Public Domain and Copyrights of 1923

[jedishrfu]

ArsTechnica on Copyright expiration and the legal pitfalls around it:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...th-of-works-just-fell-into-the-public-domain/

As the ball dropped over Times Square last night, all copyrighted works published in 1923 fell into the public domain (with a few exceptions). Everyone now has the right to republish them or adapt them for use in new works.

It's the first time this has happened in 21 years.

In 1998, works published in 1922 or earlier were in the public domain, with 1923 works scheduled to expire at the beginning of 1999. But then Congress passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. It added 20 years to the terms of older works, keeping 1923 works locked up until 2019.

 

[scottdave]

I believe there is a way for authors to renew copyrights, so definitely check on that before assuming that something has fallen into public domain.

 

[jedishrfu]

There are always strategies to keep it going such as making derivative works if you are the copyright holder that extend the copyright which can be a tricky thing to do. The Mickey Mouse example shows where you can use the original steam boat willy character but not the iconic mickey of today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States

Here's a list of countries and their duration of copyright terms:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries'_copyright_lengths

I had always heard that for an author it was his/her lifetime plus 75 years thereafter. I've seen other things about it being 120 years but as you can see it varies by when and where the work was published.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors'_rights

Copyrights remind me of the old proverb: If you copy from one person it's plagiarism and if you copy from many people it's research.

One famous historian got burned by this proverb:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_E._Ambrose

and other famous people who also got caught:

https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2015/02/10/5-great-people-who-plagiarized/

https://listverse.com/2014/09/18/10-of-the-worst-plagiarists-in-history/

I guess this is why copyright law is needed so badly.

 

[Astronuc]

An important point from the ArsTechnica article is "Retroactively extending copyright terms meant an enormous windfall for the companies and families that owned the copyrights." The extended copyright benefits the estates of some, and by extension, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, and also corporations.

I believe the 1998 extension of copyright was a mistake, and those benefitting from it have not made any substantial contribution to the arts necessarily.

Copyrights remind me of the old proverb: If you copy from one person it's plagiarism and if you copy from many people it's research.

That should be "copy without attribution." In scientific literature, articles usually reference prior work citing other authors. However, I have seen at least one case where prior work was not referenced or cited.