January 1st is Public Domain Day, and that means that under the current copyright law, the works of artists, writers, and musicians who died 70 years ago (1941) become freely available to copy, adapt, translate, and otherwise use. This year marks the entrance of works from some famous authors, including James Joyce and Virginia Woolf, but there could have been more. The maximum length of a copyright used to be 56 years, meaning Disney's Lady and the Tramp, J.R.R. Tolkien's Return of the King, and Alfred Hitchcock's To Catch a Thief (all released in 1955) would have entered the public domain today. But in 1976, copyrights were extended for the life of the author plus 50 years or 75 years on works made for hire, and a 1998 amendment further extended those terms to 70 years and 95 years respectively. If not for the latter change, Ernest Hemingway's works, Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times, and the first issue of Life magazine would be entering the public domain today.
Protecting works from Tolkien and Hitchcock is one thing because they're still commercially viable, but there's a large number of "orphan works" that don't have clear copyright owners and are still under protection. The risk of getting sued for using them, and the effort of finding someone who can license the rights are often enough to deter most uses. Until that problem is solved, you can celebrate the works that are definitely in the clear at Public Domain Day, or pout over what could have been at Duke Law.
Image credit: xkcd
Update: This post was edited to better reflect legal history
There are 25 Comments. Add yours.
was thinking of writing a story so this means American Tall tales are fair game?
Posted on Jan 02, 2012 | 12:06 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Actually we don’t have to wait until 2051. Copyright was extended but it can also be shortened. I would assume that given our technological progress it is likely that copyright law will be rewritten before 2051 to accommodate the progress we make.
Posted on Jan 02, 2012 | 12:16 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I would assume that given our technological progress, it is likely that copyright law will NOT be rewritten before 2051 to accommodate the progress we make.
Posted on Jan 02, 2012 | 1:12 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s unlikely to be shortened for the things that already have copyright protection. There are legal problems with retroactively abridging rights previously granted. However, there could be a change that shortens the copyright term for new works moving forward. My guess is that there will be lobbying for another increase around 2017 when the extension starts to run out on currently protected works for hire.
Posted on Jan 02, 2012 | 12:05 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
seeing how this kind of things are going (just think about the whole apple vs. samsung affair and the RIIA) i wouldn’t be surprised at all to see copyright law being rewritten to extend copyright again. especially considering that it doesn’t apply only to books and novels but to things worth much more than “culture” (e.g. drugs).
Posted on Jan 03, 2012 | 7:59 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
“Protecting works from Tolkien and Hitchcock is one thing because they’re still commercially viable”
I disagree. Tolkien died in 1973 and Hitchcock died in 1980. Surely 30+ years of monetization that in no way benefits the creator is enough.
Posted on Jan 02, 2012 | 1:07 AM EST reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
Tell that to the people still living off those works…
Posted on Jan 02, 2012 | 4:07 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Do the estates of the deceased have the right to perpetually exploit their work? I don’t think they do.
Copyright is a contract with society: you get the right to exploit your intellectual property for some number of years, and in return after that number of years your work belongs to the society whose culture helped produce it. – Sebastian
I would add to this that along with the right to exploit your intellectual property, society affords you legal protections and remidies in doing so.
Posted on Jan 02, 2012 | 4:17 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Pardon me for screwing up the attribution. That quote is from here: http://www.pelicancrossing.net/netwars/2011/09/the_final_countdown.html
Posted on Jan 02, 2012 | 4:19 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I agree with you but I don’t approve of your reasoning. You ask the question if it’s right to exploit the work, but it could easily be turned around and be asked “does the creator not have the right to pass along the right of his works to the people he leaves behind”.
Posted on Jan 02, 2012 | 4:23 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Does the creator’s offspring have the right to pass the original creator’s work to their offspring, do they have the right to pass it to their offspring yet again?
I think it best to have an established copyright term, and should the descendents of the original creator benefit from the work after their death but during that term then great – however the term shouldn’t be an excessive number of years past their death as is currently the case.
I’m curious – you say you agree with me but with different reasoning. What’s your reasoning?
Posted on Jan 02, 2012 | 4:30 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
" it could easily be turned around and be asked "does the creator not have the right to pass along the right of his works to the people he leaves behind"."
This question, unlike the other, is meaningless. Copyright doesn’t exist so that creators can pass along anything. It’s a limited monopoly granted to further creation for the public good.
Did James Joyce write Ulysses thinking, “I hope my layabout, talentless grandson Stephen can make millions suing people who quote from this book”? Of course not.
Posted on Jan 02, 2012 | 1:33 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
I agree… but it explains why people won’t let these works go without a fight.
Lots of money involved.
Posted on Jan 02, 2012 | 11:10 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Theoretically I agree with you, but I’d be sad the day when there are a couple dozen LOTR film knockoffs. Books like that deserve better.
Posted on Jan 02, 2012 | 11:14 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I can see why Disney and Hitchcock movies are corporate works since hundreds of people and a movie studio create those, but how are Tolkien’s books considered corporate works since he is a single author? The LOTR movies and games are corporate works for sure, but how does that apply to the original books?
Posted on Jan 02, 2012 | 1:12 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Because $$$$$
Posted on Jan 02, 2012 | 1:26 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
‘Protecting works from Tolkien and Hitchcock is one thing because they’re still commercially viable’
Why would Hitchcock care if his works still made money or not. He would want them to be free, not profited from by some people who have nothing to do with him.
Posted on Jan 02, 2012 | 1:39 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Creative works are an asset. Just like any asset, the holders may want to pass it on to heirs after their deaths. If the copyright wasn’t extended then that reduces the potential benefit for the artists beneficiaries. It’s unfortunate though that present law has trapped these orphan works in limbo.
Posted on Jan 02, 2012 | 2:14 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Yes, but limited copyright exists for a reason. Over time creative works become part of our cultural heritage, beyond the exclusive ownership of one individual or company. The remixing of cultural icons is itself a highly useful, expressive and often profitable endeavor. It moves the entire society forward. Perpetual copyright is detrimental. Just imagine, for example, if Santa Claise was a copyrighted property.
Copyrights should expire after a reasonable amount of time has passed. More than 75 after creation of the work strikes me as excessive.
Posted on Jan 02, 2012 | 10:49 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Agreed, plus since when did “commercially viable” have an expiration date? They crank out a new 3 Musketeersmovie every 10-20 years, Shakespeare is adapted to film yearly as are Jane Austin, Mary Shelley, HG Wells etc and every time they do those works are re-released in print. The John Carter of Mars books will no doubt be released to tie into that films release.
Posted on Jan 02, 2012 | 2:27 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
How can you be sure of that? Hitchcock wasn’t adverse to making money, obviously – perhaps he’d love the idea of his works going on to support his family for multiple generations.
Personally, if I create something that could benefit my children and my children’s children, I wouldn’t want it in the “public domain” at all, I’d want it to go on helping support generations of my family.
Posted on Jan 02, 2012 | 10:38 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Great; too bad that runs completely counter to the initial purpose of copyright law which was to strike a balance between granting a limited monopoly on creative works (to encourage creators to create them in the first place) and spreading the work into the collective consciousness of society.
Posted on Jan 03, 2012 | 1:39 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Unfortunately this information is not valid inside the USA. According to the Cornell copyright reference http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm , the copyright duration for 95 years after publication. So Ulysses has been in the public domain since 1998, but everything published after 1922 must wait a long time. Finnegan’s Wake must wait until 2034.
Posted on Jan 02, 2012 | 7:38 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yep in the US nothing enters public domain till 2019…
Here is a cool map showing the different copyright situations in different countries
http://www.publicdomainday.org/sites/www.publicdomainday.eu/files/World_copyright-terms.jpg
Posted on Jan 02, 2012 | 7:55 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I think what you mean is that works for hire that have 95 years of protection wont start to enter the public domain until 2019. Every year there are works from private authors that enter the public domain because protection of those works expires 70 years after the author’s death.
Posted on Jan 02, 2012 | 12:19 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.