Every year, January 1st is "public domain day" around the globe. It's the day when all works that have had their copyrights expire enter the public domain, since copyright term is based on the year of publication, rather than the exact date. While some parts of the world still have something to celebrate on public domain day -- such as how the works of James Joyce are now in the public domain in the EU, here in the US as we've noted in the past, we're left waiting... for nothing. Because thanks to massive changes to copyright law, as well as copyright term extension, absolutely nothing has or will enter the public domain for many years in the US (minus a specific declaration by the copyright holder... and even then it's not entirely clear that qualifies).
See, after this paragraph I want to know whether, how and why the US deviates from what I thought was the general rule (with the odd exception in some less important country here or there) of things being released to the public domain seventy years after death of author/composer/whatever.
Oh wait, I think I get it now... the US does not deviate from that rule at all, but the point is merely that due to the law having changed at some point in the relatively recent past, the net effect is that for the next few decades nothing will enter the public domain because the works that normally *would* be entering public domain after seventy years after death of author, are already in it thanks to the looser rules before.
Seems a bit silly to be whining about nothing entering the public domain, then, and especially silly to make that comparison to the EU, as they use the exact same public domain rules as the US now.
Why Johnny Can't Read Any New Public Domain Books In The US: Because Nothing New Entered The P.D.
- 03/01/2012 11:33:34 PM
1868 Views
I find it difficult to see this as stealing rights from the public.
- 04/01/2012 11:15:35 AM
998 Views
Are you arguing for illegal use of legally protected works?
- 04/01/2012 09:34:18 PM
926 Views
No. I'm saying that keeping works in copyright doesn't stop them from being read, watched, etc.
- 04/01/2012 10:24:50 PM
904 Views
That's not the point, though.
- 05/01/2012 01:05:17 PM
980 Views
????
- 05/01/2012 03:22:58 PM
946 Views
Re: ????
- 05/01/2012 04:04:21 PM
983 Views
That isn't inspiration that wanting to use the popularity of the original to promote your work
- 05/01/2012 05:04:25 PM
951 Views
I don't get it.
- 04/01/2012 05:51:19 PM
1212 Views
You know those Jane Austen parodies? Only because Jane Austen is in the public domain.
- 04/01/2012 09:32:20 PM
1013 Views
Parody is actually covered by the legal definition of fair use so doesn't break copyright.
- 04/01/2012 10:28:08 PM
997 Views
I'm fairly sure the Jane Austen parodies do in fact use actual paragraphs... no? *NM*
- 04/01/2012 10:31:32 PM
525 Views
The zombies one doesn't precisely. It's somewhat modernised. I've not read the others.
- 04/01/2012 10:32:59 PM
934 Views
Yes, they take tons of text from actual books. Contrast this with Ms. Rowling's reaction. *NM*
- 05/01/2012 07:01:46 PM
429 Views
If there's zero chance of needing a lawyer at some point, it's way more likely to actually happen.
- 04/01/2012 10:43:23 PM
1032 Views
Answering you specifically
- 05/01/2012 04:57:33 PM
946 Views
Patents and copyrights aren't meant to last forever (shouldn't, anyway)
- 04/01/2012 10:33:30 PM
981 Views
I know they aren't. I don't necessarily agree that they shouldn't though.
- 05/01/2012 05:01:05 PM
891 Views
Re: I know they aren't. I don't necessarily agree that they shouldn't though.
- 06/01/2012 12:47:50 AM
916 Views
That is a very confusing article.
- 04/01/2012 10:19:22 PM
1041 Views
Works published between 1923 and 1978 are different
- 04/01/2012 10:25:16 PM
969 Views
Do you think it is right that Disney can protect its movies?
- 05/01/2012 05:29:08 PM
920 Views
Ok, what has movies Disney done lately that were on par with its classics? *NM*
- 05/01/2012 07:44:20 PM
413 Views
And speaking of Disney's classics...
- 05/01/2012 10:06:16 PM
1084 Views
Until Disney discovered and copyrighted them, they obviouslty didn't exist. *NM*
- 06/01/2012 12:58:55 AM
454 Views
OK why is that even a point of argument?
- 06/01/2012 02:42:47 PM
926 Views
No incentive to make great new works if they can just keep re-releasing Lion King in 3D *NM*
- 06/01/2012 09:45:38 PM
498 Views
I'm a lot older than your five year old, but I'm not sure I disagree Tangled is better.
- 06/01/2012 11:12:32 PM
975 Views
Well, if corporations are now people, then maybe their copyright could be different? *shrug*
- 05/01/2012 07:57:38 PM
1071 Views
Re: Well, if corporations are now people, then maybe their copyright could be different? *shrug*
- 06/01/2012 01:18:04 AM
977 Views
Can you back that up?
- 06/01/2012 04:17:35 AM
1097 Views
Re: Can you back that up?
- 06/01/2012 06:02:01 PM
883 Views
Artist/Singers used to *always* be on tour in order to make a living.
- 06/01/2012 09:34:44 PM
1183 Views