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

What will enter the public domain in 2026?

publicdomainreview.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 383 posts

Re: What will enter the public domain in 2026?

#291

Post by teddyh »

mchusma wrote: post #60
bcrosby95 wrote: post #58

The length of copyright is absurd. Corporations have hijacked a concept that should exist on human timescales. Ideally, a child could legally provide their own spin on IP they consumed by the time they reach adulthood. But also, people need to make a living. I actually think the original 14+14 year copyright is the right balance. It gives people time to make their profits, but also guarantees the right of people to t…

I love the original 14+14. I’ve heard proposals for exponentially growing fees to allow truly big enterprises to stay copywritten longer, like 14+14 with filing and $100, another 14 for $100,000, another 14 for $10M, another 14 for $100M. That would allow 70 years or protection for a few key pieces of IP that are worth it, which seems like an okay trade off? So many ideas better than the current regime.

Nobody who uses the word “copywritten” can be taken seriously.

Re: What will enter the public domain in 2026?

#292

Post by ricksunny »

jonah-archive wrote: post #11

We'll be celebrating this at the Internet Archive! As a lead-up, we're again hosting our Public Domain Film Remix Contest: https://blog.archive.org/2025/12/01/2026-public-domain-day-r... We'll be having an in-person celebration at our SF HQ later in January as well, details to come!

Does the Internet Archive provide any instruction to uploaders and users about how to go about uploading and downloading copyright-expired public domain works legally, given the geographical differences from region to region on copyright expiration? For example, does the Internet Archive host its servers in USA, and would that make the US copyright expiry law operative? Or does it have servers in Europe or Asia (more lenient copyright expiration laws) that can be intentionally uploaded to, and leaving it to users to download from their respective regional locations on their own cognizances (i.e. at their own risk)?

Re: What will enter the public domain in 2026?

#293

Post by lenerdenator »

Ridiculous that stuff from 1930 is what's coming out in the US.

Just make it 50-ish years, absolute max.

On a side note, that web page's presentation of the items is leaving much to be desired. I can't click on each individual item out-of-order on Safari.

EDIT:

Oh, it's a countdown/Advent calendar.

I mean I admire the creativity but I don't care enough to visit the page each day. Just give me the list.

Re: What will enter the public domain in 2026?

#294

Post by gwbas1c »

ssl-3 wrote: post #284
ghssds wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Who do you pay? How do you pay them? Create a non-government copyright collective[0] that manage copyright unrelated to music (musicians already have their). 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_collective

That's somewhat hilarious. Last time I looked into trying to get pricing from ASCAP and BMI so I could legally stream some music for a small number of people, I found the following to be true: 1. There is no public pricing. (Why? Because fuck you , that's why!) 2. If I insisted, then the simplest way to get a price is to stream whatever I want and wait for a nasty letter from one or more lawyers that will most assure…

See if the scheme that BMG / Columbia house still works. (Apparently they would send a check to the rightsholder, and if they cashed it, it was considered payment.)

(But don't quote me, I'm not an expert.)

Re: What will enter the public domain in 2026?

#295

Post by mrguyorama »

purple_ferret wrote: post #285
hgomersall wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is absurd, because most creators would benefit hugely from an expanded public domain.

maybe 'creator' in the youtuber sense But most creative people I know aren't really that interested in trying to co-opt someone else's work

Oh really? You don't think all the creators who do things like make video essays on 20 year old movies would benefit from not getting the rug pulled out from under them? You don't think they would prefer being legally in the right making money from analysis of media that was a generation ago?

You don't think the Techmoans and Technology connections would prefer having better demonstration material than whatever recordings from 1912 exist, so that they could actually show you what they are trying to demonstrate without having their livelihood threatened by a capricious and byzantine system hell bent on pleasing a few megacorps?

You don't think the creatives who made "The Katering show" for example would prefer that more people watch their artistic output than have it locked behind some business leaving it languishing in a random digital storefront rather than letting more people buy it because they just cannot be assed? Oh, you don't actually have to guess, because they uploaded a youtube video where they encourage people to pirate their work so they can see it.

Creatives and artists tend to enjoy their work being consumed and riffed on (not plagiarized) and well adjusted artists recognize that there's "nothing new under the sun" and that remixing and riffing are essential parts of the creative and artistic process.

Hell, the music industry even understands this, which is why letting songs get licensed out for remixes and future use is common.

What "Creative" people do you know?

Re: What will enter the public domain in 2026?

#297

Post by csallen »

gwd wrote: post #125
Aromasin wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think would diminish independent author rights. Quite often, a novel will become popular only decades after publishing, and I think the author should be able to profit on the fruits of their labour without wealthy corporations tarnishing their original IP, or creating TV shows and the link with no reperations to the creator. Fantasy book are a good example. A Games of Thrones was first released in 1996 but had midd…

> IP law was originally to protect artist and authors from the wealthy, but now it seems to have the opposite intent. I like Cory Doctorow's analogy: Artists are, to a large degree, at the mercy of big companies (publishers, music labels, etc), who have the leverage to force artists to sign over all of their rights. Giving artists more rights is like giving your kid more lunch money when it's being stolen by a bully:…

What's interesting is that this is true of all creators, not just artists.

Making money means running a business, and running a business requires more than just creating something. You also have to identify a good market for that creation, and find a way to distribute to them, and provide a viable model for them to pay for it, and (the hardest part) out-compete all the other businesses who are doing the same.

This is true for cooks. It's not good enough to create a meal. You have to also scope out the local market, find a good location, build a restaurant or a stand, attract customers, and sell your meals. And if you aren't willing to do that, then you either need to accept cooking for free, or going to work for a restaurant who's going to do all those hard parts and take the bulk of the profits.

This is true for computer programmers. It's not good enough to write a program. You also have to build a business, find customers, attract them through ads or marketing or viral growth, collect credit carts, and sell your product. And if you aren't willing to do that, then you either need to accept coding things that make no money, or go to work for corporation or startup who will pay you a salary while collecting bigger profits.

Etc.

For some reason artists are the only group that makes a big stink about this situation, and feels that they should get the benefits of running a business without doing the work or taking the risk of running a business.

Re: What will enter the public domain in 2026?

#298

Post by metalliqaz »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #68
boznz wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weird Question, but who would even collect the royalties from Hitler or Goebels?

For Hitler, the rights to the original text of Mein Kampf (and probably many of his other writings) went to Bavaria after he died. However various translations and abridgements were made with their own copyright. Houghton Mifflin owns the rights to the US version of Mein Kampf, which was published in the 30s with a lot of the Hitler-iest parts removed (the rights are separate from the British version even though the…

> A few years ago they decided to go back to pocketing the money.

The American way *salutes*

Re: What will enter the public domain in 2026?

#299

Post by [deleted] »

zozbot234 wrote: post #159
forgotoldacc wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because then you miss out on a lot of more recent content that'll become a classic in the future. Also, translations are copyrighted. There's 500 year old public domain stuff that's been translated in the past few decades and those aren't in the public domain. Older translations may be, but even going back 30 years, people would translate every foreign work in the style of the King James Bible. Translations in natura…

> even going back 30 years, people would translate every foreign work in the style of the King James Bible. Translations in natural, modern speech are an oddly new thing. And yet, people used to read those older translations just fine. It's just a matter of literary style, it doesn't really impact the understanding of the text.

[deleted]

Re: What will enter the public domain in 2026?

#300

Post by mrguyorama »

mchusma wrote: post #60
bcrosby95 wrote: post #58

The length of copyright is absurd. Corporations have hijacked a concept that should exist on human timescales. Ideally, a child could legally provide their own spin on IP they consumed by the time they reach adulthood. But also, people need to make a living. I actually think the original 14+14 year copyright is the right balance. It gives people time to make their profits, but also guarantees the right of people to t…

I love the original 14+14. I’ve heard proposals for exponentially growing fees to allow truly big enterprises to stay copywritten longer, like 14+14 with filing and $100, another 14 for $100,000, another 14 for $10M, another 14 for $100M. That would allow 70 years or protection for a few key pieces of IP that are worth it, which seems like an okay trade off? So many ideas better than the current regime.

>exponentially growing fees to allow truly big enterprises to stay copywritten longer

The problem with this concept is that things which are "worth it" to pay absurd fees to maintain long copyrights are the exact things which copyright is meant to revert to the public domain to mix in to future culture.

That's the point.

The idea that richer or more resourced members of a community should have more protections in the law is absurd. If you accidentally created a hit, too bad, you don't get to solely milk it for the rest of your life, and that's a good thing for economies and societies.

Letting you profit immensely for 90 years off a single work or creation is called stagnation and is bad, in the same way that we shouldn't be willing to let someone extend a patent forever just because it was effective.

Copyright ought to be for the little guy. The little guy should never have the resources to extend it past a short time frame. A little guy creative who is satisfied with milking the same thing for 30 years is, frankly, not a creative or artist and copyright is not intended to protect them.

Copyright is so you can live off the proceeds for a short while to spend time creating your next work. Copyright is not so you can profit for multiple generations off your work.

A reminder that any sort of inheritance of value or resources at all is inherently anti-meritocratic.

Post reply on HN