SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Saturday January 02 2021, @11:51AM (3 children)
So, the problem is that if Steamboat Willie ever enters public domain, then other people can use Mickey Mouse (at least in his early version) without paying Disney. The Mouse doesn't want that, and bribes US legislators as needed to prevent it. The last time it was close to being public domain, it was musical-has-been-turned-congressman Sonny Bono leading the effort to extend copyright terms.
Lawrence Lessig sued in an attempt to stop it, arguing that the extension of copyright terms for already existing works wasn't the purpose of copyright, but lost.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @09:01PM
That's not factually correct. Mickey Mouse is trademarked and copyrighted. They might be able to use that particular short for whatever purposes they want to, they would still be restricted by trademark. It's a bit like how Sherlock Holmes exists in a state where it's partially protected and partially not.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Nuke on Saturday January 02 2021, @10:23PM (1 child)
No it does not mean that. All it means is that a cinema or TV company can screen Steamboat Willie without paying a royalty to and having permission from Disney. MM himself remains Disney's property - ie no-one else can make a new film featuring him, at least not without paying Disney.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 03 2021, @10:13PM
No it absolutely does mean that. Public domain means that the fictional work can now be used freely by the public. Similar to how novels in public domain can be quoted, or characters, settings, plots, and more can be used or adapted etc., the same applies to other types of works including animation. People can now include their own "Steamboat Willie" characters on their own works. They aren't free to use new designs, characters, or characteristics from later uses of the character. But the character as it is in Steamboat Willie, is fair game for use by the public. And it is worth noting that Trademark won't protect them either under Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox.
For a more nuanced look Ars has an article [arstechnica.com] as does the NYU Journal of Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law [nyu.edu]