[HN Gopher] What will enter the public domain in 2024?
___________________________________________________________________
What will enter the public domain in 2024?
Author : WallyFunk
Score : 224 points
Date : 2023-12-12 19:03 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (publicdomainreview.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (publicdomainreview.org)
| dvh wrote:
| Corridor Crew plans something with Mickey Mouse on January 1st.
| codetrotter wrote:
| Let's conspire to make sure that said video gets upvoted to the
| top. (It's not vote manipulation, because I have no relation to
| corridor crew.)
|
| A gentleman's agreement, if you will.
| yk wrote:
| The mouse via Steamboat Willie is scheduled to enter public
| domain? Guess we can look forward to quite eventful three weeks
| before the end of the year, while Disney is frantically trying to
| prevent that outcome.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| They wont. Corridor Crew did a good little video on this topic.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2dIvUAd5QE
| sp0rk wrote:
| It's my understanding that they still retain a lot of control
| over Mickey Mouse indefinitely because he is trademarked as the
| face of their company.
| mod50ack wrote:
| There's a distinction between trademark and copyright, and
| the ability to imply a Disney source and to include Mickey in
| your work are not controlled in the same way. Using the 1928
| Mouse in your work while making it clear your work doesn't
| originate with Disney wouldn't violate trademark law.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| that would first of all take a lot of work to make it
| absolutely clear, a lot of work to use the mouse, and
| finally a lot of work to fight the lawsuits until it was
| established that you didn't violate and could do what you
| were doing.
|
| In short nobody but a crazy person or someone with a real
| deep artistic need that absolutely required that version of
| Mickey to work would ever pursue it.
| resolutebat wrote:
| It took one year from Winnie the Pooh entering the public
| domain to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie-the-
| Pooh:_Blood_and_Hon...
|
| And AFAIK they were not sued, despite being ever so
| slightly off brand for Disney.
| bazoom42 wrote:
| Plenty of Disney characters like Snow White or Cinderella
| have been public domain all the time without it hurting
| Disney.
| jerf wrote:
| That's almost the most infuriating thing about their
| copyright grabs; it hardly even gets them anything of
| interest. They're not making any money on the actual
| Steamboat Willie movie. We're still a ways away from anything
| of even modest commercial interest from Disney entering the
| public domain, and even when Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
| does finally come into public domain, I can't imagine it
| meaningfully affects their bottom line. The ability to roll
| into a store and just buy it isn't going to meaningfully
| affect Disney. Meanwhile, they still have all the trademark
| control, which itself means you can't really do anything to
| Steamboat Willie that would "offend" Disney. (I'm going to
| just leave that vague for now.)
|
| Meanwhile, to keep this at-best modestly interesting
| historical film locked up for those last few marginal drops
| of IP, they've kept the entire rest of the culture locked up.
| Hell of a cost society pays just for that. I'd almost rather
| we just grant Disney copyright in perpetuity if it would shut
| them up and leave the rest of the culture alone.
| coldpie wrote:
| > Meanwhile, to keep this at-best modestly interesting
| historical film locked up
|
| Well, it's not _just_ the film, it 's also everything in
| it, including (that design of) the characters themselves.
| When that enters the public domain, anyone can use (that
| design of) those characters for any purpose, including in
| their own works that have nothing to do with the Steamboat
| film. I can go make a platforming video game ala Cuphead
| using those characters and sell it. While I think that's a
| good thing for society, you can probably understand why
| Disney doesn't.
| bluGill wrote:
| Those characters are trademarked, and Disney has a good
| case that they are still using those trademarks.
| Trademark is different from copyright - it doesn't
| expire, but also has more use it or lose it parts, along
| with defend it or lose it. Disney is doing both with most
| of the characters so if you try to use Micky mouse in
| anything you are likely to lose a lawsuit.
|
| Consult a lawyer for exact details. there are things you
| can do with the characters after this expires, but the
| rules are very complex and I don't really understand
| them.
| jerf wrote:
| I would be unsurprised Disney has skeletal outlines of
| lawsuits in place already asserting that uses of Mickey
| Mouse from Steamboat Willie in an unrelated video game or
| something violates their trademark, and are just waiting
| to fill in the blank for the first person audacious
| enough to do it.
|
| I kind of expect them to win that. But maybe they won't.
| Still, I wouldn't touch Mickey with anything less than
| the metaphorical ten foot pole and a really, really
| solidly constructed LLC or other corporate structure
| isolating it from any other asset I care about.
|
| Note I am limiting this to just things they have clear
| trademark to. Grab the steamboat itself and do as you
| like. The soundtrack will be up for grabs. But I wouldn't
| expect to be able to defend myself in a _trademark_ suit
| with the claim that the Mickey Mouse I used is not
| _copyrighted_ ; I expect the counterargument will
| basically "Yeah, but who cares? This is a trademark
| lawsuit".
| coldpie wrote:
| > violates their trademark
|
| Okay, yeah that's fair. Thinking strictly about
| copyright, I think what I said is true, but you're right
| there's other IP law at play here.
| jcranmer wrote:
| > even when Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs does finally
| come into public domain, I can't imagine it meaningfully
| affects their bottom line.
|
| Given that Disney is infamous for its practice of
| rereleasing its older films periodically and otherwise
| making them completely unavailable (the "Disney Vault"), it
| seems that they have a business model which is fully
| predicated on copyright exclusivity.
| jader201 wrote:
| > _It was close to entering the public domain in the U.S.
| several times: each time, copyright protection was extended. It
| could have entered the public domain in four different years:
| first in 1955, renewed to 1986, then to 2003 by the Copyright
| Act of 1976, and then to 2023 by the Copyright Term Extension
| Act (also known pejoratively as the "Mickey Mouse Protection
| Act") of 1998. It has been claimed that these extensions were a
| response by Congress to extensive lobbying by The Walt Disney
| Company._
| disneycember wrote:
| So now we can begin to undo all the damage Disney has done by
| extending copyright beyond any reasonable timeframe, right?
| bluGill wrote:
| This undos nothing. We just limit damage to what has
| already been done for this one film. there are other things
| still in copyright that wouldn't have been, and that damage
| is still being done, and will until that copyright expires.
| kevinmchugh wrote:
| It's been obvious for a few years that Disney wasn't going to
| pursue extending copyright anymore. It would have been
| politically difficult at any point in the last few years as the
| Senate does so little.
| bluGill wrote:
| More importantly, those who care about the public domain were
| not paying attention the last time. They are now, so Disney
| realizes that it will be a harder sell. As soon as they get
| someone to propose a laws letters will be written. There is
| one thing more powerful than money in politics and that is
| votes. Letters to congress are a proxy for votes and so
| nobody will risk another extension.
| hinkley wrote:
| The timelessness of those old cartoons has waned
| considerably. GenX was already getting reruns of Disney and
| Looney Tunes cartoons that were aimed at Boomers. As the
| boomers are aging out, a lot of the slices of both domestic
| life and leisure time in these cartoons are something alien.
| Women in the kitchen? Hunting rabbits? And with a shotgun?
| Really?
|
| Itchy and Scratchy are Tom and Jerry ad absurdum. The
| Flintstones were somewhere between Tom and Jerry and The
| Honeymooners. Most of this stuff does not deserve a replay.
| bongodongobob wrote:
| Neither of those things are alien. A world exists outside
| of whatever metropolis you think is the center of the
| universe. Millions and millions of people hunt and millions
| and millions of women are primary caretakers or stay at
| home moms.
| ahi wrote:
| I recently attended a 90 minute marathon of those old
| cartoons. At least those 90 minutes absolutely hold up.
| Quite a few of them had themes that sailed right over your
| (and my) head when we watched them as kids. e.g. What's
| Opera, Doc? and Rabbit of Seville
| ghaff wrote:
| In general, I appreciated the Warner Brothers (vs. Hanna
| Barbera etc.) cartoons much more after I got a bit older
| than when I was a young kid.
| sircastor wrote:
| Not to mention that Disney has run afoul of both parties a
| handful of times over the last decade, so it's a challenge to
| find support on either side.
| jcranmer wrote:
| To expand on this point a bit, Ars Technica has some articles
| on the copyright extension saga. In 2019, when works started
| going into the public domain again in the US, they published
| https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/01/a-whole-years-
| wo... in 2018, they published https://arstechnica.com/tech-
| policy/2018/01/hollywood-says-i... which had interviews
| saying that there were no plans for another copyright
| extension term push.
|
| Of course, both times, comments were pretty incredulous that
| Disney would prevent Steamboat Willie from going public
| domain. And now we're 3 weeks from that happening, and 1 week
| from the US House planning to go on recess, and there's no
| sign of any bill that would extend copyright further. People
| who pay attention will note that Disney has seemed to prepare
| for Steamboat Willie going public domain: part of the short
| now appears as part of their film logo in movies, presumably
| to enable them to claim it as trademark and sue anyone who
| tries to upload it into oblivion. Nevertheless, I fully
| expect quite a few people to do stuff like upload Steamboat
| Willie to Youtube in January, and it will be interesting to
| see what the response of that is.
| jjulius wrote:
| Where it also gets tricky is the creation of additional
| Steamboat Willie content - if you want to create and
| publish new Steamboat Willie stuff, you'll have to be
| crystal clear that it's not coming from Disney. If it looks
| like it's coming from Disney, that's when they can step in.
| jcranmer wrote:
| Legally speaking, they have a right to distribute copies.
| But Youtube isn't required to accept it though, and their
| copyright claim system is already somewhat notorious for
| the degree to which non-copyright owners to try to strike
| down videos for claimed copyright infringement.
|
| Steamboat Willie is probably the single most famous work
| to fall into the public domain since Youtube started. It
| is (formerly) owned by one of the most famously
| aggressive company in protecting IP. Youtube itself is
| also owned by an entity that is on the other side of IP
| law than Disney, but definitely far less aggressive in
| pushing those claims.
| kevinmchugh wrote:
| You have to make pains to not look like you're
| representing yourself as Disney, _and_ you can't step on
| anything Disney did in later Mickey cartoons
| avar wrote:
| Sure you can. You just can't infringe subsequent
| copyrighted works.
|
| But if there's an episode where that character goes to
| space or whatever your derivative work can do that too.
| justinclift wrote:
| Hmmm, is the term "Mickey Mouse" trademarked?
|
| As in, would a new name be needed for any new "Mickey
| Mouse" animation created using the old Steamboat Willie
| (mouse) character?
| TonyTrapp wrote:
| They probably realized by now there is not much value left in
| that old version of Mickey. It's the newer self of Mickey
| (different looks and character) that brings in the money, but
| even that is becoming less relevant these days, I think? That's
| why they have bought so much IP which appeals to more people
| than Mickey Mouse.
| hinkley wrote:
| Someone pointed out to me that Winnie the Pooh brings in more
| money than Mickey, and his copyright is just about the same
| timeframe. Everyone assumes The Mouse is what Disney is
| shitting bricks over and it's just as likely it's the silly
| ol' bear instead.
| Closi wrote:
| Hmm I'm not sure - that might be true for movies but is it
| true for merch?
|
| Think of all the Mickey ears that get sold at the parks.
| Either way there is a boatload of Mickey related revenue
| still...
| thfuran wrote:
| Disney doesn't need to rely on IP protection to maintain
| a hand in merch sales in their own parks.
| hinkley wrote:
| I don't have the link anymore but at the time I was sent
| to a breakdown that was above $5B for all Winnie, and
| around 4 for Mickey and friends.
|
| Obviously not nothing, and the fact they are close
| together doesn't give Disney a ramp down once PD starts
| affecting them.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| Pooh as a concept is already in the public domain. Disney's
| rendition of Pooh doesn't happen until I think sometime in
| the 1960's, so it'll be a while.
| NewJazz wrote:
| https://lukemcgarry.com/product/pooh-in-the-public-
| domain-pr...
| crooked-v wrote:
| There's actually a an ongoing run of pretty funny cartoons
| [1] using the old designs and characterization elements,
| though with a strong streak of more modern absurdist humor.
|
| [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wonderful_World_of_M
| icke...
| kgwxd wrote:
| Since having my first kid 15 years ago, I haven't meet a
| single kid that cares about Mickey in the slightest. Their
| parents sometimes shove it in their face but you can tell
| they don't care as much about it as something newer.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| What would happen in practice if someone tried to use the
| public domain Mickey for something? I assume that regardless of
| the legal status, you'd still have a fun time with Disney
| lawyers proving in court that you had the right to use public
| domain Mickey.
|
| Is Mickey also a trademark (which never expires) and anything
| using public domain Mickey would be too similar to their
| trademark?
| hinkley wrote:
| Yeah Mickey is a trademark. Now I could remake Steamboat
| Willy with characters that weren't trademarked. Previously I
| could not depict either without getting sued.
| SirMaster wrote:
| Disney spent the last decade or so growing their business
| (through large acquisitions) to where Mickey is now just small
| fraction of their worth. So they likely don't really care
| anymore.
|
| Plus it's only the old, old design of Mickey, not the current
| version they have been using for awhile that looks more normal
| to most people these days.
| gostsamo wrote:
| They trademarked everything they could about him, so it is
| still a valuable part of the portfolio.
| ssgodderidge wrote:
| While Mickey may represent a small portion of revenue, it
| (he?) accounts for a large portion of the Disney brand. It's
| one of the most recognizable cartoons of all time
| libraryatnight wrote:
| When I was a kid Mickey had transcended movie character, he
| was like the Santa of the Disney world. the M.C. The spirit
| of Walt in some ways. I think I'd seen maybe one special or
| fantasia with him actually starring, and even that was
| after I knew him. My nephews have seen less of him and yet
| he's still something of a magic benevolent being to them.
|
| He represents so much more than a character, I think in a
| time when they're expanding portfolios they NEED to keep
| Mickey to stay Disney if they want to - and imo they should
| want to.
| furyofantares wrote:
| I was shocked to learn my 7yo daughter associates Disney with
| Mickey and Minnie.
|
| She's watched like one Mickey cartoon on Disney+, and she's
| seen way more Disney stuff than that. Never been to
| Disneyland.
|
| But somehow to her, Disney === Mickey/Minnie. Branding is
| wild stuff.
| jl6 wrote:
| Mickey's silhouette is still used in various Disney logos,
| so it's not too wild a connection to make.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| (It's the ears.)
| chrisco255 wrote:
| Grew up in the 90s and Mickey was not a significant
| character in their movies that decade and the old Mickey
| cartoons were rarely shown. Mario became more famous than
| Mickey by then, but the mouse logo is ubiquitous, and most
| people had at least seen Fantasia or clips of the old
| cartoons.
| paulddraper wrote:
| It's the ads.
|
| https://www.google.com/search?q=disney&tbm=isch
| Popeyes wrote:
| Mickey Mouse clubhouse? Lots of Disney branding still has
| him. Just asked my 6yr old who the most famous Disney
| Character is.
| 98codes wrote:
| > So they likely don't really care anymore.
|
| I don't think that's possible.
| lazycouchpotato wrote:
| There's a video by Corridor Crew that goes over exactly what
| you mentioned.
|
| https://youtu.be/u2dIvUAd5QE
| SirMaster wrote:
| Yeah, What I wrote came from that really. I should have
| mentioned it.
|
| I mean it's a compelling breakdown IMO.
| glimshe wrote:
| And that's exactly why long copyrights stifle innovation and
| encourage rent seeking and stagnation. As soon as they saw
| the deadline approaching, they started creating new content
| (which arguably hasn't been that good, but that's another
| problem)
| wonger_ wrote:
| The MSCHF art collective had a project a few years ago based on
| this public domain timing: https://mschfxfamousmouse.com/
|
| > We are making and selling the idea of a MSCHF "Famous Mouse"
| artwork now, that will not exist-even as a design-until 2024.
| If you purchase this artwork, we give you a temporary token
| with a unique code that can be redeemed for the actual piece in
| 3 years.
| qwertthrowway wrote:
| If something is in the public domain, is it still accessible for
| copying or can companies still profit off of selling public
| domain material? For example, if I "pirate" a public domain text
| published by some company, am I in the wrong?
| mod50ack wrote:
| You can sell public domain materials all you want. And whenever
| anyone else copies stuff in the public domain, even if they
| copy it from your copy, they're not infringing copyright.
| bluGill wrote:
| But be careful as when someone publishes something public
| domain they often have things that are not public domain in
| their version. They can "fix" errors, add artwork,
| introductions and so on.
| joshlemer wrote:
| IANAL but my understanding is that public domain material can
| be published in a copyright protected form, yes. For instance,
| Beethoven's 5th symphony is in the public domain, but if a
| publisher starts selling the sheet music for it, then that
| content itself is still protected. So any contributions they've
| made such as annotations or formatting, cover art, etc are
| protected but the underlying content is not.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Yeah, I understand that Dover books might have a copyright
| on, say, _Moby Dick_ but it 's on the forward that they
| tackled on to Melville's prose, not the story.
| 5636588 wrote:
| I had a similar question before reading Moby Dick. I noticed it
| was being sold online, although inexpensive, which made me
| wonder. It turned out the English text is in the public domain,
| and anyone can profit from it. So, why did the publisher charge
| for it? I wanted to read it in my native language, Polish, and
| the translation was not in the public domain. Additionally, I
| wanted to easily upload it to my Kindle, so I also paid for
| convenience. I know this not fully answers your question, but
| wanted to share my experience.
| edgarvaldes wrote:
| >why did the publisher charge for it?
|
| Why not. Easy money.
| coldpie wrote:
| Very good question! Not an IP lawyer, but I believe the gist of
| it you may copy the original work, but not any sufficiently
| transformative derivative work, as that would gain its own
| copyright. So you could copy the text of a public domain book
| and re-publish it yourself, yes. You could also sell your
| copies for $10/ea, just like the publisher you're copying from
| is doing, or give them away for free, or whatever you like.
|
| The tricky bit is what its "sufficiently transformative" to
| gets its own copyright. Probably simply text printed in a book
| is not, so I think you'd be OK scanning and distributing such a
| book. But if the publisher added new footnotes or illustrations
| or cover art or a forward, etc, that would still be covered
| under its own copyright and you would have to remove them. And
| I could see an argument that a certain printing style (maybe a
| choice in font or page layout?) could be transformative, but I
| think that starts to be quite a stretch.
| ghaff wrote:
| IANAL but I'm told that Feist is probably the relevant US
| Supreme Court decision. Just because you went to a lot of
| trouble ("sweat of the brow") to format a book probably
| doesn't give you a safe copyright--although extensive
| annotations, illustrations, etc. probably would.
| mminer237 wrote:
| I'm not your lawyer, but if the text is public domain, you can
| do whatever you want with it. You should be able to walk into a
| book store, take a photo of every page of Sherlock Holmes, post
| it on Facebook, and be good legally. You can legally download
| scans of Jane Austen novels published by Penguin last year.
|
| A publisher would only have a copyrightable claim in their
| original creative works. So the cover art, the foreword, etc.
| This would also include e-books, as the specific code for that
| would be copyrightable illegal to download. Only the words
| themselves would be free, so you would need someone to create a
| gratis file therefrom for you.
| dry_soup wrote:
| So the works of J.R.R. Tolkien, who died in 1973, will enter the
| public domain in New Zealand (and other countries) next year? Or
| do they not, as he presumably published his works in the UK? Or
| they enter the public domain in New Zealand et al. but not in
| other countries?
| mod50ack wrote:
| In Life+50 countries, they'll enter the public domain. In the
| UK and other Life+70 countries, they won't.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| So can they host the Gutenberg project in NZ then? There is
| no feasible way for people to prevent people from downloading
| the hobbit. They couldn't stop music or movie downloads
| except by adopting a subscription model that effectively
| reduced the prices. These files are tiny and the ethical case
| against it is so much harder to make.
|
| Edit: also, these are the sorts of books that don't get
| lumped into subscriptions and are often missing from digital
| libraries.
| skissane wrote:
| > So can they host the Gutenberg project in NZ then?
|
| There is already an Australian branch of Project Gutenberg,
| which hosts some works which (for complex/obscure legal
| reasons) are still under copyright in the US but now public
| domain in Australia (e.g. the works of George Orwell). I
| don't think there is a New Zealand equivalent, but I'm sure
| if someone was sufficiently motivated it could happen
|
| https://gutenberg.net.au/
| ginko wrote:
| What would be the New Zealand connection of Tolkien (other than
| the peter jackson movies)?
| mod50ack wrote:
| There's none. But the validity of a copyright of a work is
| dependent on the place in which you're applying the law, not
| on the place where the author is from (except when applying
| the rule of the shorter term).
|
| Tons of works are in the public domain in one country, but
| not another.
| bluGill wrote:
| The oldest still in effect copyright I know of is from
| 1611: the King James translation of the bible is still
| copyright of the crown in the UK. No other country
| recognizes that copyright.
| hinkley wrote:
| So I can get a King James Bible easy peasy pretty much
| anywhere in the world except in James' home country.
|
| High larious.
| metalliqaz wrote:
| Of course it is also easy to find in UK.
| lolinder wrote:
| But is it legal to post the full text online without
| paying anything to the Crown?
| anticensor wrote:
| Pay, yes; permission, no; it is a mandatory licence,
| unlike many state royalty subjects.
| mod50ack wrote:
| The KJV is protected in the UK by Royal Prerogative
| rather than by copyright law. The KJV rights are actually
| _older_ than copyright in the UK.
|
| A number of countries have copyright restrictions on
| things of national significance, etc., however, and then
| there's the concept of domaine public payant.
| avar wrote:
| > The oldest still in effect copyright I know of is from
| 1611.
|
| I can beat that by over 4000 years.
|
| As far as Icelandic copyright law is concerned the
| copyright on the Diary of Merer[1], written 4500 years
| ago, will be held by Pierre Tallet until 2039.
|
| This is because the copyright is defined as being created
| when the work is made available for sale, loaning out
| etc. to the public.
|
| If you discover a previously unpublished work that's not
| protected by copyright you get to enjoy 25 years of
| copyright protection, i.e. the copyright is assigned to
| the person who discovered and published the work.
|
| I only have a source in Icelandic, it's article 44 of the
| copyright act [2].
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diary_of_Merer
|
| 2. https://www.althingi.is/lagas/nuna/1972073.html
| hinkley wrote:
| It's just an English speaking country with a largish
| population and a more traditional copyright law.
| tptacek wrote:
| Presumably the films, which were famously all shot there.
| morepork wrote:
| Somewhat tenuous, but Tolkien was taught Old English at
| Oxford by a New Zealander, Kenneth Sisam[1].
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Sisam
| tiffanyh wrote:
| Will software become "public domain" over time?
| HWR_14 wrote:
| Yes. In the US this happens 95 years after the initial creation
| of the software. Many other countries match this time period.
| Other countries may recognize a shorter copyright, but I
| believe no country will recognize a longer one.
| zare_st wrote:
| What exactly happens in 2100 when AutoCAD 2005 goes "public
| domain" but the company does not need to provide the source
| code, there is no licensing server available, dongle support,
| whatnot. Also the company still retains the AutoCAD trademark
| so you cannot legally distribute modified copies of 2005 if
| they still contain AutoCAD/Autodesk branding in them.
|
| That's for 2005. For today's software that depend on
| connectivity, nobody gets anything if the clients are pushed
| to public domain. You still lack the entire infrastructure.
| The server code is not a product, its a service implemented
| by the proprietor, that's beyond this law.
| jerf wrote:
| Yes, the foundation of all software licensing is copyright law
| and as such all such licensing becomes null and void once it is
| in the public domain.
|
| However, given that the copyright horizon is only up to 1928 in
| the US, you've got a ways to go before that is even
| theoretically a concern.
|
| There was a window of time in which works had to be registered
| to have a copyright, which is where some of the later
| surprisingly-public-domain works come from, when the
| registration wasn't done or wasn't renewed properly. It's
| possible that some software in that era could be unregistered.
| However, I'm having a bit of trouble finding a good term for
| that era and so I can't quite look it up to see if it overlaps
| a period of time in which software might exist. Any help
| appreciated from respondants.
|
| Of course, for that to even matter, someone has to have a copy
| of the software to actually put into the public, and software
| utility without hardware to run it is pretty limited.
| zare_st wrote:
| That's what abandonware was all about. If you don't support or
| sell the software any more, it becomes public domain.
|
| But it was a idealistic view not accounting for the future.
| Today you can run virtualized anything anywhere. The software
| companies can claim 80s software still being usable because
| they can deploy it that way.
|
| We considered that console game ROMs will become public domain
| because once the console lifecycle is over, no original
| proprietor earns a dime. It's all 2nd hand sales from there on.
| But, today you run these via their virtual console products and
| they still make money off them, so public domain is off limits.
| coldpie wrote:
| > That's what abandonware was all about. If you don't support
| or sell the software any more, it becomes public domain.
|
| In what jurisdiction? Definitely not the US or any of its
| major economic partners, at least.
| zare_st wrote:
| In no jurisdiction, it was the motto behind abandonware
| movement.
|
| All of laws, this one, IP laws, everything concerning
| software is far too simplistic.
|
| Tho if you want to dance in the grey zone, universally I
| think it's worthless for a company to sue you when they can
| claim no damages. This is why old software piracy sites
| exist by a shovel. If site owner and hosting doesn't care
| about cease and desist letters and just routes them to
| spam, the lawyers sending them know they cannot actually
| mount a case. Else they have to explain how $0 of projected
| damages is worth court's time.
| bluGill wrote:
| Yes, but odds are you won't live long enough to see anything
| useful. Mel's blackjack program
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_Mel from the 1950s
| might escape before you die (depending on how old you are), but
| it strongly depends on the specific architecture of a computer
| and so isn't useful.
|
| There is probably a lot of software from then that isn't
| copyright. Back then you had to register copyright or you
| didn't have it - often that wouldn't have been done. Then you
| had to re-register the copyright, which given the software
| wasn't in use anymore wouldn't have been done. Both of these
| factors do not apply to modern software (at least not in most
| countries)
| aworks wrote:
| "The Passion of Joan of Arc directed by Carl Theodor Dreyer"
|
| As old, silent films go, this is quite good.
|
| In the past, this might mean a cheap DVD release. Not sure the
| signficance of public domain for movies these days.
| peruvian wrote:
| This film already has a 2K release by Criterion
| (vhttps://www.criterion.com/films/228-the-passion-of-joan-
| of-a...), probably other publishers. It gets show in theaters
| in some cities at least once a year.
|
| I think for films, the restoration/HD prints will still belong
| to someone, and that's what people are interested in nowadays
| anyway.
| wharvle wrote:
| Piling on with more social proof for anyone browsing this
| thread for recommendations: I've seen 50ish non-comedy silent
| films, all reputedly-very-good ones, and this _might_ be my
| favorite. Top 5, no question, likely top 3, and I'd have to
| think about it and maybe do some re-watches, but possibly #1.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Related 3 days ago:
|
| _Public Domain Day 2024 Is Coming: Here 's What to Know_
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38586978
| sirodoht wrote:
| What if we didn't wait for things to enter the public domain but
| instead they were born right into it?
|
| I have started a book publishing company that publishes new,
| public domain books only:
|
| https://laniakeabooks.org/
| jawns wrote:
| How do authors make a living by giving away all their work for
| free?
| Zambyte wrote:
| A book in the public domain can be sold, so probably by
| selling books. Or other jobs. This seems really interesting
| to me as someone who does not write books full time.
| knome wrote:
| They established early copyright because publishers would
| just print copies of books and never pay the authors at
| all. The middlemen aren't going to do it voluntarily, and
| if they do, they'll be undercut by those that don't.
| Zambyte wrote:
| Authors can sell their own books even if someone else
| publishes it. Especially if it's published into the
| public domain.
| midasuni wrote:
| And someone else can take the content and print it and
| sell it themselves
| Zambyte wrote:
| Wouldn't that be neat :-)
| m1sta_ wrote:
| not if they sell or exclusively license the copyright to
| someone else.
| Zambyte wrote:
| Which is not the case for books in the public domain.
| numbsafari wrote:
| The last chapter requires an enterprise license.
| sonicanatidae wrote:
| Hi!
|
| I found a typo, I suspect you meant, enterprise
| _subscription_.
| whycome wrote:
| How much do you want for that comment?
|
| Someone who spends years perfecting a recipe has no similar
| protections, yet they've certainly done work. Their options
| for making money off of it comes from maybe associated works,
| or a restaurant, or hiding the recipe. Maybe authors will
| have to read works out loud? Create different types of value
| in a world where we will have AI generating stories en masse?
| 4death4 wrote:
| The recipe itself isn't protected by copyright but the rest
| of a cookbook is. E.g. their writings about the recipe and
| the photography. Usage of one's likeness is also subject to
| protection. E.g. you can't market a cookbook on Amazon as
| Ina Garten's Barefoot Contessa even if the contents of the
| book are exactly her recipes. I don't think it's a good
| analogy.
| whycome wrote:
| I mean that's exactly my point -- one needs to find other
| ways to "making a living" from the work done within the
| framework of laws which may or may not appreciate or have
| the means to protect ones work.
| Buttons840 wrote:
| They're not making a living from that comment, and they are
| worried that authors will not be able to make a living from
| their writings.
|
| Taking a big step back, I guess that question is: Do we
| value people who write enough that we want some full time
| writers? We can then structure our society accordingly.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| There plenty of idle people who can afford to give away
| their book length writings for free, probably millions in
| fact.
|
| And some fraction of them do, some fraction add an
| optional donation prompt, etc...
| karaterobot wrote:
| Books of recipes are copyrightable though. You can use a
| recipe, but you can't just copy the book and sell it as
| your own. What you can't copyright is a simple set of
| instructions, which is what a recipe is.
|
| Not sure where you get the idea that comments can't be
| copyrighted. As far as I know, if they are original works
| of authorship in a tangible medium, and you don't agree to
| waive that right in the terms of service, you own the
| copyright. In other words, the usual tests of whether
| something can be copyrighted.
|
| In any case, comparing comments, recipes, and books as
| though they were the same thing doesn't make sense to me.
| I'd like to hear the ways in which they are equivalent, and
| why authors of novels should be stripped of their current
| right to claim the sole right to make copies of their own
| work.
| whycome wrote:
| > Not sure where you get the idea that comments can't be
| copyrighted.
|
| Hm? I'm just pointing out that all kinds of content
| creation occurs and they have different types of value. I
| absolutely think a comment has value and could be
| copyrighted. But, for certain types of creation that are
| "work" do not have equivalent protections. So, are we
| just trying to protect work?
| novosel wrote:
| So, one writes a book to make a living?
|
| You made that comment to make ends meet?
|
| It is only "for free" if it has any value.
|
| This is the gift economy, where reciprocity is just a special
| (restricted) case of it.
| ghaff wrote:
| It's either done as a hobby and/or the reputational etc.
| benefits support their "brand" in their pursuits that they do
| get paid for.
| eikenberry wrote:
| Authors don't make a living from their work now. I've known
| many authors and they all do it as a side gig.. to promote
| their career while making a few extra bucks. None of them
| were even close to doing it for a living.
|
| If you want to encourage writing you'll need a different
| system than copyright.
| Zambyte wrote:
| This is fantastic. I want to know: how do you plan to sustain
| this? Donations?
| ssgodderidge wrote:
| Thank you! This is fantastic. Letters From Prison [1] is
| incredible. Will take a look at the other books soon.
|
| [1] https://laniakeabooks.org/books/letters-from-prison/
| c0pium wrote:
| Have you spoken with lawyers about this idea? At least in the
| United States, that's not how copyright or public domain works.
| One does not need to apply for copyright to receive one, and
| there is no mechanism for renouncing copyright. There is a
| belief held by some that copyright, like many other rights, can
| be renounced however that theory has never been tested in court
| and there are several dissenting opinions from notable IP
| lawyers.
|
| https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#register
| ghaff wrote:
| The MIT No Attribution (MIT-0) license is an OSI-approved
| license. As I've been told by at least a couple IP lawyers,
| the situation may be stickier in continental Europe. Most
| works the US federal government creates are also considered
| in the public domain so it doesn't seem that controversial a
| concept in the US.
| herval wrote:
| code under MIT-0 is still copyrighted to its original
| author - it just authorizes derivative work to be done
| without explicitly mentioning it (which is different from
| public domain)
| ghaff wrote:
| We're getting into pretty meaningless distinctions
| though. Anyone can take the work, give no credit, and use
| it however they wish. Which sounds a lot like public
| domain.
|
| CC0 from Creative Commons does explicitly state "place
| them as completely as possible in the public domain." It
| does also acknowledge that it is not always possible to
| fully do so because of unrelinquishable moral rights and
| other reasons. https://creativecommons.org/public-
| domain/cc0/
|
| To the original point, it may well make sense to license
| under MIT-0 or CC0 if they want to place a book in the
| public domain. The OSI's concerns about CC0 don't really
| apply to writing as I understand it.
| c0pium wrote:
| The carve out for US Government work is explicitly stated
| in the statute. Not only does that not create a precedent
| for others to create copyright-free works, but if anything
| it makes the case that exceptions to copyright-by-default
| have to be explicitly defined in law.
|
| OSI approving something is meaningless from a legal
| standpoint, it's just some people on the internet. Even
| were that not the case, creating a license is not the same
| as renouncing copyright. Which, again, it isn't clear that
| it is possible to do under US copyright law.
|
| Edit: to be clear, MIT-0 doesn't even attempt to renounce
| copyright. It merely provides slightly broader rights to
| holders of a license to the copyrighted work.
| medler wrote:
| OP's company is based in the UK, so I was curious if the UK
| had stronger mechanisms for renouncing copyright. According
| to this source[1], they do not: "Under United Kingdom law,
| the availability of [copyright] abandonment is far from
| clear, and statements purporting to abandon copyright may be
| interpreted as mere revocable licenses."
|
| (I don't mean to suggest that OP's company is doing anything
| wrong. I assume they're up to speed on the legal environment
| and are doing the right things to ensure their works are
| perpetually available. I just thought this was interesting).
|
| [1] https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi
| ?ar...
| FalconSensei wrote:
| Honest question: how do you feel about paying for editor's work
| and marketing a new author if then anyone can sell the
| resulting book?
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| Actually pretty exciting for books.
|
| Agatha Christie, W.E.B. DuBois, Evelyn Waugh, Nabokov, D.H.
| Lawrence, H.G. Wells, Virginia Woolf, and A.A. Milne all have
| books entering in 2024.
|
| And a Brecht play (The Threepenny Opera - one of his best, at
| that), and a Eugene O'Neill (Strange Interlude)!
| playingalong wrote:
| Not trying to contest, just asking...
|
| Brecht died in 1956, so +70 years (as per German law) would be
| end of 2026, right?
| pard68 wrote:
| That would depend on the country right? USA doesn't have a
| life+, so it's a hard date of 1928.
| User23 wrote:
| The reality of course is there is no public domain to speak of in
| the USA, except for abandoned works, unless you have vast
| financial resources. Suppose the early Disney stuff somehow
| actually enters the public domain. Anyone that tries to use it is
| going to get absolutely buried in trademark lawsuits and the
| usual tidal wave of spurious motions.
| tezza wrote:
| "Lady Chatterley's Zombie Lover" coming right up. Probably direct
| to Netflix
| Imnimo wrote:
| This feels like one of those things where a UI designer tries to
| make the most comically inefficient way to convey mundane
| information.
| code51 wrote:
| Did the works of Django Reinhardt enter the public domain?
| tgv wrote:
| I suppose this compositions and arrangements do, to the extent
| they were actually written down. The improvised parts may not
| be, since e.g. Grappeli died in 1997. Recordings take more time
| to enter PD. But IANACRL.
| PrimeMcFly wrote:
| Looks like Tarzan is entering the public domain, that's
| interesting.
| panzagl wrote:
| The Burroughs estate was Disney before Disney was Disney
| redog wrote:
| No music?
| jedberg wrote:
| Disney Animation has been using a clip from Steamboat Willy (and
| the song) as their opening bumper for years.
|
| It was originally done when John Lassiter took over Disney
| Animation as an homage to his idol Walt. But some IP lawyers have
| said that it may also make it impossible to use Steamboat Willy
| in the public domain because they could claim you're violating
| their copyright on their bumper.
|
| Will be interesting to see if that gets tested.
| humanrebar wrote:
| I always thought it would be establishing "Willie" as precisely
| a trademark to invoke that side of IP law.
| 1-6 wrote:
| Steamboat Willie seems perfectly adaptable for AI animation.
| Can't wait to see new cartoons.
| fdgjgbdfhgb wrote:
| Prokofiev, nice! I recently realised that his music was still
| under copyright, same for Shostakovich... Death + 70 years is a
| really long time
| brlcad wrote:
| Not quite in the same vein, but the patent for T-splines expires
| in 2024. Big news for 3D modeling systems.
| alsodumb wrote:
| Can you add some context on what T-splines are and why it's a
| big news? I kinda know splines in a trajectory planning sense
| but never heard of T-splines. Thanks!
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I'd love some site you can add things to, and people can simply
| upvote if they think it's a noteworthy item. And then I can
| subscribe to a calendar for the top 100.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-12-12 23:00 UTC)