[...] A work that might look infringing because it includes public domain material used elsewhere therefore runs the risk of being widely blocked.[...]
Although in theory those using public domain materials might be able to appeal against such an action, it would require them to know how to do that, and to have the time and the inclination to do so. One of biggest strengths of public domain materials is that they can be used without permission by anyone – especially by those who know nothing about the finer points of copyright law, and who have limited financial resources. It is precisely these individuals who will be unwilling or unable to challenge erroneous blocking by upload filters. Over time, people may even avoid drawing on public domain materials for fear that their posts will be blocked, and that they may be subject to other punishments by sites hosting their material because of their repeated copyright "offences".
Those pushing for upload filters will doubtless insist this outcome is not their intent, and that may be so. But given the impossibility of incorporating detailed legal knowledge about this famously complex area into online censorship systems, and the vulnerability of the public domain, which is particularly at risk because there is no organisation to defend it, it is inevitable that this rich resource, built up over three hundred years, will be badly affected by automated filters. If it adopts this approach, the EU will end up undermining the basic quid pro quo of copyright – that works can be used freely after a temporary monopoly has elapsed – and thus the public's acceptance that the current framework is in some sense "fair". Ironically, a draconian upload filter system brought in supposedly to defend copyright could end up leading to it being seriously de-legitimised.
Source : Don't Let Upload Filters Undermine the Public Domain
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday January 17 2018, @04:10AM (4 children)
The Public Domain Starts Growing Again Next Year, and It’s About Time [eff.org]
Do the works become public domain on the 1st of the year, or do they become public domain on the date X years after they were released, and "Public Domain Day is just a cute time to remind everybody in January?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 17 2018, @04:50AM
Mickey mouse extension act in 3...2...1
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 17 2018, @05:04AM
CS forester and anything walt disney himself did comes into the public domain up here in the frozen north so we have that going for us... which is nice...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 17 2018, @10:35AM
It's just a reminder for Disney to donate to the right politicians for a copyright extension bill.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Pino P on Wednesday January 17 2018, @04:01PM
Copyright terms in many countries, including the United States, are explicitly extended to the end of the Gregorian calendar year in which they would otherwise expire.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 17 2018, @04:15AM (9 children)
Youtube flagged me for using a recording of Flight of the Valkyries originally recorded my Thomas Edison.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 17 2018, @04:18AM (6 children)
By Thomas Edison.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 17 2018, @05:19AM (5 children)
Your saying if I electrocute elephants I could become famous and lionized instead of being condemed as the first and really prolific patent troll?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 17 2018, @06:04AM (1 child)
No, he's just saying you should have uploaded the Tesla version, in AC, much higher resolution, and less lossage over distance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 17 2018, @06:24AM
Well I am posting via wifi...
(Score: 4, Informative) by frojack on Wednesday January 17 2018, @07:43AM (2 children)
Edison didn't electrocute any elephants. Stop repeating crap.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/topsy-elephant-was-victim-her-captors-not-really-thomas-edison-180961611/ [smithsonianmag.com]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 17 2018, @10:56AM (1 child)
OK, so Edison only got dogs, horses and humans electrocuted, [nydailynews.com] but not elephants. That's really a relief.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday January 17 2018, @05:55PM
But..but...but...he was trying to protect us against Westinghouse!
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Pino P on Wednesday January 17 2018, @04:14PM (1 child)
Prior to the Sound Recording Amendment, which took effect in 1972, the United States did not recognize copyright in sound recordings. Instead, sound recordings made prior to 1972 are subject to copyright laws of the several states. The federal copyright statute (Title 17, United States Code) preempts state copyright laws with respect to most works, though 17 U.S.C. §301(c) delays preemption for pre-1972 sound recordings until the equivalent of one full federal copyright term has elapsed since the effective date of the Sound Recording Amendment. This means 2067.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @01:11AM
So every sound recording ever made is subject to copyright even if the owner is dead and the heirs don't care to enforce it.