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

141–150 of 165 posts

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

#141

Post by Turing_Machine »

dublinben wrote: post #124
stinkytaco wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The relevant case here is a recent decision regarding the Sherlock Holmes books published before 1923. The characters represented in those works (i.e. without later developments in still-copyrighted books) are in the public domain, and can be freely used in new stories. There's no reason to think that the same wouldn't apply to Micky and Donald. http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/27/sherlock-holmes...

There are also plenty of examples where new (and valuable) IP is still being created from material that no one (not even heirs) disputes is in the public domain.

How many remakes of Shakespeare, Jane Austen, heck, stories from Greek mythology and the Bible have been made? Lots.

As many have noted (including someone upthread), Disney itself strip-mined the public domain for many of its big-budget pictures.

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

#142

Post by zobzu »

will_brown wrote: post #59
Spooky23 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forever is a long time. My great-great-great grandfather was a newspaper publisher in the 19th century. Should I be able to exert some sort of control over that information because someone who was dead before my grandfather was born wrote 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? People and companies should be able…

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…

youre confusing brand (trademark) and public domain here.

personally i think theres no such thing as IP and lifetime+0 is plenty nice enough.

using you principle we should probably pay fees just to write words, thats if IP had been a thing 3000y ago.

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

#143

Post by zobzu »

will_brown wrote: post #64
ewillbefull wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "indefinite" is not necessary in any of your points. What tangible difference in incentive exists for creating new works if your protection is 60 years or 1000 years after you die? Copyright is a contract between creators and society: limited protection to encourage the creation of creative works, with the promise that the material will eventually be (unconditionally) available to the public. Information cannot b…

>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…

note that most disney movies are profitable a few weeks after release. so even of copyright was 1 year theyd still do it .... because profit. its just that now they can enjoy 100y of profit without additional effort instead.

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

#144

Post by iand »

simbolit wrote: post #128
iand wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright (patents/intellectual property) is one of Benjamin Tucker's Four Great Monopolies[1] that give rise to monopoly capitalism[2] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker#The_Four_Monopo... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_monopoly_capitalism

i thought that to be the one obvious position. the other (imho) equally obvious position seems to be the following: copyright is protection of intellectual property, and securing property rights is the prime reason for goverment to exist. according to the second position (and taking opposition to the estate/death tax into account) it seems consistent with a libertarian position to argue for infinite copyright terms.…

There are some people who have argued for infinite copyright terms or perpetual ownership over every utterance they make. Rand argued for IP, saying (roughly) "a man has rights to the product of his mind."

In general though, I think the modern consensus in Libertarian circles has fallen on the side of opposing or greatly limiting IP in general. See http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Intellectual_property for a reasonable overview.

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

#145

Post by ryguytilidie »

ars_technician wrote: post #130
kbenson wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the laugh. I would pay a few bucks to see that play out.

It didn't happen, so all it takes is your imagination! :-)

Interacted with you two days ago and your contribution there was ANOTHER brainless, complete shit one liner. Perhaps its time for you to look for another community?

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

#146

Post by gillianseed »

coliveira wrote: post #121
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...

What I find the most strange aspect of these discussions is: if people hate Disney, why do they want to freely use Mikey and its image? For people who like Disney, it is an advantage that the company is making money out of their creations -- so there will be much more of it. For people who hate Disney, there is no point in watching these movies. So, why getting concerned about this?

Mickey is still trademarked, so unless I'm missing something you will not have the rights to do what you want with the 'Mickey' character, however you would have the right copy, translate, recreate in other mediums, the actual work which had fallen out of copyright, like for example 'Steamboat Willie' which Disney has repeatedly prevented from falling into public domain through lobbying for copyright extension.

Of course Disney's intense lobbying in extending the copyright of their works looks even worse when you consider that they've made a vast amount of their fortune by adapting classic public domain works like Snowwhite, Cinderella, Pinocchio, Beauty and the Beast, Alice in Wonderland, Little Mermaid, Aladdin and The Jungle Book, the latter was released one year after Kipling's copyright had expired.

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

#147

Post by SomeCallMeTim »

possibilistic wrote: post #135

The fairest idea I've come across concerning protecting copyrighted works from falling into the public domain is actually pretty simple: tax exclusivity after the initial 30 years has elapsed. If this tax is non-negligible, companies will be obliged to keep only their best IPs protected and will let everything else fall into the public domain. The government taxes every other kind of property, so why not IP? Addition…

Not just tax, but TRACK anything that you want to keep protected.

Many books, movies, photos, and other IP instances out there are difficult to track down solid ownership info for. Sometimes the contracts surrounding the IP are so complex as to make it impossible for even a trained IP lawyer to determine who owns what. In some cases even IP claimed by a particular company may not be valid [1].

If there were a national registry that listed who owned what rights to a particular property, and you had to pay to be included (maybe the initial copyright registration pays for the first X years, but after that you have to continue to pay to continue your protection), it could not only clarify who "owns" what, it could list those people who had specific sub-licenses to the property in question, and what the details of their licenses are.

To help combat orphan works, you can throw in one other important requirement: Even if we give them X years (30 or otherwise) for the initial registration requirement, they would also need to keep their contact information current at all times, on pain of losing their registration. If you try the forms of contact and get wrong numbers and returned letters, then you report that fact to the copyright registry, and if THEY can't contact the owners within, say, 60 days, then ALL the copyrights owned by that entity get released.

I know of some properties (old games in particular) that have such confused licensing surrounding them (with companies buying "rights" in large packages and then ignoring them, or the companies closing down with no clear record of who ended up purchasing those particular rights...) that they are languishing in limbo. No one can make a sequel, no one can republish them on new platforms... With a registry, you could look to see WHO is currently paying the upkeep fee, and with the "keep your contact info public" requirement, at least you'd be guaranteed that you'd be able to contact the current rights holder.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/nyregion/lawsuit-aims-to-s...

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

#148

Post by chrismcb »

streetnigga wrote: post #95
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.

There is a HUGE difference between "buying knock offs" and copying something that should be in public domain. For one thing knockoffs tend to be cheap and poor quality. But this isn't just about "copying" it is also about using, and remaking and recreating. If the 1978 law was still in effect I could create a cat in the hat game or movie, without having to pay licensing fees.

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

#149

Post by chrismcb »

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…

Didn't we just have a discussion about Sherlock Holmes. The last few stories are copyrighted in the US but NOT in Britian... Good thing we have hamornization. I'm all for a more world wide copyright. But keep it to a realistic term. Amazon claims they have few books older than 25 years, so 25 sounds like a good length to me. The Constitution says "for a limited time" I would claim that anything time that is longer than the average human life span is NOT limited.

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

#150

Post by chrismcb »

coliveira wrote: post #121
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...

What I find the most strange aspect of these discussions is: if people hate Disney, why do they want to freely use Mikey and its image? For people who like Disney, it is an advantage that the company is making money out of their creations -- so there will be much more of it. For people who hate Disney, there is no point in watching these movies. So, why getting concerned about this?

People hate the Disney Corporation because they were a driving force to extending copyrights. This has nothing to do with liking Mickey Mouse or even wanting to use Mickey and its image. It is about wanting to use OTHER works created that should have entered into the public domain. Consider Mickey was introduced in 1928. This article was about things that would have entered public domain that were created in 1957. Over 30 years of stuff that did not enter public domain thanks to the likes of Disney.
Post reply on HN