What will enter the public domain in 2026?

You make a good point -- it's easy to knee-jerk react based on the "I like free things" vibe and decry long-copyright as nonsensical.

I think a reasonable argument against copyright being so long is that things I experienced as a child, and especially shared experiences with others, have become a part of me: they've become shared culture, even parts of our shared language. "The Christmas Song" ("Chestnuts roasting..."; still under copyright in the US for another ~15 years) is just as much a part of Christmas to me as "Angels We Have Heard on High" (public domain). Maybe a good example of this is the "Happy Birthday" song: that song is synonymous with birthdays to me and those I associate with -- if you have a birthday that song is sung, if you hear that song sung it must be somebody's birthday. Yet for the longest time it was excluded from movies, TV, radio, establishments, because somebody was thought to own the copyright for it. It was part of our shared language and experience as much as aspirin or kleenex or thermos (genericized trademarks). Similarly, "hobbit" means the same thing as "halfling" to me, but don't use the word in a published work. Eventually copyrighted works seem to become pretty genericized, much quicker than ~100 years, yet their protection remains.

Disney's Snow White is about as old now as the Brothers Grimm version was when Disney's was made. I'm not allowed to make derivative works of Disney's version; should Disney have been disallowed from making it because elements of the story were "so recent"?

Obviously people should be able to profit from their own work, but I think the "shared culture/language" aspect is a decent argument that the public has an interest that counterbalances the interests of authors/creators.

Copyright has nothing to do with innovation. That's patents (publish your tech secrets in exchange for exclusive use for a period of time). Copyright is about protecting creative works, which are, by their nature, much much easier to copy than to make. If I write a book, and bring it to book printer to print 10,000 copies, I think we can all agree we prefer the world where that printshop can't turn around and print as many copies as they want, selling them themselves, and never paying me a dime. So I need some legal concept that says my creative work is mine alone to copy, that I can sell exceptions to.

Comparatively, society loses out on a lot less with long copyright terms compared to long patent terms. Long patent terms stifle innovation, long copyright terms just mean I can't freely distribute my own copies of others' art.

IMO, the happy compromise would be a tapering of copyright over time. For the first, say, 2 decades, you have contemporary copyrights. You can choose who to license your rights to, including the production of derivative works and the like. For the next 2 decades after that, a price is codified such that you still are guaranteed a cut (variable on whether the work is a verbatim copy, an adaption, or something significantly different). For the next 2 decades after THAT, you get a smaller cut, and non-commercial use becomes a free-for-all. After 80 years, it's a free-for-all.

There wasn't easy hover text or other way to reveal what's coming "this month" on their advent calendar. So spoilers for the impatient:

   1 William Faulkner – As I Lay Dying
   2 Arthur Ransome – Swallows and Amazons
   3 Albert Einstein
   4 Nan Shepherd – The Weatherhouse
   5 Langston Hughes – Not Without Laughter
   6 Wallace Stevens
   7 Hermann Hesse – Narcissus and Goldmund
   8 All Quiet on the Western Front (1930 film)
   9 Barbara Hepworth
  10 Evelyn Waugh – Vile Bodies
  11 Geoffrey Dennis – The End of the World
  12 Charlie Parker
  13 Margaret Ayer Barnes – Years of Grace
  14 Hellbound Train
  15 Hannah Arendt
  16 Robert Musil – The Man Without Qualities
  17 T. S. Eliot – Ash Wednesday
  18 Thomas Mann
  19 Agatha Christie – The Murder at the Vicarage
  20 Franz Kafka – The Castle (English translation)
  21 Walker Evans
  22 Sigmund Freud – Civilization and Its Discontents
  23 Stella Benson – The Far-Away Bride
  24 Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
  25 E. H. Young – Miss Mole
  26 P. G. Wodehouse
  27 Vladimir Nabokov – The Defense
  28 Dashiell Hammett – The Maltese Falcon
  29 Roger Mais
  30 Saadat Hasan Manto
  31 Stanisław Ignacy Witkiewicz – Insatiability

FastGPT (+ Notepad for maintaining context):

===

Does the following comment make logical sense? "Sure, the term of copyright protection is quite long; but the amount of works that are legally 100% in the public domain and even Internet-accessible in some form but simply languishing in obscurity and have yet to be made comprehensively accessible to the general public (via digitizing, transcribing, indexing and comprehensive classification) may well be orders-of-magnitude larger! There's a whole lot of low-hanging fruit that's effectively free for the taking, should anyone be interested enough to put in the work; consider the huge amount of serialized publications that might have been issued throughout the 19th century, many of which are so obscure as to be essentially unknown."

---

Yes, the comment makes logical sense. It argues that while copyright terms are long, there's a vast amount of public domain material that is not easily accessible due to lack of digitization and organization. The commenter suggests focusing on making this "low-hanging fruit" accessible instead of solely focusing on copyright issues.

===

let's not be too hasty here.

we have "the term of copyright protection is quite long; but the amount of works [...is large enough...]"

p1: the term of copyright protection is quite long

p2: the amount of works [...is large enough...]

it doesn't seem to me that p1 and p2 are logically connected. As an absurd case: if the amount of works in the public domain gets large enough, would that mean that evern larger (infinite) terms of copyright protection are ok?

---

The comment does present a logical argument, although it's an argument by juxtaposition rather than direct logical entailment. Here's a breakdown:

P1: Copyright terms are long. This is a statement of fact/opinion about the duration of copyright protection. P2: A vast amount of public domain work is inaccessible. This highlights the existence of a large, underutilized resource. Implicit Argument: The commenter implies that effort might be better spent on making existing public domain works accessible rather than focusing solely on the length of copyright terms. The "but" signals a contrast and a suggested alternative focus. You're right that P1 and P2 aren't directly logically connected in a way that P1 causes P2 or vice versa. The connection is more pragmatic:

Opportunity Cost: The commenter suggests that focusing on copyright reform might divert attention and resources from the readily available opportunity to make existing public domain works more accessible. Practical Benefit: Making public domain works accessible provides immediate cultural and educational benefits, regardless of copyright law. The commenter isn't saying long copyright terms are okay because of the amount of public domain work. They're saying that focusing solely on copyright is perhaps missing a big, easily addressable opportunity. The absurdity you introduce (infinite copyright terms being okay) doesn't follow because the commenter isn't trying to justify long copyright terms. They're shifting the focus to a different, potentially more immediately beneficial area.

Why should I be required to license my (non-stock) photographs hanging in a gallery to someone who wants to make placemats of those images?

Why should a photograph of a model (I have a model release) that I took be something I am required to license to someone who wants to use it in a way that is defamatory to the model?

Why should I be required to accept the finances in licensing terms as someone who is posting neat photographs and looking to make some beer money? vs someone who is a well known photographer and selling prints for a couple hundred dollars at art fairs? vs someone who is world famous and sells prints for tens of thousands of dollars?

Can I even make/guarntee limited edition photographs anymore?

Why do I have to sell a license to you? Why do I not have the same rights as a company making a product and being able to refuse to accept a client?