As the new year starts, Duke University's Center for the Study of the Public Domain reminds us that works from 1926 ascend to public domain, and become available for use by any and all in any manner they may wish. There is also a lot of recorded music starting to enter the public domain, as an estimated 400,000 sound recordings from before 1923 hit the scene. Most of them music recordings are salvaged from very fragile 78 RPM platters using multiple methods.
In 2022, the public domain will welcome a lot of “firsts”: the first Winnie-the-Pooh book from A. A. Milne, the first published novels from Ernest Hemingway and William Faulkner, the first books of poems from Langston Hughes and Dorothy Parker. What’s more, for the first time ever, thanks to a 2018 law called the Music Modernization Act, a special category of works—sound recordings—will finally begin to join other works in the public domain. On January 1 2022, the gates will open for all of the recordings that have been waiting in the wings. Decades of recordings made from the advent of sound recording technology through the end of 1922—estimated at some 400,000 works—will be open for legal reuse.
Why celebrate the public domain? When works go into the public domain, they can legally be shared, without permission or fee. That is something Winnie-the-Pooh would appreciate. Community theaters can screen the films. Youth orchestras can perform the music publicly, without paying licensing fees. Online repositories such as the Internet Archive, HathiTrust, and Google Books can make works fully available online. This helps enable access to cultural materials that might otherwise be lost to history. 1926 was a long time ago. The vast majority of works from 1926 are out of circulation. When they enter the public domain in 2022, anyone can rescue them from obscurity and make them available, where we can all discover, enjoy, and breathe new life into them.
The public domain is also a wellspring for creativity. The whole point of copyright is to promote creativity, and the public domain plays a central role in doing so. Copyright law gives authors important rights that encourage creativity and distribution—this is a very good thing. But it also ensures that those rights last for a “limited time,” so that when they expire, works go into the public domain, where future authors can legally build on the past—reimagining the books, making them into films, adapting the songs and movies. That’s a good thing too! As explained in a New York Times editorial:
- When a work enters the public domain it means the public can afford to use it freely, to give it new currency . . . [public domain works] are an essential part of every artist’s sustenance, of every person’s sustenance.
See also, What Will Enter the Public Domain in 2022? A festive countdown which, were it not blocked by javascript, would highlight a selection of what has become available.
Previously:
(2021) Public Domain Day in the USA: Works from 1925 are Open to All!
(2020) January 1, 2020 is Public Domain Day: Works From 1924 Are Open to All!
(2018) Public Domain Day is Coming
(2014) Happy Public Domain Day: Here are the Works that Copyright Extension Stole From You in 2015
and more ...
Related Stories
boing boing - Happy Public Domain Day: here are the works that copyright extension stole from you in 2015 and Center for the Study of the Public Domain
Current US law extends copyright for 70 years after the date of the author’s death, and corporate “works-for-hire” are copyrighted for 95 years after publication. But prior to the 1976 Copyright Act (which became effective in 1978), the maximum copyright term was 56 years—an initial term of 28 years, renewable for another 28 years. Under those laws, works published in 1958 would enter the public domain on January 1, 2015, where they would be “free as the air to common use.” Under current copyright law, we’ll have to wait until 2054.1 And no published works will enter our public domain until 2019. The laws in other countries are different—thousands of works are entering the public domain in Canada and the EU on January 1.
Mark your calendar: on January 1, 2019, works will again begin entering the public domain in the United States.
On that day, one year's worth of copyrighted works — that were first published in 1923 — will become freely available to all.
A long list of affected works is available on Lifehacker, including movies, books, music, and art.
For 20 long years, the progression of works into the public domain stopped when copyright was extended in the Sonny Bono Act in 1998 to protect Disney's "Mickey Mouse"
Speaking of Disney, they're the ones who lobbied for such long copyright terms, because in 1998 Mickey Mouse's first appearance (in the 1928 cartoon Steamboat Willie) was close to losing its copyright. But after the Sonny Bono Act, Now that first Mickey Mouse appearance will enter the public domain in 2024.
It is an open question whether Disney will attempt to push for further extensions and changes in copyright by 2024. In the meantime however The Atlantic notes
A Google spokesperson confirmed that Google Books stands ready. Its software is already set up so that on January 1 of each year, the material from 95 years earlier that's currently digitized but only available for searching suddenly switches to full text.
Anyone else going to buy a Steamboat Willie shirt in 2024 and not one moment sooner?
https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2020/
Here are some of the works that will be entering the public domain in 2020. (To find more material from 1924, you can visit the Catalogue of Copyright Entries.)
[...] Unfortunately, the fact that works from 1924 are legally available does not mean they are actually available. After 95 years, many of these works are already lost or literally disintegrating (as with old films and recordings), evidence of what long copyright terms do to the conservation of cultural artifacts. In fact, one of the items we feature below, Clark Gable's debut in White Man, apparently no longer exists. For the works that have survived, however, their long-awaited entry into the public domain is still something to celebrate. (Under the 56-year copyright term that existed until 1978, we would really have something to celebrate – works from 1963 would be entering the public domain in 2020!)
Works from 1925 are now open to all! The Center for the Study of the Public Domain at Duke Law School's blog covers the famous works which rise to the public domain on January 1st, 2021.
On January 1, 2021, copyrighted works from 1925 will enter the US public domain,1 where they will be free for all to use and build upon. These works include books such as F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, Virginia Woolf’s Mrs. Dalloway, Ernest Hemingway’s In Our Time, and Franz Kafka’s The Trial (in the original German), silent films featuring Harold Lloyd and Buster Keaton, and music ranging from the jazz standard Sweet Georgia Brown to songs by Gertrude “Ma” Rainey, W.C. Handy, and Fats Waller.
"So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessley into the past."
F. Scott Fitsgerald, The Great GatsbyThis is not just the famous last line from The Great Gatsby. It also encapsulates what the public domain is all about. A culture is a continuing conversation between present and past. On Public Domain Day, we all have a “green light,” in keeping with the Gatsby theme, to use one more year of that rich cultural past, without permission or fee.
1925 was a good year for music. Duke Ellington and Jelly Roll Morton were some of those active then. Though some consider it the best year so far for great books and many classics were published then, among them is the original German version of the all too relevant The Trial by Franz Kafka.
Previously:
(2020) Internet Archive Files Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Publisher Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
(2020) Internet Archive Ends “Emergency Library” Early to Appease Publishers
(2020) Project Gutenberg Public Domain Library Blocked in Italy for Copyright Infringement
(2020) ‘The Wonderful Wizard of Oz’ Turns 120
(2020) University Libraries Offer Online "Lending" of Scanned In-Copyright Books
(2019) The House Votes in Favor of Disastrous Copyright Bill
As noted a few days ago, many notable works from the 1920s have ascended to the public domain in the US this year, as of New Year's Day. Cartoon Brew asks, What Happens When 'Steamboat Willie' Hits The Public Domain In 2024? and briefly covers a bit of what the public is set to gain. Notably, the earliest iteration of Mickey Mouse will enter the public domain then as a result.
Assuming that 17 U.S.C. §§ 108, 203(a)(2), 301(c), 302, 303, 304(c)(2) is not modified yet again, be sure to observe the difference between trademarks and copyright.
Previously:
(2022) 2023's Public Domain is a Banger
(2022) Digitization Wars, Redux
(2022) Public Domain Day 2022
(2021) Public Domain Day in the USA: Works from 1925 are Open to All!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by canopic jug on Sunday January 02 2022, @05:30AM (10 children)
Since it would be natural to ask about Steamboat Willie [imdb.com], the film in which Mickey Mouse first showed up, I'll point out that it was released in 1928. That form of Mickey would therefore enter the public domain [duke.edu] in a few years, if the current schedule is kept. But Disney has so far been able to bend national politics every time that has been about to happen and buy new laws extending copyright in general. I'd link to some articles about Steamboat Willie but they all spin the situation badly from Disney's perspective, exclusively, and none of the recent ones I've seen have presented the public's advantage [theconversation.com] and the addition to national culture when the public domain expands.
Currently copyright is bundled within "Free Trade" treaties but never mentioned in the press before, during, or after what are nowadays, generally secret, non-democratic negotiations. So that is probably where Disney is lobbying at the moment, but being illegally secret there will be no oversight until the treaties are in place and considered a done deal.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 02 2022, @05:59AM (3 children)
I have a copy (highly illegal!) of Steamboat Willie. It kinda sucks as cinema, but I share it with my millions of friends on the internet. Disney was a supporter of Hitler. He needs to die, and have all his copyrights expire.
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Sunday January 02 2022, @07:07AM
Don't worry, Mein Kampf and his other works are already out of copyright [bbc.co.uk].
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 02 2022, @09:26PM (1 child)
" Disney was a supporter of Hitler. He needs to die, and have all his copyrights expire. "
Fuck you, you stupid Bolskevik's bitch. Hitler was right and Disney was much better for kids when Disney was still in charge. Now the Jews push anti-white, cultural marxist (jew) shit on unsuspecting kids of willfully ignorant and negligent slave parents.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 02 2022, @10:35PM
Little nazi boi is the one calling people slaves? Seems on brand!
(Score: 5, Funny) by krishnoid on Sunday January 02 2022, @06:26AM (1 child)
But the two original books that a couple beloved Disney characters [twitter.com] are based on have entered the public domain. With unintended (but probably expected) results to follow.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by canopic jug on Sunday January 02 2022, @06:44AM
They're just sue into oblivion anyone who writes about anything even remotely bear-shaped. And then buy out their copyrights for a few pennies when done.
Expect them to also make heavy use of trademark litigation and, as mentioned, secretly negotiated, illegal, undemocratic treaties with copyright and trademark riders.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 02 2022, @07:35AM (3 children)
What effect would copyright expiration have on the trademark of Mickey Mouse?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 02 2022, @09:52AM (2 children)
None. Trademark and copyright are two different types of intellectual property that do not overlap. So whomever wants to use Mickey Mouse would have to be sure that they are using the versions of Mickey Mouse no longer covered by copyright in a way that isn't actually covered by trademark.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 02 2022, @01:45PM (1 child)
And that on its own could lead to interesting legal battles to restrict the impact of public domain. This could be seen soon with people trying to make their own original works based on Superman and Batman.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 02 2022, @11:14PM
It depends on the work. You would be free to use all the Batman or Superman elements that are not covered by copyright. You could even sell them without DC's permission. Neither of those would violate their trademark. Selling "official Batman toothpaste" or exact duplicates of old issues without transformation or any attempts at distinguishing yours would be blocked by trademark. The battle would only be interesting if you didn't already know where the lines were or it changed longstanding law.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 02 2022, @06:02AM (4 children)
with my pussy all day.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 02 2022, @08:01PM
Say goodnight, barb
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 02 2022, @09:27PM
that's not a pussy, Bradley!
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Gaaark on Sunday January 02 2022, @10:53PM (1 child)
and you are unanimous in that, right Mrs. Slocombe?
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday January 04 2022, @01:12AM
How is this off-topic?
Mrs. Slocombe plays with her pussy all the time!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Are_You_Being_Served%3F [wikipedia.org]
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 4, Funny) by MIRV888 on Sunday January 02 2022, @09:10AM (12 children)
If the work of / music / art is still bringing the is Cheddar. This supersedes the greater good.
The Twain estate should still be collecting on his works.
Shakespeare's descendants? Ripped off by cultural elite and ivory tower cronies.
Disney finally had the balls to step up and pay congress to essentially give him permanent copyright on his hard work.
If you perform The Lion King with your 3rd grade students, what you need to do is pay for the permission to use Big D's creations. They belong to him even though he is dead.
Because Disney will sue your grade school out of existence.
Don't test the D. They don't play.
($3500 to perform The Lion King at a children's grade school play.)
I know this because Mom was teaching the kids. Slaughter Elementary, Louisville, KY
(Score: 5, Informative) by canopic jug on Sunday January 02 2022, @10:08AM (1 child)
I'll write because you're missing the point of allowing copyright in the first place, or else the sarcasm has gone over my head. The constitution mentions it specifically in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the constitution [congress.gov], and notice the inclusion of the words promote and limited:
Its specific purpose for even existing at all is to advance culture and knowledge, not line particular corporate pockets for eternity. However, now that most people are raised by social media and not actual people, and even the older population has willingly submitted to years of revisionism by the same social media, few know their own laws regarding governance.
Now just think how Disney Corporation is going to be once DRM is infecting the WWW more widely.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 02 2022, @02:59PM
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Sunday January 02 2022, @04:35PM (7 children)
Apparently Walt died in 1966, so if they keep getting the line pushed back every 10 years it's mostly been whoever is running the company since.
I just did a bit of searching around, and I'm starting to wonder where all this "Walt Disney was a Nazi" stuff comes from, as all I found was that he "gave Nazi propagandist Leni Riefenstahl a tour of his studio a month after Kristallnacht"...which, I mean...Walt was in propaganda for the U.S., too?* Not a good luck but it hardly proves he was a Nazi.
*oh, no wait, that was a few years later. but they were still both involved in the high levels of the movie industry at the time
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 02 2022, @09:44PM (4 children)
"Nazi" is an anti-white and anti-NSDAP Jewish slur.
Poland, England, the USA and Russia are/were all Shabbos Goy slave states who never should have allowed themselves to be used against Germany. Hitler was just trying to free his people from the clutches of the evil, subversive International Jew.
https://odysee.com/@martyleeds33:6/069---We-Need-To-Talk-About-The-Jews:d [odysee.com]
Whites in those countries were duped (or forced in some cases) to murder righteous German soldiers and murder and rape completely innocent women and children. Shameful.
The US should have allied with Germany and killed the communist Jews in Russia and gave the White Russians their country back (or the part they could actually handle).
https://odysee.com/@stpierrs:f/Adolf-Hitler-The-Greatest-Story-Never-Told-(Full).mp4:3 [odysee.com]
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 02 2022, @10:33PM (2 children)
Well, never thought I'd actually see someone on SN literally defend Nazis, yet here we are! If there is a God then you are impotent and we'll never see another iteration of whatever is wrong with you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 03 2022, @12:25AM
Not the previous AC, but I'll bite. Yeah, I could defend Nazi's to you if it was relevent. Here, watch:
"Hitler? Hitler did a lot of things wrong. I'll even go so far as to say he did most things wrong. But he didn't do everything wrong, there are things he did right. He was an evil man for initiating what we today call the holocaust, but that's no reason to pretend absolutely everything he ever did was evil and misguided."
Do you see how that works? Refusing to paint with a broad stroked brush, refusing to throw the baby out with the bathwater, call it what you will. The world isn't digital, it's analog. Totally right and totally wrong don't enter in to it.
I could defend the devil himself in a debate, if I had to.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 03 2022, @03:14AM
New here? Oh wait, you're the AC whose never heard of himself.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday January 03 2022, @01:21AM
Well, never thought I would see the day when somebody railing about the Jews is actually sort of on-topic. It's true that Hitler had a total rage-boner for the Jews.
But of course I'm still going to mod it Troll
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 02 2022, @11:58PM
He didn't pay homage to the Democrat Party, therefore he is Nazi.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday January 04 2022, @03:26PM
There were definitively anti-nazi films produced by Disney:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_for_Death [wikipedia.org]
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 03 2022, @04:39PM (1 child)
Derivative licensing fees for illegally copying Kimba the White Lion?
Or Lucas for stealing the plot of The Hidden Fortress'?
Or Star Trek DS9 for stealing the plot of Babylon 5, including the PahWraith/The Shadow guys? (And in an ironic crossover, Checkov played Bessel in B5!)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 03 2022, @05:09PM
Disney made its animated feature fortune on the back of public domain (Snow White, Cinderella, etc.).
How is it a crossover if Checkov wasn't a DS9 character?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 02 2022, @01:25PM (1 child)
I'm obviously wrong, but I would swear it was in the early 30s. Am I remembering it wrong, or was I right and that the laws were changed along the way?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 02 2022, @05:27PM
I guess at the time it was probably 1923 and I must have read it as 1932 or something. Who knows?
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 02 2022, @10:28PM
Pooh has been all about big bucks for many decades. It will be interesting to see if any SLAPP suits get filed or not. I like how the Duke website used Pooh images. :)