue with: 1. Writing new Mickey stories - This is an odd legal/moral area for me. It's not unreasonable for Disney to want to protect Mickey and if you wrote a Mickey story, it's possible that people could feel that a 3rd party product is endorsed by Disney. That could affect Disney's future business. Distributing Steamboat Willy on YouTube will not.…

> t's possible that people could feel that a 3rd party product is endorsed by Disney.

No it isn't, that isn't how the world works. If you take public domain material and utilize it in your own way there is no semblance of reason to think the original creator of said material endorsed you. I don't know if you are talking about how we are now living in a world where basically nobody alive has experienced material entering public domain, but it isn't a nebulous area.

Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014

#95

Post by streetnigga »

donpdonp wrote: post #42

While not a solution per se, an alternative exists. If the license for current works are unacceptable, start celebrating other works! Notably, works with a Creative Commons license. Some Creative Commons cartoons http://www.seosmarty.com/15-cartoonists-that-allow-using-the... Creative Commons Music at Jamendo (see the FAQ http://www.jamendo.com/en/faq ) edit: 'per-say' to 'per se' (thx ansimionescu)

Consequently others can ignore laws and licenses clearly out of line with the reality around them. I often find that to be far more effective in living life than seeking squeaky clean legal alternatives.

We really do only have one go around. I'll buy all the knock-off Mickey Mouse crap I want.

Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014

#97

Post by scarecrowbob »

pessimizer wrote: post #65
justin66 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? edit: so you were just restating what you already said. It wasn't persuasive the first time.

>I like the idea that the kids would be watching Bridge on the River Kwai instead of the latest recruitment video but it doesn't seem likely. The kids aren't the purchasers of the majority of entertainment products. If the kids had a choice between free River Kwai, and a $12 modern version of 3:10 to Yuma (or something funner), the $12 would become $2 in no time. Prices on new product would have to be lowered to comp…

"Prices on new product would have to be lowered to compete with free old product."

I do not believe that this is true at all. Having taught film history classes at a university, where some of the most interesting, significant human artworks were rejected because they were silent, had subtitles, or simply were not in color, I can say with no hesitation that there is little or no demand for things that aren't colorful, animated explosions featuring contemporary stars.

That's not a value judgement: people can watch whatever; that's just the current market as I understand it.

Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014

#98

Post by bbanyc »

jellicle wrote: post #54
bbanyc wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's partly Disney (and the Gershwin estate) but the 56-year term was extended in 1976 to bring the US in line with the Berne Convention life-plus-50 term used in the rest of the world. The current life-plus-70 term originated in Germany, spread to the rest of the EU and then was adopted in the US for "harmonization" with Europe. Harmonization is not necessarily a bad thing. Pre-1976 US copyright law had some outrigh…

But who pushed for it in Germany, etc.? Oh, right: Disney and the rest of the copyright industry. "Harmonization" somehow always ratchets upwards, never downwards. No one said to Germany: don't ratchet your copyright term upwards, keep it harmonized. When in the next few years U.S. copyright suddenly "needs" to be extended another 20 years, no one is going to complain that this will break harmonization. The copyright…

The Berne Convention (life-plus-50) was adopted in 1886 - before Walt Disney was born, before the first motion picture was made, when recorded sound was just a novelty. Publishing houses were small and there was no "copyright industry" at the time. For the most part, it was the authors themselves, most prominently Victor Hugo, lobbying for protection.

Now I think even the Berne term is too long and the rights granted too expansive, but it wasn't just a naked power grab by the not-yet-existent Big Media.

(The German 20-year extension was probably a naked power grab, but it happened in the 1960s and was well off the radar of English-language media companies. The descendants of some German author who died in the '20s are most likely to blame.)

Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014

#99

Post by linuxhansl »

bbanyc wrote: post #44
kevando wrote: post #3

For those curious, this is mostly a result of Disney. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/25...

It's partly Disney (and the Gershwin estate) but the 56-year term was extended in 1976 to bring the US in line with the Berne Convention life-plus-50 term used in the rest of the world. The current life-plus-70 term originated in Germany, spread to the rest of the EU and then was adopted in the US for "harmonization" with Europe. Harmonization is not necessarily a bad thing. Pre-1976 US copyright law had some outrigh…

That's nice scheme. You pick a country where pushing copyright limits is bit easier than in the US; thenyou "harmonize" with that. Brilliant.

Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014

#100

Post by derleth »

Touche wrote: post #37
stinkytaco wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They would not be relinquishing their trademarks or the rights to make more Mickey Mouse movies. Nor would this necessarily mean that the character of Mickey Mouse would go into the public domain. Simply that the discrete works would now be public domain. There are Donald Duck works in the public domain (Spirit of '43) and that doesn't seem to impact their bottom line terribly.

These days kids barely know who Donald Duck or Mickey are. I wonder how much of that is because Disney intentionally invests in other IP that isn't under this threat.

> These days kids barely know who Donald Duck or Mickey are.

Ignoring the fact this is likely false, this has nothing to do with copyright. It's a matter of trademark law, and Disney would in no way lose the trademark over any of its characters if certain specific films featuring them were released into the public domain.

Post reply on HN