|When does a work go into the public domain?|
A definitive answer
|I've been trying to figure out if a particular work is in the public domain. This turns out to be very tricky.|
First, copyright law has changed over time. I finally found a definitive page that describes when a work would go into the public domain (barring any more stupid extensions like the Bono copyright extension). This can be found [url=http://www.unc.edu/%7Eunclng/public-d.htm]here[/url].
So any works published before 1923 are in the public domain.
Since the work that I'm interested in was published in 1950 with a copyright notice, then I have to determine if the copyright was renewed. If it's been renewed, it won't go out of copyright for a long time (2045). If not, it has been in the public domain since 1978. To determine that, I need to look at the Library of Congress renewal pages. These can be found online. For books, there are scans of the pages digital.library.upenn.edu/books/cce/ for works renewed up to 1978. For works renewed after 1978 you can search www.loc.gov/copyright/search/cohm.html using a searchable database.
Renewed works have to be renewed in the 28th year after their initial publication. Unfortunately, some works published in 1950 were renewed using the old system in 1977 and are not in the searchable database, so I have to resort to looking at the scans.
Up until 1973, the records were kept alphabetically, but after that they are listed by renewal number. Irritating once more. So for works originally copyrighted between 1945 and 1950 have no easy way to search. I have to download all ~100 pages of tifs and review them by hand.
Anyone know how this applies across national boundaries?
I know some aspects differ, but do the time limits hold true internationally?
I was under the impression that copyright laws varied from country to country... and so the plot thickens. Can you violate a US copyright legally if the country you're in doesn't follow US copyright law?
|I know that the life of the author plus 70 years is pretty standard across national boundaries. Everything I wrote only applies to the U.S.|
I should add two more facts, anything written before 1882, regardless of when it was copyrighted will become public domain on January 1, 2003. And anyone who died more than 70 years ago (rounded up to the next whole year) will also be public domain. [url=http://www.llrx.com/features/digitization2.htm#2003]reference[/url].
Of course, I'm not a lawyer, just distilling facts from various web sites, so get professional help if it's truly important.
Disney is well known for lobbying for extensions and exceptions to the rule for Mickey Mouse, etc., and of course their efforts will invariably impact the status of other intellectual property...
It was originally author's life +20 years, if I'm not mistaken. I think Disney may have been the ones who got the baseline expanded to +70 years in the first place.
But then you hear about manufacturing operations in China, for instance, that duplicate software and music CDs in full violation of US copyrights... what can be realistically done about that, if their gov't refuses to recognize the validity of US/Int'l copyright law? (Other than trade sanctions, etc.)
The Gershwins is another interesting example. The music is out of copyright as George has been dead more than 50 years, but the lyrics are still in copyright as Ira is still alive. So you can record the music without paying royalties, but as soon as you add a singer...
Kinda OT but interesting all the same.
As to China, well they do have copyright laws, but not the infrastructure to enforce them. And even then, when they are enforced, the contraband ends up back on the street quick smart. How do I know this?.?.?
It was originally (US) 14 years, plus an option to renew for another 14, and applied to maps, charts and books. It also did not cover derivative works - ie I write a book and copywrite it, you could still write a play based on it, etc.
The founders viewed copyright, like corporations, as potentially monopolistic and destructive to science and art, and grudgingly admitted both only with very limited terms and powers. I think they were right.
I think they were right.
I'm inclined to agree... ;) Copyrights and patents both seem to have become mangled, hulking messes of their original selves.
|There is an article posted at [url=http://www.redherring.com/insider/2002/10/roast-pig-copyright-102202.html]Red Herring[/url] about exactly this issue. It was written by Lawrence Lessig, a professor of Law at Stanford University. |
There is currently no definate copyright law that is accepted world wide. They are working on creating such an act or law to be administered by most regions of the world.
|Although the rules abound and are enshrined in various laws such as The Copyright Designs and Patents Act (UK), the bottom line is that there really is no effective copyright.|
Copyright is more about getting a good lawyer, and then proving ownership of the copyrighted word at a particular point in time.
For those interested UK side, there is this nice succinct document!
OK - from reading the UK regulations - copyright in the UK expires 50 years after the death - as opposed to 70 years in the US.
I guess the safe option is work to the longest.
|You can find a "webliography" of useful resources on the topic from the [url=http://wwwsecure.law.cornell.edu/topics/copyright.html]Legal Information Institute at Cornell Univeristy.[/url]|
Info on both U.S. and International copyright issues.
[url=http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/] Chapter 3 of Title 17[/url] of the United States Code specifically deals with duration of copyright.
Copyright law in the European Union was harmonised about ten years ago. Generally the position is that copyright in a work lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years from the end of the year of the death of the author. However, this only applies to works that have been published. If the work is published after the death of the author then the copyright lasts for 70 years from first publication. In Britain and Ireland the position used to be 50 years. Following harmonisation some works which had entered the public domain under the 50 year rule came back into copyright because of the standardisation on 70 years.
|I attended a conference on copyright last May, so here is the sum of what I know:|
What was mentioned before is correct: work is copyrighted for the life of the author plus 70 years. Work is copyrighted the moment it is created (as opposed to published) and the author does not need to register it for protection. You can however register your work (or web site) with the US copyright office http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/ for $35 for protection in case someone challenges the ownership of your work. Once you register, you can record your copyright with the US customs (if you live in the US).
When you include the copyright notice (the word and the symbol) it is necessary to include the year of first publication as well. More info here: http://www.benedict.com/info/info.asp
If you are more concerned with protecting your work it is a great idea to use the copyright symbol on everything you publish. You can recover up to $30000 in damages per infringement if no symbol is present in the work, but you can recover up to $150000 if the symbol is present.
As for the international law, here is the PDF from the US copyright office: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl100.pdf
Here is the web site of Dr. Kahn who was the main speaker at the conference I attended:
My own philosophy is that if I did not create it, I have no right to use it without permission. At times I would write a letter and I would ask for permission to use someone's work, and usually I get it.
|barring any more stupid extensions like the Bono copyright extension |
I fail to see why extending copyright is "stupid". What is wrong with a company like Disney, whose very existence depends upon certain materials, to want to retain the rights to those materials?
And I find it very interesting that many people seem to consider patents to be "stupid" as well. Come on, drug companies, for example, spend hundreds of millions of dollars developing their products - why on earth is it okay for their rights to expire in a few years and thus be produced by some companies which did not have anything to do with that development effort?
Sometimes these issues are presented as black and white, and, well, there are two sides to a fence. There are good reasons why these laws exist.
It's now 94 years from the death of author in the US... but the law extending it from 70 to 94 is the subject of a court challenge Eldred v Ashcroft currently being heard by the Supreme Court.
Copyright is meant to protect things for a reasonable length of time. The way copyright law has been progressing, works are now protected perpetually. If Disney has their way, Steamboat Willy will never be in the public domain. That is the point being argued in Eldred v Ashcroft.
As long as the author was diligent about renewing, no work written since 1923 will enter the public domain before 2018, except for works written before 1882 but published later, or written by people who died more than 70 years ago. When 2017 rolls around, I wouldn't be surprised to get another copyright extension. No work written since I was one year old (1964) will enter the public domain in my lifetime unless I live to an extraordinary age.
As a bonus, Congress has deemed that any work published between 1978-01-01 and 2002-12-31 is automatically protected until 2047-12-31 regardless of when the author died.
As I was looking through an entire year of copyright renewal notices from 1977 (renewing works from 1949-1950), I noticed that there were a couple of entities that did the majority of renewing: Disney, Superman, Tarzan, and West lawbooks. They had hundreds of renewals each in a single year--maybe half of all renewals. When Congress stopped requiring renewing, the Library of Congress lost thousands of dollars in renewal fees from these companies.
Incidentally, as far as I can tell, the work I was concerned about is in the public domain, since I couldn't find a renewal record. Since it is so hard to be sure, I emailed the publisher that republished the original work telling them that I thought it was in the public domain and prove me wrong.