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

111–120 of 165 posts

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

#111

Post by stinkytaco »

judk wrote: post #103
stinkytaco wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

You can't trademark a function object like a costume.

But you can trademark a logo or other distinctive marking. For example, I cannot trademark the baseball cap, but I could trademark a team logo's presence on said hat. I don't know, but I would expect a court to side with Disney on that issue.

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

#112

Post by huskyr »

Another interesting tidbit about US copyright is the Uruguay Round Agreements Act:

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

One of the effects of this act is restoring copyright in the U.S. to foreign works of authors that weren't dead for 70 years on january 1st 1996 in their home country. Instead, works only enter the PD 95 years after publication.

So for example, the last paintings by Theo van Doesburg, a Dutch artist who entered the public domain in the Netherlands in 2002, will only be out of copyright in the U.S. in 2026. And that's why you won't see those works on a site such as Wikipedia, that is under U.S. law.

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

#113

Post by stinkytaco »

zanny wrote: post #93
stinkytaco wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 enter…

I'm talking about a world where the character is a trademark, a distinctive brand in and of itself and where the "creator" is no longer a living person, but a corporation that continues to create work with the characters. Steamboat Willy is a distinct piece of art. However, the characters in it have become brands unto themselves.

The world of trademark and copyright are colliding in a new way here if Steamboat Willy were to enter the public domain. Can you seperate the trademark "Mickey Mouse" from the work "Steamboat Willy"? Does the fact that some Mickey Mouse cartoons are in the public domain mean that Mickey Mouse the character is in the public domain? And how does that affect works still being created with Mickey in them?

But that's beside the point. The point I want to make is that Disney wants us to be confused. They want us to conflate two distinct intellectual property issues. Steamboat Willy should be public domain, period. The repercussions of that are interesting, but really a separate area of law. Mixing the two only serves to support Disney's argument. Creative works such as films and books should enter the public domain -- as is and open to redistribution and use in derivative works -- after 14+14.

EDIT: Just to provide a concrete example, there are Disney films made during the Second World War (Spirit of '43) that are in the public domain. The character in this particular case is Donald Duck. Off the top of my head I know of no particular case law so perhaps it's never been challenged, but though it is certainly possibly to distribute, screen and create derivitive works of that film for free (I've done it myself at a summer screening of old movies we used to host when I was in college), I really don't know of anyone who's has distributed new Donald Duck movies or stories and gotten away with it. It does make me curious if they could, however.

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

#114

Post by will_brown »

logfromblammo wrote: post #87
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…

I think that the reasonable upper boundary one can place upon encouraging an artist to create new works is the death of the artist. To my knowledge, people simply do not go on creating things after they have died. But since that might create a perverse incentive to murder artists or to name one's children as co-creators, it would be better to apply a fixed term instead--one well within the natural lifespan of a human…

>I think that the reasonable upper boundary one can place upon encouraging an artist to create new works is the death of the artist. To my knowledge, people simply do not go on creating things after they have died.

I will use funny examples here just to illustrate a point. Biggie Smalls has generated more money from his work after his death than during his lifetime. 2-Pac has published more music after his death than during his life time (obviously the music was recorded but not released). There are many examples of painters who's work only became famous after their death.

It is my belief their work should not lose protection and be entered in the public domain because of their death. People can still make derivative works so long as they do not infringe, but 1 to 1 copying would, and what I argue is should, be protected. As it relates to work with greater investment, $200M+ movies for example, yes I believe (and I think what most people do not agree with me about) is those would disappear if they entered public domain after 20 years (using your term as an example).

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

#115

Post by will_brown »

dragonwriter wrote: post #79
will_brown wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What tangible difference in incentive exists for creating new works if your protection is 60 years or 1000 years after you die? You think Disney or anyone else will invest if they lose their copyright protections in 60 years? No, it is stability that encourages creation and investment. >Information cannot be permanently locked behind a paywall, especially as it becomes important to study it historically That is the…

> You think Disney or anyone else will invest if they lose their copyright protections in 60 years? Yes, because people did when copyright terms were shorter than that, and virtually all of the income from most things subject to copyright is derived in the first decade or so. > Copyrighted work is subject to fair use and a number of other exceptions such as academic/scientific purposes. Academic/scientific purpose is…

>Yes, because people did when copyright terms were shorter than that, and virtually all of the income from most things subject to copyright is derived in the first decade or so.

Yes the terms were shorter, but people were also not investing $200M+ per film. Now you are probably right that any given work, including $200M+ films, are likely to derive all income in the first decade, but the investment for such projects would not happen if they lost protection after a decade and people could simply start reproducing 1 to 1 copies at that point.

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

#116

Post by EarthLaunch »

kriro wrote: post #88

The irony that Atlas Shrugged is on the list and massively protected by government IP law is deliciously sad. More interesting is that Tesla is part of the class of 2014 for 70 year countries :) 50 year countries get some nice additions (some real heavyweights): Robert Frost, Sylvia Plath, William Carlos Williams, Louis MacNeice, Jean Cocteau, C. S. Lewis, Aldous Huxley

Atlas Shrugged doesn't address IP law fully, but Ayn Rand's philosophy respects strong government enforcement of IP rights. The idea that Atlas Shrugged is anti-government is a misunderstanding.

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

#117

Post by warfangle »

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…

Doesn't mean it should have been retroactively granted. Extend the term if must needs; but retroactively granting additional years on an already-established term is violating the spirit of the US Constitution, if not the letter. LL agrees; the SCOTUS didn't.

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

#118

Post by warfangle »

judk wrote: post #105
toyg wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point, it's mostly about preservation. Kwai is one of a zillion war movies produced more than 40 years ago; unlike the bridge, that movie will forever endure, but so many of its contemporaries will disappear -- a fate entirely avoidable in this age of long-tail hyper-specialized scholarly studies, unlimited data capacity and worldwide p2p redundancy. Art will be lost because of unbridled greed, and this is th…

Do we need the zillions of other movies? At some point, we need to curate to not be overwhelmed

How can one curate that which is lost?

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

#119

Post by EarthLaunch »

jellicle wrote: post #57
cafard wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so?

Something about Ayn Rand's heirs suckling off the government teat of copyright laws for infinite years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Peikoff "Every dollar I have is because the government has forced every single person who wants to read a book I had nothing to do with writing to pay me money. I'm a Libertarian!"

That's not an actual quote. From the very article you linked:

> He also continues Rand's opposition to libertarianism, remaining sharply opposed to any description of Objectivist political philosophy as "libertarian" and to any collaboration with most libertarian groups. He has been critical of American foreign policy, including both neoconservative and libertarian views as self-sacrificial.

I will point out that your calling copyright laws "the government teat" is a Libertarian view that IP rights are coercive. Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff both argue that proper IP laws are non-coercive. For that reason and others, Objectivists don't want to be associated with Libertarians.

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

#120

Post by will_brown »

nitrogen wrote: post #110
will_brown wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Are you willing to put you interpretation of copyright to the test? Why don't you write a modern retelling of Cinderella based on Disney's version and see how far you get. Next try a remix between Cinderella, Harry Potter, and the leaked Windows source code and see what happens.

With a quick search I found 37 different film versions of Cinderella, I did not look at them individually to confirm, but it would be safe to say Disney did not create 37 versions of Cinderella. So a serious derivative work can be made that does not violate any Disney copyright, but I can certainly say I could create a zombie themed Cinderella that would fall under satire and not constitute a infringement.

I should also note that I am an attorney, and have handled both trademark and copyright infringement cases (for plaintiffs and defendants). That is in addition to successfully registering both and in some cases over objections of the examining USPTO attorney or third parties.

Edit: I don't know why I am being down voted but in the instance it sounds like I am saying I must be right bc I'm an attorney, I am the first to acknowledge disagreement between practitioners, jurisdictions, and Judge's/justices. For what its worth I noted it as a sign of good faith that I am not blowing smoke of my interpretation of copyright law

Post reply on HN