All of These Works Should Be in the Public Domain, but Aren't

[BTR1701]

Every year for the past few years, the good folks at Duke's Center for
the Study of the Public Domain have put up a list of works that should
have gone into the public domain on January 1st had Congress not
massively expanded the law. Each year, it's a depressing look at what
works should be in the public domain. As a reminder, when these works
were created, the creators knew the terms under which they were created
and knew that they would have gone into the public domain by now -- and
they found that to be more than enough incentive to create those works.
Given that, it makes absolutely no sense that these works are not in the
public domain. The latest list has many, many examples of classic works
that should be in the public domain.

Here's a list of famous books from 1958 that should have gone into the
public domain:

Chinua Achebe, Things Fall Apart
Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition
Isaac Asimov (writing as Paul French), Lucky Starr and the
Rings of Saturn
Simone de Beauvoir, Mémoires d'une jeune fille rangée
(Memoirs of a Dutiful Daughter)
Michael Bond, A Bear Called Paddington, with illustrations
by Peggy Fortnum
Eugene Burdick and William Lederer, The Ugly American
Truman Capote, Breakfast at Tiffany's
Agatha Christie, Ordeal by Innocence
John Kenneth Galbraith, The Affluent Society
Graham Greene, Our Man in Havana
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Stride Toward Freedom: The
Montgomery Story
Claude Lévi-Strauss, Anthropologie Structurale (Structural
Anthropology)
Mary Renault, The King Must Die
Dr. Seuss, Yertle the Turtle and Other Stories
T.H. White, The Once and Future King

As noted, it's somewhat ridiculous that, say, The Once and Future King
is based on public domain King Arthur legends, but is being kept out of
the public domain itself. And, seeing how we've just discussed how
copyright is being used to hide Martin Luther King's words, it's sad to
see that one of his books is also being held back from the public
domain.

Onto a list of famous movies:

ATTACK OF THE 50-FOOT WOMAN, a low-budget horror/sci-fi
cult hit.
AUNTIE MAME, starring Rosalind Russell, Coral Browne,
Roger Smith, and Peggy Cass.
THE BLOB, sci-fi/horror classic starring Steve McQueen
in his first leading role.
CAT ON A HOT TIN ROOF, starring Elizabeth Taylor, Paul
Newman, and Burl Ives.
THE DEFIANT ONES, starring Sidney Poitier, Tony Curtis,
and Theodore Bikel.
FROM THE EARTH TO THE MOON, starring Joseph Cotten, George
Sanders, and Debra Paget.
GIGI, directed by Vincente Minnelli and starring Leslie
Caron, Maurice Chevalier, and Louis Jourdan. The film
garnered 9 Academy Awards.
MON ONCLE, writer/director Jacques Tati reprises his comic
alter-ego, Monsieur Hulot, and wins the Academy Award
for Best Foreign Language Film.
SOME CAME RUNNING, directed by Vincente Minnelli and
starring Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, and Shirley MacLaine.
SOUTH PACIFIC, Rodgers and Hammerstein's musical, directed
by Joshua Logan, starring Rossano Brazzi and Mitzi Gaynor.
TOUCH OF EVIL, written and directed by Orson Welles, starring
Welles, Charlton Heston, and Janet Leigh.
THE YOUNG LIONS, starring Marlon Brando, Montgomery Clift,
and Dean Martin.
VERTIGO, directed by Alfred Hitchcock, starring James Stewart,
Kim Novak, and Barbara Bel Geddes.

And some of the top music hits from 1958:

"Johnny B. Goode" (Chuck Berry)
"Volare (Nel Blu Dipinto Di Blu)" [Domenico Modugno,
F. Migliacci, Mitchell Parish (English translation)]
"Yakety Yak" (Jerry Leiber & Mike Stoller)
"Chantilly Lace" (Big Bopper)
"Purple People Eater" (Sheb Wooley)

And, of course, it's not just about entertainment, but important
scientific developments as well:

1958 was another noteworthy year for science: the US launched
the Explorer 1, its first successful satellite, which confirmed
the existence of the Van Allen radiation belt. The first
integrated circuit was demonstrated. There were groundbreaking
publications in the fields of laser technology and cloning.

If you follow the link from "cloning" above (and you do not
have a subscription or institutional access), you will see
that this 1958 article is behind a paywall. You can purchase
it for $32. A distressing number of scientific articles from
1958 remain behind paywalls, including those in major journals
such as Science and JAMA. You can't read these articles unless
you pay or subscribe. And the institutional access that many
top scientists enjoy is not guaranteed-- even institutions
such as Harvard have considered canceling their subscriptions
because they could no longer afford the escalating prices of
major journal subscriptions.

It's remarkable to find scientific research from 1958 hidden
behind publisher paywalls. Thankfully, some publishers have
made older articles available in full online, so that you can
read them, even though it may still be illegal to copy and
distribute them. In addition, some older articles have been
made available on third party websites, but this is not a
stable solution for providing reliable access to science.
Third party postings can be difficult to find or taken down,
links can get broken, and would-be posters may be deterred
by the risk of a lawsuit. Under the pre-1978 copyright term,
all of this history would be free to scholars, students, and
enthusiasts.

As the article notes, all of those works would have been in the public
domain if not for the Copyright Act of 1976. Even though the creators of
all those works knew-- without a doubt-- that those works would be in
the public domain today, they are not. I have yet to see anyone come up
with a credible explanation for why that is.

Meanwhile, over at Vox, Tim Lee came up with a related, but different,
depressing list of works that should be in the public domain. This one
looks at works that also got the gift of the 1976 Act, but then still
should be in the public domain today... except for the 1998 Copyright
Term Extension Act (CTEA)-- sometimes called the Sonny Bono Act. These
are works that (even after the 1976 Act) would have been released 75
years ago, which was the limit for "corporate" authored works, but which
got extended to 95 years. In other words, these are works that have
dodged the public domain "bullet" twice thanks to Congress. There are
some impressive works here-- including THE WIZARD OF OZ and GONE WITH
THE WIND. Also, the very first Batman comic, meaning that the basic
character of Batman would have gone into the public domain.

Instead, they're all locked up for many more years, and many people
alive in the US today have never had an old work moved into the public
domain in their lifetimes.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150103/06291129584/all-these-works-sh
ould-be-public-domain-arent.shtml

[thinbluemime2]

On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 20:28:39 -0500, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

> Every year for the past few years, the good folks at Duke's Center for
> the Study of the Public Domain have put up a list of works that should
> have gone into the public domain

> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150103/06291129584/all-these-works-sh
> ould-be-public-domain-arent.shtml



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/38/BobDylan50th.jpg



Why There Are Only 100 Copies Of The New Bob Dylan Record?
January 12, 2013
http://www.npr.org/blogs/therecord/2013/01/12/169133556/there-are-only-100-copies-of-the-new-bob-dylan-record


"the subtitle, The Copyright Extension Collection, Volume 1, speaks for
itself."

--
This communication may be unlawfully collected and stored by the National
Security Agency (NSA) in secret. The parties to this email do not consent
to the retrieving or storing of this communication and any related
metadata, as well as printing, eb693fc541d7ce0864e36ece65959659d5b4e3f1
copying, re-transmitting, disseminating, or otherwise using it. If you
believe you have received this communication in error, please delete it
immediately.

[David Johnston]

Wouldn't the active and ongoing existence of multiple Batman series
protect him on trademark grounds?

[Evelyn Leeper]

On 1/5/15 8:28 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> ...

> As noted, it's somewhat ridiculous that, say, The Once and Future King
> is based on public domain King Arthur legends, but is being kept out of
> the public domain itself.

Actually, it's not ridiculous at all. If someone makes a new King
Arthur film this year, should it immediately go into public doman
because it is based on public domain legends?

--
Evelyn C. Leeper
Good breeding consists of concealing how much we think of ourselves
and how little we think of the other person. -Mark Twain

[David Johnston]

On 1/5/2015 7:22 PM, Evelyn Leeper wrote:
> On 1/5/15 8:28 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> ...
>> As noted, it's somewhat ridiculous that, say, The Once and Future King
>> is based on public domain King Arthur legends, but is being kept out of
>> the public domain itself.
>
> Actually, it's not ridiculous at all. If someone makes a new King
> Arthur film this year, should it immediately go into public doman
> because it is based on public domain legends?
>

Nope. And rest assured. It won't. Ever.

[A Friend]

In article <m8ffsv$fqv$1...@dont-email.me>, David Johnston

<Da...@block.net> wrote:

> Wouldn't the active and ongoing existence of multiple Batman series
> protect him on trademark grounds?

Yes. The idea that Batman would be in the public domain because of his
appearance in Detective #27 is not correct. You could, however,
publish copies of Detective #27 and sell them without needing
permission or having to pay anyone royalties. You could also keep
publishing succeeding issues of Detective each month (minding the
56-year gap) for as long as you liked.

[BTR1701]

In article <m8ffsv$fqv$1...@dont-email.me>,
David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:

Not any more than Disney's active LITTLE MERMAID movie and trademark on
it prohibits anyone else from using the public domain story of the
Little Mermaid to make their own version.

You don't get to use something from the public domain, then trademark
your version and lock everyone else out of it.

[BTR1701]

In article <gFHqw.1232265$Y4.11...@fx24.iad>,

Evelyn Leeper <ele...@optonline.net> wrote:

> On 1/5/15 8:28 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > ...
> > As noted, it's somewhat ridiculous that, say, The Once and Future King
> > is based on public domain King Arthur legends, but is being kept out of
> > the public domain itself.
>
> Actually, it's not ridiculous at all. If someone makes a new King
> Arthur film this year, should it immediately go into public doman
> because it is based on public domain legends?

No, but it should go into the public domain when the statute runs out as
it stood when the work was created.

[weary flake]

On 2015-01-06 01:28:39 +0000, BTR1701 said:

> Every year for the past few years, the good folks at Duke's Center for
> the Study of the Public Domain have put up a list of works that should
> have gone into the public domain on January 1st had Congress not
> massively expanded the law. Each year, it's a depressing look at what
> works should be in the public domain. As a reminder, when these works
> were created, the creators knew the terms under which they were created
> and knew that they would have gone into the public domain by now -- and
> they found that to be more than enough incentive to create those works.
> Given that, it makes absolutely no sense that these works are not in the
> public domain. The latest list has many, many examples of classic works
> that should be in the public domain.

There is such a thing as compulsory licensing of things like songs:
anyone can imitate a song against the will of the copyright owner
as long as the fees are paid. Evidently, a much needed reform is
the compulsory licensing of the actual published item: the movie, book
or performance. This way artists and the corporations that own them
would not be able to exterminate an already published work by using
copyright law to suppress an earlier work.

> Here's a list of famous books from 1958 that should have gone into the
> public domain:
>
> Chinua Achebe, Things Fall Apart
> Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition
> Isaac Asimov (writing as Paul French), Lucky Starr and the
> Rings of Saturn
> Simone de Beauvoir, Mémoires d'une jeune fille rangée
> (Memoirs of a Dutiful Daughter)
> Michael Bond, A Bear Called Paddington, with illustrations
> by Peggy Fortnum
> Eugene Burdick and William Lederer, The Ugly American
> Truman Capote, Breakfast at Tiffany's
> Agatha Christie, Ordeal by Innocence
> John Kenneth Galbraith, The Affluent Society
> Graham Greene, Our Man in Havana
> Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Stride Toward Freedom: The
> Montgomery Story
> Claude Lévi-Strauss, Anthropologie Structurale (Structural
> Anthropology)
> Mary Renault, The King Must Die
> Dr. Seuss, Yertle the Turtle and Other Stories
> T.H. White, The Once and Future Kin

How about Cup of Fury, by Upton Sinclair? It is a 1956 book
that ought to be in the public domain but isn't. It represents
today a very unpopular concept: a leftist in favor of
prohibition of alcohol! So it will not be republished
and is suppressed as a consequence of the efforts of the scumbag
lobbyists known as copyright-extenders. It will only be reissued
if it becomes public domain.

Then there's Koestler's book Spanish Testament from 1938
that was published in the interests of the Communist Party
immediately before he turned anti-Communist, and then the author,
the book company, the Communist Party, etc., conspired to
exterminate it and pretend the book never existed. It remains
under the iron curtain of copyright, even after 77 years.

How about the silent movie Wings from 1927? Released 88 years ago and
it still hasn't become public domain!

> And some of the top music hits from 1958:
>
> "Johnny B. Goode" (Chuck Berry)
> "Volare (Nel Blu Dipinto Di Blu)" [Domenico Modugno,
> F. Migliacci, Mitchell Parish (English translation)]
> "Yakety Yak" (Jerry Leiber & Mike Stoller)
> "Chantilly Lace" (Big Bopper)
> "Purple People Eater" (Sheb Wooley)

Bob Segar's early work from the late 1960's: he and the record
companies don't want it available so only the original pressings of
the 45s are legal. It ought to be public domain or soon made so, then
Segar and Co. wouldn't be able to use copyright law to suppress it.
In this and countless other cases are where the copyright owner does
not want revenue from sales of earlier work, and instead takes the
"our newest work is the only thing worth consideration" tact that is
a very trendy philosophy of marketers/advertisers and similar such
jerks.

A rerun of a paragraph:

There is such a thing as compulsory licensing of things like songs:
anyone can imitate a song against the will of the copyright owner
as long as the fees are paid. Evidently, a much needed reform is
the compulsory licensing of the actual published item: the movie, book
or performance. This way artists and the corporations that own them
would not be able to exterminate an already published work by using
copyright law to suppress an earlier work.

[Invid Fan]

In article <atropos-BCD430...@news-europe.giganews.com>,

Sure you can. Nobody can do a Little Mermaid cartoon where the
character designs look like the Disney ones, just like while anyone can
do a Frankenstein story they can't have the monster look like the
Universal version.

--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'

[Tony Calguire]

It's 11:59 and 59 seconds. Invid Fan happened in rec.arts.tv today:

>> You don't get to use something from the public domain, then trademark
>> your version and lock everyone else out of it.
>
> Sure you can. Nobody can do a Little Mermaid cartoon where the
> character designs look like the Disney ones, just like while anyone can
> do a Frankenstein story they can't have the monster look like the
> Universal version.
>

You need to be really careful with The Little Mermaid...

http://www.thelocal.dk/20140816/denmarks-iconic-symbol-that-we-cant-show-you

[David Johnston]

Well that's not a trademark issue. If the Disney copyright was going to
expire then once it did, people really could copy the character designs.

[Bill Steele]

On 1/6/15, 1:42 PM, David Johnston wrote:
>>
>
> Well that's not a trademark issue. If the Disney copyright was going to
> expire then once it did, people really could copy the character designs.

Which is why Disney stirred up this whole issue. they don't want people
messing around with Mickey Mouse. In the past, it seems, there was
Mickey Mouse porn. I dunno, maybe it was Minnie.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

In 1967, The Realist Magazine had a two-page Disney character spread that caused quite a sensation. To wit,

http://www.ep.tc/realist/74/12.html

[BTR1701]

You don't think Disney has trademarked their characters?

[BTR1701]

Yes, the company that owns the Seattle Space Needle also seems to think you
can't take a picture of the city skyline without their permission.

[BTR1701]

But if Batman passed into the public domain as it was supposed to, people
would be free to create new stories using those characters, including the
way they look. You can't use trademark to end run your way around copyright
expiration.

Also, a trademark only applies to uses in commerce, so even if it could be
used to prevent public domain uses of the characters, it still couldn't be
used to stop things like fan fiction, fan films, and fan web sites that
aren't using the characters in a commercial capacity.

[David Johnston]

As I understand it, you can trademark names but you can't trademark
pictures. Am I wrong?

[Michael Black]

I think Dan O'Neil had them having sex together.

Michael

[A Friend]

In article
<1145144520442265178....@news.giganews.com>, BTR1701

<atr...@mac.com> wrote:

> But if Batman passed into the public domain as it was supposed to, people
> would be free to create new stories using those characters, including the
> way they look. You can't use trademark to end run your way around copyright
> expiration.

Batman is ongoing; you're thinking of something like the recent case
involving the rights to Sherlock Holmes. There's not a chance that,
even if the copyright on Detective #27 expired, you'd be able to create
Batman stories without a license. You could print all the copies of
Detective #27 you wanted, though.

[BTR1701]

Yep. McDonalds has that image of Golden Arches well and truly trademarked.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <m8h9k9$eig$2...@dont-email.me>,

Wiki doesn't seem to fear them

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Mermaid_(statue)

here's the amazing thing to me about the article

Earlier this week, The Local reported that Seoul零 mayor wants a
miniature version of Copenhagen零 famous Little Mermaid statue for his
own city
http://www.thelocal.dk/20140814/a-new-little-mermaid-could-be-coming-to-s
eoul

A) the damn thing is only 4 feet tall - who would possibly want a
SMALLER version of it?

2) why the Hell would Korea care about some Denmark families
intellectual property rights? Canada doesn't, nor Michigan or New
Zealand or any of the other places that put up a copy.

--
Wait - are you saying that ClodReamer was wrong, or lying?

[anim8rFSK]

In article
<321926361442265411.6...@news.giganews.com>,

koff*HOLLYWOOD*koff

[David Johnston]

Good point.

[synthi...@yahoo.com]

I'm sorry I don't have the reference, but computer enthusiasts a few years ago were posting a thing about the falseness of new copyright laws that pretended to protect artists, but were actually gross money grabbing for mercantilists. It was written in 1848! Very well written too.

Around the same time a magazine article had an interview with Mickey Mouse asking for our sympathy, because the "mouse law" changing copyright actually did him no favours, and he was in essence a prisoner. Setting Mickey free would have yielded a huge boost to his trademark, and increased sales of the still copyrighted material.

Then, to my own experience; I knew a guy with a 1500's book on church and music. I've got a friend with an antique printing press. I thought this would be great, reprinting the book, knowing that some folks paid over a thousand dollars for stuff like that, and using hobby-enthusiasts we could let it go for a few hundred each, AND the dumbass history club I'm in would be good sourced of customers. As I went around the club looking for team members, I found a weird resistance to the project. Through the lens of my translating experience, I decided that what they were really saying was a project is forbidden if there is not a big bossman whose ass is being kissed.

These laws are fake. They are not even about business.

[BTR1701]

In article <00bdbe5a-bc39-44b5...@googlegroups.com>,

That's why the whole "Disney wants to use copyright to keep people from
showing Mickey having sex" doesn't hold water.

Use in parody is an exception to both copyright and trademark, so Disney
would be powerless to stop something like the example above.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, January 6, 2015 10:15:17 PM UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:

> Use in parody is an exception to both copyright and trademark, so Disney
> would be powerless to stop something like the example above.

Not so. A lawsuit can still follow as in the case where Roy Orbison's estate sued 2 Live Crew for recording Pretty Woman who claimed their version was parody. The estate lost but the claim of parody isn't a get-out-of-suit card.

[BTR1701]

In article <390dc833-c0fd-4f97...@googlegroups.com>,

I didn't say they couldn't be sued. I said they'd be powerless to stop
it, just as Orbison's heirs were powerless to stop 2 Live Crew.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, January 7, 2015 2:04:47 AM UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:
>
> I didn't say they couldn't be sued. I said they'd be powerless to stop
> it, just as Orbison's heirs were powerless to stop 2 Live Crew.

2 Live Crew had been told they could not the record song because the estate felt that it reflected badly on Orison's legacy. They recorded it after that notice and then claimed parody when the estate sued. Most satire and parody are created without the original creator(s) of the content being aware that a parody is being done so the notion of "powerless" really doesn't apply.

[Bill Steele]

As with most of copyright, it comes down to a value judgement by the
court as to whether it's parody or not. Mad Magazine was onc sued for a
set of lyrics to "Mince Pies"to be sung to the tune of Irving Berlin's
"Blue Skies." the judge rule that no one could mistake the parody for
the original and thereby deprive the owner of an opportunity to sell a copy.

Perhaps "damage to reputation" might be a valid reason for legal action,
independent of copyright law.

Of course whar Disney wants is to continue to re-release Snow White
every seven years. I wonder if the estates of Frank Capra, Jimmy
Stewart, et al, get anything when "It's a Wonderful Life" runs every year.

I kind of like what Mark Twain said: It should be 50 years from the
death of the author. "That takes care of the children, and the
grandchildren can take care of themselves."

[moviePig]

I find the most irksome thing about extended copyrights to be that they
in no way serve the public, which is what intellectual property rights
(indeed, *all* government actions) are supposed to be about. Rather,
they seem merely to be laws bought with money in pursuit of more money.

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, January 7, 2015 2:15:24 PM UTC-5, Bill Steele wrote:
>
> Of course whar Disney wants is to continue to re-release Snow White
> every seven years. I wonder if the estates of Frank Capra, Jimmy
> Stewart, et al, get anything when "It's a Wonderful Life" runs every year.
>

Like they say, it's complicated. Via wiki:

Liberty Films was purchased by Paramount Pictures, and remained a subsidiary until 1951. In 1955, M. & A. Alexander purchased the movie. This included key rights to the original television syndication, the original nitrate film elements, the music score, and the film rights to the story on which the film is based, "The Greatest Gift".[N 10] National Telefilm Associates (NTA) took over the rights to the film soon thereafter.

A clerical error at NTA prevented the copyright from being renewed properly in 1974.[68][69] Despite the lapsed copyright, television stations that aired the film (after 1993) were still required to pay royalties. Although the film's images had entered the public domain, the film's story was still protected by virtue of it being a derivative work of the published story "The Greatest Gift", whose copyright was properly renewed by Philip Van Doren Stern in 1971.[70][71][N 11] The film became a perennial holiday favorite in the 1980s, possibly due to its repeated showings each holiday season on hundreds of local television stations. It was mentioned during the deliberations on the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998.[70][72]

In 1993, Republic Pictures, which was the successor to NTA, relied on the 1990 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Stewart v. Abend (which involved another Stewart film, Rear Window) to enforce its claim to the copyright. While the film's copyright had not been renewed, Republic still owned the film rights to "The Greatest Gift"; thus the plaintiffs were able to argue its status as a derivative work of a work still under copyright.[70][73] NBC is licensed to show the film on U.S. network television, and traditionally shows it twice during the holidays, with one showing on Christmas Eve. Paramount (via parent company Viacom's 1998 acquisition of Republic's then-parent, Spelling Entertainment) once again has distribution rights for the first time since 1955.[70][74]

Due to all the above actions, this is one of the few RKO films not controlled by Turner Entertainment/Warner Bros. in the US. It is also one of two Capra films which Paramount owns despite not having originally released it--the other is Broadway Bill (originally from Columbia, remade by Paramount as Riding High in 1950).[70]

[Invid Fan]

In article <-dydnUcZE4ZArzHJ...@earthlink.com>, Bill

There was porn. The bigger issue, though, and the reason Disney stirred
all this up, was a small publisher put out comic book reprints of very
racist Mickey Mouse comics that were in public domain. It's hard to
protect your current image if your past can be freely displayed. (so,
in a way, those growing up in the internet age may be more sympathetic
to Disney's case)

[BTR1701]

In article <slrnmarc3g....@kreme.eternal-september.org>,
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Invid Fan <in...@loclanet.com> was all, like:

> > In article <-dydnUcZE4ZArzHJ...@earthlink.com>, Bill
> > Steele <ws...@cornel.edu> wrote:
>
> >> On 1/6/15, 1:42 PM, David Johnston wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Well that's not a trademark issue. If the Disney copyright was going to
> >> > expire then once it did, people really could copy the character designs.
> >>
> >> Which is why Disney stirred up this whole issue. they don't want people
> >> messing around with Mickey Mouse. In the past, it seems, there was
> >> Mickey Mouse porn. I dunno, maybe it was Minnie.
>
> > There was porn. The bigger issue, though, and the reason Disney stirred
> > all this up, was a small publisher put out comic book reprints of very
> > racist Mickey Mouse comics that were in public domain. It's hard to
> > protect your current image if your past can be freely displayed. (so,
> > in a way, those growing up in the internet age may be more sympathetic
> > to Disney's case)
>

> The Uncensored Mouse was a comic book that collected out-of-copyright
> comic strips of Mickey Mouse. Disney stomped them out of existence after
> two issues despite having not a single shred of legal ground to stand
> on.

Too bad those aren't digitized and spread around the internet far and
wide. Fuck the Mouse.

[BTR1701]

In article <BbOdnTYpgblVGDDJ...@earthlink.com>,

Bill Steele <ws...@cornel.edu> wrote:

> On 1/7/15, 2:16 AM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 7, 2015 2:04:47 AM UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>
> >> I didn't say they couldn't be sued. I said they'd be powerless to stop
> >> it, just as Orbison's heirs were powerless to stop 2 Live Crew.
> >
> > 2 Live Crew had been told they could not the record song because the estate
> > felt that it reflected badly on Orison's legacy. They recorded it after
> > that notice and then claimed parody when the estate sued. Most satire and
> > parody are created without the original creator(s) of the content being
> > aware that a parody is being done so the notion of "powerless" really
> > doesn't apply.
> >
>
>
> As with most of copyright, it comes down to a value judgement by the
> court as to whether it's parody or not. Mad Magazine was onc sued for a
> set of lyrics to "Mince Pies"to be sung to the tune of Irving Berlin's
> "Blue Skies." the judge rule that no one could mistake the parody for
> the original and thereby deprive the owner of an opportunity to sell a copy.
>
> Perhaps "damage to reputation" might be a valid reason for legal action,
> independent of copyright law.

Didn't work out for Jerry Falwell.

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988)

[Bill Steele]

On 1/7/15, 2:51 PM, moviePig wrote:
>> grandchildren can take care of themselves."
>
> I find the most irksome thing about extended copyrights to be that they
> in no way serve the public, which is what intellectual property rights
> (indeed, *all* government actions) are supposed to be about. Rather,
> they seem merely to be laws bought with money in pursuit of more money.

Indeed, copyright was created (In England, IIRC) by publishers, not
writers.

Article 5 of the Constitution, which is the basis for copyright and
patent law, says the purpose is to "encourage" creation. How much
encouragement do we need? If I write a novel and get $10,000 up front, I
think I'll be encouraged to write another. But if they keep sending me
$10,000 a month for the rest of my life, I may not bother to write any
more. (Of course, greed cuts in. $20,000 a month would be even better.)

OTOH, if I live long enough that somebody can sell reprints and make
$10,000 a month, I'd like to have a cut of that. Perhaps public domain
should mean "they can't stop you from using it, but they still get
paid." (Like it works with songs: "compulsory license")

[Obveeus]

On 1/8/2015 2:53 PM, Bill Steele wrote:
> On 1/7/15, 2:51 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>> grandchildren can take care of themselves."
>>
>> I find the most irksome thing about extended copyrights to be that they
>> in no way serve the public, which is what intellectual property rights
>> (indeed, *all* government actions) are supposed to be about. Rather,
>> they seem merely to be laws bought with money in pursuit of more money.
>
> Indeed, copyright was created (In England, IIRC) by publishers, not
> writers.
>
> Article 5 of the Constitution, which is the basis for copyright and
> patent law, says the purpose is to "encourage" creation. How much
> encouragement do we need? If I write a novel and get $10,000 up front, I
> think I'll be encouraged to write another. But if they keep sending me
> $10,000 a month for the rest of my life, I may not bother to write any
> more. (Of course, greed cuts in. $20,000 a month would be even better.)

I'll just point out that $10,000 for 6 months work is a huge incentive
to never write again.

> OTOH, if I live long enough that somebody can sell reprints and make
> $10,000 a month, I'd like to have a cut of that. Perhaps public domain
> should mean "they can't stop you from using it, but they still get
> paid." (Like it works with songs: "compulsory license")

I'm still not sure why people feel that they have some innate 'right' to
any story written by someone other than themselves. If I write a great
story and choose not to sell it, you can go read something else.

[moviePig]

What gives them the "right" -- or so one argument goes -- is that the
author is entering his work into the common culture, where, in order not
ultimately to gridlock that culture, it must become a contribution
rather than a commodity. More simply, with a copyright we the people
aren't actually protecting an author's god-given rights so much as we
are bribing him -- and for the best deal we can get.

[BTR1701]

In article <X-Odna3YPoHbfTPJ...@earthlink.com>,

That's what it does mean. When a work goes into the public domain, it
doesn't mean the author can't get paid for it anymore. It just means
he's not the *only* one who can sell it now.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, January 8, 2015 at 9:39:02 PM UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:

> That's what it does mean. When a work goes into the public domain, it
> doesn't mean the author can't get paid for it anymore. It just means
> he's not the *only* one who can sell it now.

That happened to the estate of DH Lawrence. His sister neglected to renew the copyright and his work fell into public domain. If you were around during the late 1960s, there was a sudden rage about Lawrence and some of that was due to the fact that publishers were not having to pay royalties.

[Obveeus]

Gridlock the culture...because 100 years from now we will all feel
gridlock if the latest movie about space travel *doesn't* have STAR TREK
in the name?

> it must become a contribution
> rather than a commodity. More simply, with a copyright we the people
> aren't actually protecting an author's god-given rights so much as we
> are bribing him -- and for the best deal we can get.

I was attempting to address a situation more along the lines of a studio
making a film, releasing it theatrically, then deciding not to release a
DVD...and the corresponding din of people who act like they are being
denied something that is there absolute right to own...and usually the
loudest are the people that will steal their copy via torrent (or
etc...) anyway. I wasn't even attempting to address the silliness of
the guy sitting in his basement trying to think up an original idea but
suffering gridlock because he isn't allowed to pilfer characters from
that film he can't own on DVD.

[BTR1701]

In article <m8nk0a$np7$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

It sure is nice that I can go to a night at the symphony and listen to a
selection of Beethoven's works without his great-great-
great-grandchildren (who had nothing whatsoever to do with creating
those works) entitled to a cut, which then makes such concerts
prohibitively expensive to perform.

[Invid Fan]

In article <atropos-97F0F7...@news-europe.giganews.com>,

Which is why I'm happy the Buffalo Philharmonic places new pieces on
its schedule, so modern composers can make a living and contribute to
the culture.

[Invid Fan]

In article <atropos-A228C1...@news-europe.giganews.com>,

I am reminded a bit of what happened to Baum, writer of the Oz books.
Late in his life the rights to his early books were in the hand of a
publisher which put them out in these new cheap editions. Sales of his
new hardcover books plummeted, as to most people an Oz book was an Oz
book. His income plummeted as he made squat from the reprints.

[BTR1701]

In article <090120151616344860%in...@loclanet.com>,

But they don't really. Aside from premieres like you describe, such
pieces typically get a one-and-done exposure, because after the
premiere, it's so much more cost effective to play the old masters than
it is to re-program new works that are firmly locked into the modern
copyright scheme of escalating royalties.

It's also worth noting that the argument from copyright maximalists is
always that we need strong copyright to encourage artists to create, yet
most of the world's greatest works of art-- be they music, literature,
painting, or sculpture-- were all created before copyright existed, so
obviously artists don't need copyright to spur them on to create great
things.

[BTR1701]

In article <090120151623028125%in...@loclanet.com>,

Well, most people in the world get paid once for the work they do. Only
artists seem to think they're entitled to get paid over and over and
over and over for one piece of work.

[Invid Fan]

In article <atropos-4A1FCC...@news-europe.giganews.com>,

You're making an argument for someone to start charging for those
classics :)

> It's also worth noting that the argument from copyright maximalists
is
> always that we need strong copyright to encourage artists to create, yet
> most of the world's greatest works of art-- be they music, literature,
> painting, or sculpture-- were all created before copyright existed, so
> obviously artists don't need copyright to spur them on to create great
> things.

Copyright existed in the 19th century, yet Beethoven was able to become
popular.

SOMEONE has to make it worth the composer's time. Until our upper class
starts commissioning new symphonies, getting rid of copyrights would
not help modern composers as they'd make no money regardless.

[Invid Fan]

In article <atropos-08A050...@news-europe.giganews.com>,

Only with an artist can their work be reproduced by others and sold.
Copyright is just the artistic version of a patent. I agree they should
expire, but also think they should exist.

[BTR1701]

Not true. A carpenter can make a table and I can make my one of my own
without having to pay him for it.

A chef can create a dish and I'm free to replicate it and sell it myself.

There are scores of other examples.

> Copyright is just the artistic version of a patent. I agree they should
> expire, but also think they should exist.

They shouldn't last any more than 10 years. If you haven't figured out how
to monetize your work by then, you shouldn't have the right to employ the
government to run around enforcing your monopoly for you.

[BTR1701]

Which is why it's great that they're in the public domain and anyone can
record and perform them without having to pay for the privilege.

>> It's also worth noting that the argument from copyright maximalists
> is
>> always that we need strong copyright to encourage artists to create, yet
>> most of the world's greatest works of art-- be they music, literature,
>> painting, or sculpture-- were all created before copyright existed, so
>> obviously artists don't need copyright to spur them on to create great
>> things.
>
> Copyright existed in the 19th century, yet Beethoven was able to become
> popular.
>
> SOMEONE has to make it worth the composer's time. Until our upper class
> starts commissioning new symphonies, getting rid of copyrights would
> not help modern composers as they'd make no money regardless.

Actually, quite a few of modern classical composers *do* compose on
commission.

[Invid Fan]

In article
<1353129668442616075....@news.giganews.com>, BTR1701
<atr...@mac.com> wrote:

> Invid Fan <in...@loclanet.com> wrote:
> > Copyright is just the artistic version of a patent. I agree they should
> > expire, but also think they should exist.
>
> They shouldn't last any more than 10 years. If you haven't figured out how
> to monetize your work by then, you shouldn't have the right to employ the
> government to run around enforcing your monopoly for you.

I'd go for that so long as nobody but the creator is allowed to charge
for it. In other words, you can give the work away, but if money is
charged the creator gets some or all of it. After all, in this digital
age, all you a paying for is the content. Either that content is free
for all, or you're just making money off of something you had nothing
to do with.

[moviePig]

On 1/10/2015 6:01 PM, Invid Fan wrote:
> In article
> <1353129668442616075....@news.giganews.com>, BTR1701
> <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> Invid Fan <in...@loclanet.com> wrote:
>>> Copyright is just the artistic version of a patent. I agree they should
>>> expire, but also think they should exist.
>>
>> They shouldn't last any more than 10 years. If you haven't figured out how
>> to monetize your work by then, you shouldn't have the right to employ the
>> government to run around enforcing your monopoly for you.
>
> I'd go for that so long as nobody but the creator is allowed to charge
> for it. In other words, you can give the work away, but if money is
> charged the creator gets some or all of it. After all, in this digital
> age, all you a paying for is the content. Either that content is free
> for all, or you're just making money off of something you had nothing
> to do with.

You (or even I) might go for it, but I do think 10 years is a
non-starter for copyrights; some moments of genius are worth a lifetime.
Patents, otoh, clearly should reflect the "turnover rate" of their
field. For software patents, e.g., 10 years seems pretty excessive. As
I noted earlier, it's important to remember that the concept of
"intellectual property" is a matter not of seeing God's justice done,
but rather of a society bribing its individuals to put their best mental
foot forward ...and the bribes should be no more generous than is
directly effective.

[moviePig]

On 1/11/2015 6:58 PM, Lewis wrote:
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Invid Fan <in...@loclanet.com> was all, like:

> Exist, yes. But we are living in a word in which copyright is being
> extended forever at the behest of Disney and others. We already have
> Peter Pan with an in-perpetuity copyright. Copyright needs to reformed.
>
> 1) I may only be in the name of a real living person or persons, not a
> corporation
>
> 2) It must expire in a reasonable time (I'd go with something like 25
> years, with a single renewal opportunity for a hefty fee).

Note that a 'hefty fee' only ensures that individual copyright holders
sell their works to corporations for whom such fees are petty cash.

[Bill Steele]

>> >It's also worth noting that the argument from copyright maximalists
> is
>> >always that we need strong copyright to encourage artists to create, yet
>> >most of the world's greatest works of art-- be they music, literature,
>> >painting, or sculpture-- were all created before copyright existed, so
>> >obviously artists don't need copyright to spur them on to create great
>> >things.

They do, however, need to eat while they're doing those new things.

Part of the thinking also is that if publishers didn't have to pay for
the old stuff, they'd just keep running the old stuff and not pay
anybody to do anything new. Every time "It's a Wonderful Life" shows on
TV, some other movie doesn't.


Same idea in the music business. Musicians get paid every time a record
is played on the radio, because the record replaces live musicians.
(Well, used to.)

[moviePig]

On 1/12/2015 9:16 PM, Lewis wrote:
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> was all, like:

> Did you not notice 1)?
>
> If a work is generating money after 25 years, then renewal is a
> no-brainer. If not, it belongs in the public domain.

Yes, I didn't notice 1). (Fwiw, the first-word typo threw me.) The
same drawback still somewhat applies, though, in that a 'hefty fee'
gives pause to only the financially delicate.

My own contention, meanwhile, is somewhat more "moralistic": those who
traffic in the public culture owe it a pound of flesh...

[Bill Steele]

On 1/12/15, 9:16 PM, Lewis wrote:
>>> >>2) It must expire in a reasonable time (I'd go with something like 25
>>> >>years, with a single renewal opportunity for a hefty fee).
>> >Note that a 'hefty fee' only ensures that individual copyright holders
>> >sell their works to corporations for whom such fees are petty cash.

> Did you not notice 1)?

The fee to register copyright in the irst place is already "hefty" for a
lot of people. A lot of great blues writers got screwed because they
couldn't spare five bucks or whatever it was back then.

>
> If a work is generating money after 25 years, then renewal is a
> no-brainer. If not, it belongs in the public domain.

Assuming any brains are applied. Movie studios, publishers, record
companies get sold and resold, and all that info is in a file folder
somewhere on the third floor.

Far too many authors, songwriters and other creators are woefully
ignorant of how copyright works. And 28 years later, sitting around in
the old folks home, who remembers?

[Bill Steele]

On 1/13/15, 5:30 PM, Lewis wrote:
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Bill Steele <ws...@cornel.edu> was all, like:

>> On 1/12/15, 9:16 PM, Lewis wrote:
>>>>>>> 2) It must expire in a reasonable time (I'd go with something like 25
>>>>>>> years, with a single renewal opportunity for a hefty fee).
>>>>> Note that a 'hefty fee' only ensures that individual copyright holders
>>>>> sell their works to corporations for whom such fees are petty cash.
>>> Did you not notice 1)?
>
>> The fee to register copyright in the irst place is already "hefty" for a
>

> There is no fee.

>
>> lot of people. A lot of great blues writers got screwed because they
>> couldn't spare five bucks or whatever it was back then.
>

> That was then.

>
>>> If a work is generating money after 25 years, then renewal is a
>>> no-brainer. If not, it belongs in the public domain.
>
>> Assuming any brains are applied. Movie studios, publishers, record
>> companies get sold and resold, and all that info is in a file folder
>> somewhere on the third floor.
>
>> Far too many authors, songwriters and other creators are woefully
>> ignorant of how copyright works. And 28 years later, sitting around in
>> the old folks home, who remembers?
>

> So? You seem to be thinking moving into the public domain is a bad
> thing. It is not.
>
That's the overall topic of this thread -- or more precisely, How much
is good or bad.

This little bit was just about why copyrights don't get renewed.

[Bill Steele]

>> The fee to register copyright in the irst place is already "hefty" for a
>
> There is no fee.

http://copyright.gov/about/fees.html


Single Application (single author, same claimant, one work, not for hire)
$35
Standard Application (all other filings)
$55
Registrations on paper

Paper filing on Form TX, Form VA, Form PA, Form SE, and Form SR
$85

Renewal Registrations
For works published or registered before January 1, 1978
Form RE
$100

Addendum to Form RE (in addition to fee for claim) $100

[Bill Steele]

On 1/17/15, 9:35 PM, Lewis wrote:
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Bill Steele <ws...@cornel.edu> was all, like:
>

>>>> The fee to register copyright in the irst place is already "hefty" for a
>>>
>>> There is no fee.
>
>> http://copyright.gov/about/fees.html
>
>
>> Single Application (single author, same claimant, one work, not for hire)
>

> But there is no requirement to register a copyright. *ALL* works are
> copyrighted. This has been the case for over 30 years.
>

True, but registration is required to sue for infringement, and the
registration must be done before the infringement commences in order to
collect statutory damages and attorney's fees.

Kind of like insurance. You can't sign up after the house burns down.

[moviePig]

That doesn't jibe with my grasp of logic. I, too, believe one's work to
be protected simply by his meticulous inclusion of a copyright notice.
But what's the meaning of such protection if he can't stop infringement?
And how can he stop infringement except with damages?