14 ms·

What will enter the public domain in 2024?

345 points by WallyFunk 3y ago

dvh 3y ago
Corridor Crew plans something with Mickey Mouse on January 1st.
- codetrotter 3y ago
  Let’s conspire to make sure that said video gets upvoted to the top. (It’s not vote manipulation, because I have no relation to corridor crew.) A gentleman’s agreement, if you will.
yk 3y ago
The mouse via Steamboat Willie is scheduled to enter public domain? Guess we can look forward to quite eventful three weeks before the end of the year, while Disney is frantically trying to prevent that outcome.
- nickthegreek 3y ago
  They wont. Corridor Crew did a good little video on this topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2dIvUAd5QE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2dIvUAd5QE
- sp0rk 3y ago
  It's my understanding that they still retain a lot of control over Mickey Mouse indefinitely because he is trademarked as the face of their company.
  - mod50ack 3y ago
    There's a distinction between trademark and copyright, and the ability to imply a Disney source and to include Mickey in your work are not controlled in the same way. Using the 1928 Mouse in your work while making it clear your work doesn't originate with Disney wouldn't violate trademark law.
    - bryanrasmussen 3y ago
      that would first of all take a lot of work to make it absolutely clear, a lot of work to use the mouse, and finally a lot of work to fight the lawsuits until it was established that you didn't violate and could do what you were doing. In short nobody but a crazy person or someone with a real deep artistic need that absolutely required that version of Mickey to work would ever pursue it.
      - resolutebat 3y ago
        It took one year from Winnie the Pooh entering the public domain to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie-the-Pooh:_Blood_and_Honey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie-the-Pooh:_Blood_and_Hon... And AFAIK they were not sued, despite being ever so slightly off brand for Disney.
        bazoom42 3y ago
        Plenty of Disney characters like Snow White or Cinderella have been public domain all the time without it hurting Disney.
        dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
        I'm working on a "Pedophile Willy" adaptation of Steamboat Willy, complete with raw (stick figure) sex scenes and Willy promoting the "pedophile lifestyle". Lets see how that goes.
        bazoom42 3y ago
        Nobody will care about your stick figures. 1960s underground comix did all that 50 years ago when it was still edgy.
        bryanrasmussen 3y ago
        OK, yeah I remember seeing that - not seeing the film but seeing it existed. On the other hand that is understood as a property that originally was not Disney. I think as well Disney protection of its characters might be a more ingrained than just normal copyright protectionism - Walt was notoriously a bastard to anyone who messed around with not treating Mickey with the respect he deserved.
  - jerf 3y ago
    That's almost the most infuriating thing about their copyright grabs; it hardly even gets them anything of interest. They're not making any money on the actual Steamboat Willie movie. We're still a ways away from anything of even modest commercial interest from Disney entering the public domain, and even when Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs does finally come into public domain, I can't imagine it meaningfully affects their bottom line. The ability to roll into a store and just buy it isn't going to meaningfully affect Disney. Meanwhile, they still have all the trademark control, which itself means you can't really do anything to Steamboat Willie that would "offend" Disney. (I'm going to just leave that vague for now.) Meanwhile, to keep this at-best modestly interesting historical film locked up for those last few marginal drops of IP, they've kept the entire rest of the culture locked up. Hell of a cost society pays just for that. I'd almost rather we just grant Disney copyright in perpetuity if it would shut them up and leave the rest of the culture alone.
    - coldpie 3y ago
      > Meanwhile, to keep this at-best modestly interesting historical film locked up Well, it's not just the film, it's also everything in it, including (that design of) the characters themselves. When that enters the public domain, anyone can use (that design of) those characters for any purpose, including in their own works that have nothing to do with the Steamboat film. I can go make a platforming video game ala Cuphead using those characters and sell it. While I think that's a good thing for society, you can probably understand why Disney doesn't.
      - bluGill 3y ago
        Those characters are trademarked, and Disney has a good case that they are still using those trademarks. Trademark is different from copyright - it doesn't expire, but also has more use it or lose it parts, along with defend it or lose it. Disney is doing both with most of the characters so if you try to use Micky mouse in anything you are likely to lose a lawsuit. Consult a lawyer for exact details. there are things you can do with the characters after this expires, but the rules are very complex and I don't really understand them.
      - 3y ago
- jader201 3y ago
  > It was close to entering the public domain in the U.S. several times: each time, copyright protection was extended. It could have entered the public domain in four different years: first in 1955, renewed to 1986, then to 2003 by the Copyright Act of 1976, and then to 2023 by the Copyright Term Extension Act (also known pejoratively as the “Mickey Mouse Protection Act”) of 1998. It has been claimed that these extensions were a response by Congress to extensive lobbying by The Walt Disney Company.
  - disneycember 3y ago
    So now we can begin to undo all the damage Disney has done by extending copyright beyond any reasonable timeframe, right?
    - bluGill 3y ago
      This undos nothing. We just limit damage to what has already been done for this one film. there are other things still in copyright that wouldn't have been, and that damage is still being done, and will until that copyright expires.
- kevinmchugh 3y ago
  It's been obvious for a few years that Disney wasn't going to pursue extending copyright anymore. It would have been politically difficult at any point in the last few years as the Senate does so little.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    More importantly, those who care about the public domain were not paying attention the last time. They are now, so Disney realizes that it will be a harder sell. As soon as they get someone to propose a laws letters will be written. There is one thing more powerful than money in politics and that is votes. Letters to congress are a proxy for votes and so nobody will risk another extension.
  - hinkley 3y ago
    The timelessness of those old cartoons has waned considerably. GenX was already getting reruns of Disney and Looney Tunes cartoons that were aimed at Boomers. As the boomers are aging out, a lot of the slices of both domestic life and leisure time in these cartoons are something alien. Women in the kitchen? Hunting rabbits? And with a shotgun? Really? Itchy and Scratchy are Tom and Jerry ad absurdum. The Flintstones were somewhere between Tom and Jerry and The Honeymooners. Most of this stuff does not deserve a replay.
    - bongodongobob 3y ago
      Neither of those things are alien. A world exists outside of whatever metropolis you think is the center of the universe. Millions and millions of people hunt and millions and millions of women are primary caretakers or stay at home moms.
      - chownie 3y ago
        I would say the world shown in those cartoons is alien to viewers of today. There were millions of hunters and millions of stay at home mothers in the 40's during Tom & Jerry's original run, but there's many fewer millions now. Consider: Women jumped from a third working in 1950 to just over two-thirds (of those who have children under 6, even) working as of the year 2000. We've had another two decades and change plus recessions since then, how much smaller could the demographic be?
- TonyTrapp 3y ago
  They probably realized by now there is not much value left in that old version of Mickey. It's the newer self of Mickey (different looks and character) that brings in the money, but even that is becoming less relevant these days, I think? That's why they have bought so much IP which appeals to more people than Mickey Mouse.
  - hinkley 3y ago
    Someone pointed out to me that Winnie the Pooh brings in more money than Mickey, and his copyright is just about the same timeframe. Everyone assumes The Mouse is what Disney is shitting bricks over and it's just as likely it's the silly ol' bear instead.
    - Closi 3y ago
      Hmm I’m not sure - that might be true for movies but is it true for merch? Think of all the Mickey ears that get sold at the parks. Either way there is a boatload of Mickey related revenue still…
      - thfuran 3y ago
        Disney doesn't need to rely on IP protection to maintain a hand in merch sales in their own parks.
        Closi 3y ago
        Sure, but the claim was that Winnie the Pooh currently brings in more money than Mickey.
      - hinkley 3y ago
        I don’t have the link anymore but at the time I was sent to a breakdown that was above $5B for all Winnie, and around 4 for Mickey and friends. Obviously not nothing, and the fact they are close together doesn’t give Disney a ramp down once PD starts affecting them.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  What would happen in practice if someone tried to use the public domain Mickey for something? I assume that regardless of the legal status, you'd still have a fun time with Disney lawyers proving in court that you had the right to use public domain Mickey. Is Mickey also a trademark (which never expires) and anything using public domain Mickey would be too similar to their trademark?
  - hinkley 3y ago
    Yeah Mickey is a trademark. Now I could remake Steamboat Willy with characters that weren't trademarked. Previously I could not depict either without getting sued.
- SirMaster 3y ago
  Disney spent the last decade or so growing their business (through large acquisitions) to where Mickey is now just small fraction of their worth. So they likely don't really care anymore. Plus it's only the old, old design of Mickey, not the current version they have been using for awhile that looks more normal to most people these days.
  - gostsamo 3y ago
    They trademarked everything they could about him, so it is still a valuable part of the portfolio.
  - ssgodderidge 3y ago
    While Mickey may represent a small portion of revenue, it (he?) accounts for a large portion of the Disney brand. It's one of the most recognizable cartoons of all time
    - libraryatnight 3y ago
      When I was a kid Mickey had transcended movie character, he was like the Santa of the Disney world. the M.C. The spirit of Walt in some ways. I think I'd seen maybe one special or fantasia with him actually starring, and even that was after I knew him. My nephews have seen less of him and yet he's still something of a magic benevolent being to them. He represents so much more than a character, I think in a time when they're expanding portfolios they NEED to keep Mickey to stay Disney if they want to - and imo they should want to.
  - furyofantares 3y ago
    I was shocked to learn my 7yo daughter associates Disney with Mickey and Minnie. She's watched like one Mickey cartoon on Disney+, and she's seen way more Disney stuff than that. Never been to Disneyland. But somehow to her, Disney === Mickey/Minnie. Branding is wild stuff.
    - jl6 3y ago
      Mickey’s silhouette is still used in various Disney logos, so it’s not too wild a connection to make.
- wonger_ 3y ago
  The MSCHF art collective had a project a few years ago based on this public domain timing: https://mschfxfamousmouse.com/ https://mschfxfamousmouse.com/ > We are making and selling the idea of a MSCHF “Famous Mouse” artwork now, that will not exist–even as a design–until 2024. If you purchase this artwork, we give you a temporary token with a unique code that can be redeemed for the actual piece in 3 years.
qwertthrowway 3y ago
If something is in the public domain, is it still accessible for copying or can companies still profit off of selling public domain material? For example, if I “pirate” a public domain text published by some company, am I in the wrong?
- mod50ack 3y ago
  You can sell public domain materials all you want. And whenever anyone else copies stuff in the public domain, even if they copy it from your copy, they're not infringing copyright.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    But be careful as when someone publishes something public domain they often have things that are not public domain in their version. They can "fix" errors, add artwork, introductions and so on.
    - mod50ack 3y ago
      Yes, of course, the added content would not be in the public domain. Although it should be note that certain changes such as fixing grammatical errors/proofreading would not be considered copyrightable.
- joshlemer 3y ago
  IANAL but my understanding is that public domain material can be published in a copyright protected form, yes. For instance, Beethoven's 5th symphony is in the public domain, but if a publisher starts selling the sheet music for it, then that content itself is still protected. So any contributions they've made such as annotations or formatting, cover art, etc are protected but the underlying content is not.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - JKCalhoun 3y ago
dry_soup 3y ago
So the works of J.R.R. Tolkien, who died in 1973, will enter the public domain in New Zealand (and other countries) next year? Or do they not, as he presumably published his works in the UK? Or they enter the public domain in New Zealand et al. but not in other countries?
- mod50ack 3y ago
  In Life+50 countries, they'll enter the public domain. In the UK and other Life+70 countries, they won't.
  - galangalalgol 3y ago
    So can they host the Gutenberg project in NZ then? There is no feasible way for people to prevent people from downloading the hobbit. They couldn't stop music or movie downloads except by adopting a subscription model that effectively reduced the prices. These files are tiny and the ethical case against it is so much harder to make. Edit: also, these are the sorts of books that don't get lumped into subscriptions and are often missing from digital libraries.
    - skissane 3y ago
      > So can they host the Gutenberg project in NZ then? There is already an Australian branch of Project Gutenberg, which hosts some works which (for complex/obscure legal reasons) are still under copyright in the US but now public domain in Australia (e.g. the works of George Orwell). I don’t think there is a New Zealand equivalent, but I’m sure if someone was sufficiently motivated it could happen https://gutenberg.net.au/ https://gutenberg.net.au/
    - cjpearson 3y ago
      They can, but they'd have to make those downloads only available to NZ users. This is also why American sites need to block EU users or comply with the GDPR. You can't just pick a server location with the laxest laws. IIRC, Gutenberg already does this, limiting access from Germany which has a stricter copyright than the US.
aaron695 3y ago
[dead]
tiffanyh 3y ago
Will software become “public domain” over time?
- HWR_14 3y ago
  Yes. In the US this happens 95 years after the initial creation of the software. Many other countries match this time period. Other countries may recognize a shorter copyright, but I believe no country will recognize a longer one.
  - zare_st 3y ago
    What exactly happens in 2100 when AutoCAD 2005 goes "public domain" but the company does not need to provide the source code, there is no licensing server available, dongle support, whatnot. Also the company still retains the AutoCAD trademark so you cannot legally distribute modified copies of 2005 if they still contain AutoCAD/Autodesk branding in them. That's for 2005. For today's software that depend on connectivity, nobody gets anything if the clients are pushed to public domain. You still lack the entire infrastructure. The server code is not a product, its a service implemented by the proprietor, that's beyond this law.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- jerf 3y ago
  Yes, the foundation of all software licensing is copyright law and as such all such licensing becomes null and void once it is in the public domain. However, given that the copyright horizon is only up to 1928 in the US, you've got a ways to go before that is even theoretically a concern. There was a window of time in which works had to be registered to have a copyright, which is where some of the later surprisingly-public-domain works come from, when the registration wasn't done or wasn't renewed properly. It's possible that some software in that era could be unregistered. However, I'm having a bit of trouble finding a good term for that era and so I can't quite look it up to see if it overlaps a period of time in which software might exist. Any help appreciated from respondants. Of course, for that to even matter, someone has to have a copy of the software to actually put into the public, and software utility without hardware to run it is pretty limited.
aworks 3y ago
"The Passion of Joan of Arc directed by Carl Theodor Dreyer" As old, silent films go, this is quite good. In the past, this might mean a cheap DVD release. Not sure the signficance of public domain for movies these days.
- peruvian 3y ago
  This film already has a 2K release by Criterion (vhttps://www.criterion.com/films/228-the-passion-of-joan-of-arc https://www.criterion.com/films/228-the-passion-of-joan-of-a...), probably other publishers. It gets show in theaters in some cities at least once a year. I think for films, the restoration/HD prints will still belong to someone, and that's what people are interested in nowadays anyway.
- wharvle 3y ago
  Piling on with more social proof for anyone browsing this thread for recommendations: I’ve seen 50ish non-comedy silent films, all reputedly-very-good ones, and this might be my favorite. Top 5, no question, likely top 3, and I’d have to think about it and maybe do some re-watches, but possibly #1.
- thebrid 3y ago
  One of my favourite releases of 2023 was a well restored edition of Laurel & Hardy's first year (1927) of films[1]. The copyright holder had neglected them somewhat with them only being released in ancient DVD-era masters. This new release gives the films a full digital restoration based on the best archival materials from around the world. I genuinely think without public domain day, this never would have happened and I very much hope we see a similar edition of their 1928 films next year. [1] https://www.rogerebert.com/streaming/laurel-and-hardy-year-one-is-another-fine-blu-ray-from-flicker-alley https://www.rogerebert.com/streaming/laurel-and-hardy-year-o...
ChrisArchitect 3y ago
Related 3 days ago: Public Domain Day 2024 Is Coming: Here's What to Know https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38586978 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38586978
sirodoht 3y ago
What if we didn't wait for things to enter the public domain but instead they were born right into it? I have started a book publishing company that publishes new, public domain books only: https://laniakeabooks.org/ https://laniakeabooks.org/
- jawns 3y ago
  How do authors make a living by giving away all their work for free?
  - Zambyte 3y ago
    A book in the public domain can be sold, so probably by selling books. Or other jobs. This seems really interesting to me as someone who does not write books full time.
    - knome 3y ago
      They established early copyright because publishers would just print copies of books and never pay the authors at all. The middlemen aren't going to do it voluntarily, and if they do, they'll be undercut by those that don't.
      - Zambyte 3y ago
        Authors can sell their own books even if someone else publishes it. Especially if it's published into the public domain.
        midasuni 3y ago
        And someone else can take the content and print it and sell it themselves
        Zambyte 3y ago
        Wouldn't that be neat :-)
onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
Actually pretty exciting for books. Agatha Christie, W.E.B. DuBois, Evelyn Waugh, Nabokov, D.H. Lawrence, H.G. Wells, Virginia Woolf, and A.A. Milne all have books entering in 2024. And a Brecht play (The Threepenny Opera - one of his best, at that), and a Eugene O'Neill (Strange Interlude)!
- playingalong 3y ago
  Not trying to contest, just asking... Brecht died in 1956, so +70 years (as per German law) would be end of 2026, right?
  - pard68 3y ago
    That would depend on the country right? USA doesn't have a life+, so it's a hard date of 1928.
    - AtlasBarfed 3y ago
      Until they bribe the supremes to revise the ruling.
    - prosody 3y ago
      To be precise, the US does have life+70 for works published after 1978. The rest of the world went that route and the US begrudgingly followed, but the works published before the switchover date are grandfathered into the old system. The US copyright regime is a real rats' nest of complexity, see https://guides.library.cornell.edu/copyright/publicdomain https://guides.library.cornell.edu/copyright/publicdomain
      - account42 3y ago
        > The US copyright regime is a real rats' nest of complexity The likely alternative would be (even more) retroactive copyright extensions which would be much worse.
bobse 3y ago
[dead]
User23 3y ago
The reality of course is there is no public domain to speak of in the USA, except for abandoned works, unless you have vast financial resources. Suppose the early Disney stuff somehow actually enters the public domain. Anyone that tries to use it is going to get absolutely buried in trademark lawsuits and the usual tidal wave of spurious motions.
tezza 3y ago
“Lady Chatterley’s Zombie Lover” coming right up. Probably direct to Netflix
Imnimo 3y ago
This feels like one of those things where a UI designer tries to make the most comically inefficient way to convey mundane information.
code51 3y ago
Did the works of Django Reinhardt enter the public domain?
- tgv 3y ago
  I suppose this compositions and arrangements do, to the extent they were actually written down. The improvised parts may not be, since e.g. Grappeli died in 1997. Recordings take more time to enter PD. But IANACRL.
PrimeMcFly 3y ago
Looks like Tarzan is entering the public domain, that's interesting.
- panzagl 3y ago
  The Burroughs estate was Disney before Disney was Disney
redog 3y ago
No music?
jedberg 3y ago
Disney Animation has been using a clip from Steamboat Willy (and the song) as their opening bumper for years. It was originally done when John Lassiter took over Disney Animation as an homage to his idol Walt. But some IP lawyers have said that it may also make it impossible to use Steamboat Willy in the public domain because they could claim you're violating their copyright on their bumper. Will be interesting to see if that gets tested.
- humanrebar 3y ago
  I always thought it would be establishing "Willie" as precisely a trademark to invoke that side of IP law.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
  > could claim you're violating their copyright on their bumper That's not how it works, the use of Steamboat Willy in the bumper and public domain use just share the same source material, and Disney can't claim copyright on that source material since they no longer own it. Someone would have to copy the actual bumper to make it copyright infringement.
  - tga_d 3y ago
    They presumably meant trademark, not copyright. I.e., if you use Steamboat Willie in anything that Disney could plausibly make with Steamboat Willie, they could argue that the character isn't being used as a character, but to imply endorsement by Disney, violating the trademark.
    - BizarroLand 3y ago
      I'd take that bet. I know 3 different law firms with deep pockets that know that when Disney loses the case they will have to pay all of the lawyer fees. After all, that portion of Mickey Mouse will also be entering public domain, so Disney won't own Mickey exclusively anymore either. Same as the non-red shirt version of Winnie the Pooh.
1-6 3y ago
Steamboat Willie seems perfectly adaptable for AI animation. Can’t wait to see new cartoons.
fdgjgbdfhgb 3y ago
Prokofiev, nice! I recently realised that his music was still under copyright, same for Shostakovich... Death + 70 years is a really long time
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
brlcad 3y ago
Not quite in the same vein, but the patent for T-splines expires in 2024. Big news for 3D modeling systems.
- alsodumb 3y ago
  Can you add some context on what T-splines are and why it's a big news? I kinda know splines in a trajectory planning sense but never heard of T-splines. Thanks!
  - qbrass 3y ago
    The important part is that compared to B-splines, it lets you reduce the data size of a closed form surface by reducing the amount of data needed to describe it. https://web.archive.org/web/20120710171813/http://cagd.cs.byu.edu/%7Etspline/innovation/papers/tspline.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20120710171813/http://cagd.cs.by... The first 3 pictures explain it better than I can describe it, the rest is math going into how it's implemented.
Waterluvian 3y ago
I’d love some site you can add things to, and people can simply upvote if they think it’s a noteworthy item. And then I can subscribe to a calendar for the top 100.
Sytten 3y ago
I always found it weird that patents are a flat 20y but somehow copyright is life + X years. For me it should be a similar 20-30y period. How does life even work for a corporation?
- ksjskskskkk 3y ago
  it doesn't. companies can't author works, just own them. that's the reason de etre of the silly "made by ai" discussions.
slavik81 3y ago
The list is short for Canada: nothing. As part of the renegotiated NAFTA agreement, all copyright terms have been extended by twenty years.
dwhit 3y ago
I do think it’s bad that almost everyone will die before any work that influenced them enters the public domain

345 points by WallyFunk 3y ago

dvh 3y ago

Corridor Crew plans something with Mickey Mouse on January 1st.

codetrotter 3y ago
Let’s conspire to make sure that said video gets upvoted to the top. (It’s not vote manipulation, because I have no relation to corridor crew.) A gentleman’s agreement, if you will.

yk 3y ago

The mouse via Steamboat Willie is scheduled to enter public domain? Guess we can look forward to quite eventful three weeks before the end of the year, while Disney is frantically trying to prevent that outcome.

nickthegreek 3y ago
They wont. Corridor Crew did a good little video on this topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2dIvUAd5QE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2dIvUAd5QE
sp0rk 3y ago
It's my understanding that they still retain a lot of control over Mickey Mouse indefinitely because he is trademarked as the face of their company.
- mod50ack 3y ago
  There's a distinction between trademark and copyright, and the ability to imply a Disney source and to include Mickey in your work are not controlled in the same way. Using the 1928 Mouse in your work while making it clear your work doesn't originate with Disney wouldn't violate trademark law.
  - bryanrasmussen 3y ago
    that would first of all take a lot of work to make it absolutely clear, a lot of work to use the mouse, and finally a lot of work to fight the lawsuits until it was established that you didn't violate and could do what you were doing. In short nobody but a crazy person or someone with a real deep artistic need that absolutely required that version of Mickey to work would ever pursue it.
    - resolutebat 3y ago
      It took one year from Winnie the Pooh entering the public domain to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie-the-Pooh:_Blood_and_Honey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie-the-Pooh:_Blood_and_Hon... And AFAIK they were not sued, despite being ever so slightly off brand for Disney.
      - bazoom42 3y ago
        Plenty of Disney characters like Snow White or Cinderella have been public domain all the time without it hurting Disney.
        dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
        I'm working on a "Pedophile Willy" adaptation of Steamboat Willy, complete with raw (stick figure) sex scenes and Willy promoting the "pedophile lifestyle". Lets see how that goes.
        bazoom42 3y ago
        Nobody will care about your stick figures. 1960s underground comix did all that 50 years ago when it was still edgy.
      - bryanrasmussen 3y ago
        OK, yeah I remember seeing that - not seeing the film but seeing it existed. On the other hand that is understood as a property that originally was not Disney. I think as well Disney protection of its characters might be a more ingrained than just normal copyright protectionism - Walt was notoriously a bastard to anyone who messed around with not treating Mickey with the respect he deserved.
- jerf 3y ago
  That's almost the most infuriating thing about their copyright grabs; it hardly even gets them anything of interest. They're not making any money on the actual Steamboat Willie movie. We're still a ways away from anything of even modest commercial interest from Disney entering the public domain, and even when Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs does finally come into public domain, I can't imagine it meaningfully affects their bottom line. The ability to roll into a store and just buy it isn't going to meaningfully affect Disney. Meanwhile, they still have all the trademark control, which itself means you can't really do anything to Steamboat Willie that would "offend" Disney. (I'm going to just leave that vague for now.) Meanwhile, to keep this at-best modestly interesting historical film locked up for those last few marginal drops of IP, they've kept the entire rest of the culture locked up. Hell of a cost society pays just for that. I'd almost rather we just grant Disney copyright in perpetuity if it would shut them up and leave the rest of the culture alone.
  - coldpie 3y ago
    > Meanwhile, to keep this at-best modestly interesting historical film locked up Well, it's not just the film, it's also everything in it, including (that design of) the characters themselves. When that enters the public domain, anyone can use (that design of) those characters for any purpose, including in their own works that have nothing to do with the Steamboat film. I can go make a platforming video game ala Cuphead using those characters and sell it. While I think that's a good thing for society, you can probably understand why Disney doesn't.
    - bluGill 3y ago
      Those characters are trademarked, and Disney has a good case that they are still using those trademarks. Trademark is different from copyright - it doesn't expire, but also has more use it or lose it parts, along with defend it or lose it. Disney is doing both with most of the characters so if you try to use Micky mouse in anything you are likely to lose a lawsuit. Consult a lawyer for exact details. there are things you can do with the characters after this expires, but the rules are very complex and I don't really understand them.
    - 3y ago
jader201 3y ago
> It was close to entering the public domain in the U.S. several times: each time, copyright protection was extended. It could have entered the public domain in four different years: first in 1955, renewed to 1986, then to 2003 by the Copyright Act of 1976, and then to 2023 by the Copyright Term Extension Act (also known pejoratively as the “Mickey Mouse Protection Act”) of 1998. It has been claimed that these extensions were a response by Congress to extensive lobbying by The Walt Disney Company.
- disneycember 3y ago
  So now we can begin to undo all the damage Disney has done by extending copyright beyond any reasonable timeframe, right?
  - bluGill 3y ago
    This undos nothing. We just limit damage to what has already been done for this one film. there are other things still in copyright that wouldn't have been, and that damage is still being done, and will until that copyright expires.
kevinmchugh 3y ago
It's been obvious for a few years that Disney wasn't going to pursue extending copyright anymore. It would have been politically difficult at any point in the last few years as the Senate does so little.
- bluGill 3y ago
  More importantly, those who care about the public domain were not paying attention the last time. They are now, so Disney realizes that it will be a harder sell. As soon as they get someone to propose a laws letters will be written. There is one thing more powerful than money in politics and that is votes. Letters to congress are a proxy for votes and so nobody will risk another extension.
- hinkley 3y ago
  The timelessness of those old cartoons has waned considerably. GenX was already getting reruns of Disney and Looney Tunes cartoons that were aimed at Boomers. As the boomers are aging out, a lot of the slices of both domestic life and leisure time in these cartoons are something alien. Women in the kitchen? Hunting rabbits? And with a shotgun? Really? Itchy and Scratchy are Tom and Jerry ad absurdum. The Flintstones were somewhere between Tom and Jerry and The Honeymooners. Most of this stuff does not deserve a replay.
  - bongodongobob 3y ago
    Neither of those things are alien. A world exists outside of whatever metropolis you think is the center of the universe. Millions and millions of people hunt and millions and millions of women are primary caretakers or stay at home moms.
    - chownie 3y ago
      I would say the world shown in those cartoons is alien to viewers of today. There were millions of hunters and millions of stay at home mothers in the 40's during Tom & Jerry's original run, but there's many fewer millions now. Consider: Women jumped from a third working in 1950 to just over two-thirds (of those who have children under 6, even) working as of the year 2000. We've had another two decades and change plus recessions since then, how much smaller could the demographic be?
TonyTrapp 3y ago
They probably realized by now there is not much value left in that old version of Mickey. It's the newer self of Mickey (different looks and character) that brings in the money, but even that is becoming less relevant these days, I think? That's why they have bought so much IP which appeals to more people than Mickey Mouse.
- hinkley 3y ago
  Someone pointed out to me that Winnie the Pooh brings in more money than Mickey, and his copyright is just about the same timeframe. Everyone assumes The Mouse is what Disney is shitting bricks over and it's just as likely it's the silly ol' bear instead.
  - Closi 3y ago
    Hmm I’m not sure - that might be true for movies but is it true for merch? Think of all the Mickey ears that get sold at the parks. Either way there is a boatload of Mickey related revenue still…
    - thfuran 3y ago
      Disney doesn't need to rely on IP protection to maintain a hand in merch sales in their own parks.
      - Closi 3y ago
        Sure, but the claim was that Winnie the Pooh currently brings in more money than Mickey.
    - hinkley 3y ago
      I don’t have the link anymore but at the time I was sent to a breakdown that was above $5B for all Winnie, and around 4 for Mickey and friends. Obviously not nothing, and the fact they are close together doesn’t give Disney a ramp down once PD starts affecting them.
2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
What would happen in practice if someone tried to use the public domain Mickey for something? I assume that regardless of the legal status, you'd still have a fun time with Disney lawyers proving in court that you had the right to use public domain Mickey. Is Mickey also a trademark (which never expires) and anything using public domain Mickey would be too similar to their trademark?
- hinkley 3y ago
  Yeah Mickey is a trademark. Now I could remake Steamboat Willy with characters that weren't trademarked. Previously I could not depict either without getting sued.
SirMaster 3y ago
Disney spent the last decade or so growing their business (through large acquisitions) to where Mickey is now just small fraction of their worth. So they likely don't really care anymore. Plus it's only the old, old design of Mickey, not the current version they have been using for awhile that looks more normal to most people these days.
- gostsamo 3y ago
  They trademarked everything they could about him, so it is still a valuable part of the portfolio.
- ssgodderidge 3y ago
  While Mickey may represent a small portion of revenue, it (he?) accounts for a large portion of the Disney brand. It's one of the most recognizable cartoons of all time
  - libraryatnight 3y ago
    When I was a kid Mickey had transcended movie character, he was like the Santa of the Disney world. the M.C. The spirit of Walt in some ways. I think I'd seen maybe one special or fantasia with him actually starring, and even that was after I knew him. My nephews have seen less of him and yet he's still something of a magic benevolent being to them. He represents so much more than a character, I think in a time when they're expanding portfolios they NEED to keep Mickey to stay Disney if they want to - and imo they should want to.
- furyofantares 3y ago
  I was shocked to learn my 7yo daughter associates Disney with Mickey and Minnie. She's watched like one Mickey cartoon on Disney+, and she's seen way more Disney stuff than that. Never been to Disneyland. But somehow to her, Disney === Mickey/Minnie. Branding is wild stuff.
  - jl6 3y ago
    Mickey’s silhouette is still used in various Disney logos, so it’s not too wild a connection to make.
wonger_ 3y ago
The MSCHF art collective had a project a few years ago based on this public domain timing: https://mschfxfamousmouse.com/ https://mschfxfamousmouse.com/ > We are making and selling the idea of a MSCHF “Famous Mouse” artwork now, that will not exist–even as a design–until 2024. If you purchase this artwork, we give you a temporary token with a unique code that can be redeemed for the actual piece in 3 years.

qwertthrowway 3y ago

If something is in the public domain, is it still accessible for copying or can companies still profit off of selling public domain material? For example, if I “pirate” a public domain text published by some company, am I in the wrong?

mod50ack 3y ago
You can sell public domain materials all you want. And whenever anyone else copies stuff in the public domain, even if they copy it from your copy, they're not infringing copyright.
- bluGill 3y ago
  But be careful as when someone publishes something public domain they often have things that are not public domain in their version. They can "fix" errors, add artwork, introductions and so on.
  - mod50ack 3y ago
    Yes, of course, the added content would not be in the public domain. Although it should be note that certain changes such as fixing grammatical errors/proofreading would not be considered copyrightable.
joshlemer 3y ago
IANAL but my understanding is that public domain material can be published in a copyright protected form, yes. For instance, Beethoven's 5th symphony is in the public domain, but if a publisher starts selling the sheet music for it, then that content itself is still protected. So any contributions they've made such as annotations or formatting, cover art, etc are protected but the underlying content is not.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- JKCalhoun 3y ago

dry_soup 3y ago

So the works of J.R.R. Tolkien, who died in 1973, will enter the public domain in New Zealand (and other countries) next year? Or do they not, as he presumably published his works in the UK? Or they enter the public domain in New Zealand et al. but not in other countries?

mod50ack 3y ago
In Life+50 countries, they'll enter the public domain. In the UK and other Life+70 countries, they won't.
- galangalalgol 3y ago
  So can they host the Gutenberg project in NZ then? There is no feasible way for people to prevent people from downloading the hobbit. They couldn't stop music or movie downloads except by adopting a subscription model that effectively reduced the prices. These files are tiny and the ethical case against it is so much harder to make. Edit: also, these are the sorts of books that don't get lumped into subscriptions and are often missing from digital libraries.
  - skissane 3y ago
    > So can they host the Gutenberg project in NZ then? There is already an Australian branch of Project Gutenberg, which hosts some works which (for complex/obscure legal reasons) are still under copyright in the US but now public domain in Australia (e.g. the works of George Orwell). I don’t think there is a New Zealand equivalent, but I’m sure if someone was sufficiently motivated it could happen https://gutenberg.net.au/ https://gutenberg.net.au/
  - cjpearson 3y ago
    They can, but they'd have to make those downloads only available to NZ users. This is also why American sites need to block EU users or comply with the GDPR. You can't just pick a server location with the laxest laws. IIRC, Gutenberg already does this, limiting access from Germany which has a stricter copyright than the US.

aaron695 3y ago

[dead]

tiffanyh 3y ago

Will software become “public domain” over time?

HWR_14 3y ago
Yes. In the US this happens 95 years after the initial creation of the software. Many other countries match this time period. Other countries may recognize a shorter copyright, but I believe no country will recognize a longer one.
- zare_st 3y ago
  What exactly happens in 2100 when AutoCAD 2005 goes "public domain" but the company does not need to provide the source code, there is no licensing server available, dongle support, whatnot. Also the company still retains the AutoCAD trademark so you cannot legally distribute modified copies of 2005 if they still contain AutoCAD/Autodesk branding in them. That's for 2005. For today's software that depend on connectivity, nobody gets anything if the clients are pushed to public domain. You still lack the entire infrastructure. The server code is not a product, its a service implemented by the proprietor, that's beyond this law.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
jerf 3y ago
Yes, the foundation of all software licensing is copyright law and as such all such licensing becomes null and void once it is in the public domain. However, given that the copyright horizon is only up to 1928 in the US, you've got a ways to go before that is even theoretically a concern. There was a window of time in which works had to be registered to have a copyright, which is where some of the later surprisingly-public-domain works come from, when the registration wasn't done or wasn't renewed properly. It's possible that some software in that era could be unregistered. However, I'm having a bit of trouble finding a good term for that era and so I can't quite look it up to see if it overlaps a period of time in which software might exist. Any help appreciated from respondants. Of course, for that to even matter, someone has to have a copy of the software to actually put into the public, and software utility without hardware to run it is pretty limited.

aworks 3y ago

"The Passion of Joan of Arc directed by Carl Theodor Dreyer" As old, silent films go, this is quite good. In the past, this might mean a cheap DVD release. Not sure the signficance of public domain for movies these days.

peruvian 3y ago
This film already has a 2K release by Criterion (vhttps://www.criterion.com/films/228-the-passion-of-joan-of-arc https://www.criterion.com/films/228-the-passion-of-joan-of-a...), probably other publishers. It gets show in theaters in some cities at least once a year. I think for films, the restoration/HD prints will still belong to someone, and that's what people are interested in nowadays anyway.
wharvle 3y ago
Piling on with more social proof for anyone browsing this thread for recommendations: I’ve seen 50ish non-comedy silent films, all reputedly-very-good ones, and this might be my favorite. Top 5, no question, likely top 3, and I’d have to think about it and maybe do some re-watches, but possibly #1.
thebrid 3y ago
One of my favourite releases of 2023 was a well restored edition of Laurel & Hardy's first year (1927) of films[1]. The copyright holder had neglected them somewhat with them only being released in ancient DVD-era masters. This new release gives the films a full digital restoration based on the best archival materials from around the world. I genuinely think without public domain day, this never would have happened and I very much hope we see a similar edition of their 1928 films next year. [1] https://www.rogerebert.com/streaming/laurel-and-hardy-year-one-is-another-fine-blu-ray-from-flicker-alley https://www.rogerebert.com/streaming/laurel-and-hardy-year-o...

ChrisArchitect 3y ago

Related 3 days ago: Public Domain Day 2024 Is Coming: Here's What to Know https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38586978 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38586978

sirodoht 3y ago

What if we didn't wait for things to enter the public domain but instead they were born right into it? I have started a book publishing company that publishes new, public domain books only: https://laniakeabooks.org/ https://laniakeabooks.org/

jawns 3y ago
How do authors make a living by giving away all their work for free?
- Zambyte 3y ago
  A book in the public domain can be sold, so probably by selling books. Or other jobs. This seems really interesting to me as someone who does not write books full time.
  - knome 3y ago
    They established early copyright because publishers would just print copies of books and never pay the authors at all. The middlemen aren't going to do it voluntarily, and if they do, they'll be undercut by those that don't.
    - Zambyte 3y ago
      Authors can sell their own books even if someone else publishes it. Especially if it's published into the public domain.
      - midasuni 3y ago
        And someone else can take the content and print it and sell it themselves
        Zambyte 3y ago
        Wouldn't that be neat :-)

onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago

Actually pretty exciting for books. Agatha Christie, W.E.B. DuBois, Evelyn Waugh, Nabokov, D.H. Lawrence, H.G. Wells, Virginia Woolf, and A.A. Milne all have books entering in 2024. And a Brecht play (The Threepenny Opera - one of his best, at that), and a Eugene O'Neill (Strange Interlude)!

playingalong 3y ago
Not trying to contest, just asking... Brecht died in 1956, so +70 years (as per German law) would be end of 2026, right?
- pard68 3y ago
  That would depend on the country right? USA doesn't have a life+, so it's a hard date of 1928.
  - AtlasBarfed 3y ago
    Until they bribe the supremes to revise the ruling.
  - prosody 3y ago
    To be precise, the US does have life+70 for works published after 1978. The rest of the world went that route and the US begrudgingly followed, but the works published before the switchover date are grandfathered into the old system. The US copyright regime is a real rats' nest of complexity, see https://guides.library.cornell.edu/copyright/publicdomain https://guides.library.cornell.edu/copyright/publicdomain
    - account42 3y ago
      > The US copyright regime is a real rats' nest of complexity The likely alternative would be (even more) retroactive copyright extensions which would be much worse.

bobse 3y ago

[dead]

User23 3y ago

The reality of course is there is no public domain to speak of in the USA, except for abandoned works, unless you have vast financial resources. Suppose the early Disney stuff somehow actually enters the public domain. Anyone that tries to use it is going to get absolutely buried in trademark lawsuits and the usual tidal wave of spurious motions.

tezza 3y ago

“Lady Chatterley’s Zombie Lover” coming right up. Probably direct to Netflix

Imnimo 3y ago

This feels like one of those things where a UI designer tries to make the most comically inefficient way to convey mundane information.

code51 3y ago

Did the works of Django Reinhardt enter the public domain?

tgv 3y ago
I suppose this compositions and arrangements do, to the extent they were actually written down. The improvised parts may not be, since e.g. Grappeli died in 1997. Recordings take more time to enter PD. But IANACRL.

PrimeMcFly 3y ago

Looks like Tarzan is entering the public domain, that's interesting.

panzagl 3y ago
The Burroughs estate was Disney before Disney was Disney

redog 3y ago

No music?

jedberg 3y ago

Disney Animation has been using a clip from Steamboat Willy (and the song) as their opening bumper for years. It was originally done when John Lassiter took over Disney Animation as an homage to his idol Walt. But some IP lawyers have said that it may also make it impossible to use Steamboat Willy in the public domain because they could claim you're violating their copyright on their bumper. Will be interesting to see if that gets tested.

humanrebar 3y ago
I always thought it would be establishing "Willie" as precisely a trademark to invoke that side of IP law.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
> could claim you're violating their copyright on their bumper That's not how it works, the use of Steamboat Willy in the bumper and public domain use just share the same source material, and Disney can't claim copyright on that source material since they no longer own it. Someone would have to copy the actual bumper to make it copyright infringement.
- tga_d 3y ago
  They presumably meant trademark, not copyright. I.e., if you use Steamboat Willie in anything that Disney could plausibly make with Steamboat Willie, they could argue that the character isn't being used as a character, but to imply endorsement by Disney, violating the trademark.
  - BizarroLand 3y ago
    I'd take that bet. I know 3 different law firms with deep pockets that know that when Disney loses the case they will have to pay all of the lawyer fees. After all, that portion of Mickey Mouse will also be entering public domain, so Disney won't own Mickey exclusively anymore either. Same as the non-red shirt version of Winnie the Pooh.

1-6 3y ago

Steamboat Willie seems perfectly adaptable for AI animation. Can’t wait to see new cartoons.

fdgjgbdfhgb 3y ago

Prokofiev, nice! I recently realised that his music was still under copyright, same for Shostakovich... Death + 70 years is a really long time

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

brlcad 3y ago

Not quite in the same vein, but the patent for T-splines expires in 2024. Big news for 3D modeling systems.

alsodumb 3y ago
Can you add some context on what T-splines are and why it's a big news? I kinda know splines in a trajectory planning sense but never heard of T-splines. Thanks!
- qbrass 3y ago
  The important part is that compared to B-splines, it lets you reduce the data size of a closed form surface by reducing the amount of data needed to describe it. https://web.archive.org/web/20120710171813/http://cagd.cs.byu.edu/%7Etspline/innovation/papers/tspline.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20120710171813/http://cagd.cs.by... The first 3 pictures explain it better than I can describe it, the rest is math going into how it's implemented.

Waterluvian 3y ago

I’d love some site you can add things to, and people can simply upvote if they think it’s a noteworthy item. And then I can subscribe to a calendar for the top 100.

Sytten 3y ago

I always found it weird that patents are a flat 20y but somehow copyright is life + X years. For me it should be a similar 20-30y period. How does life even work for a corporation?

ksjskskskkk 3y ago
it doesn't. companies can't author works, just own them. that's the reason de etre of the silly "made by ai" discussions.

slavik81 3y ago

The list is short for Canada: nothing. As part of the renegotiated NAFTA agreement, all copyright terms have been extended by twenty years.

dwhit 3y ago

I do think it’s bad that almost everyone will die before any work that influenced them enters the public domain