5 ms·

Before people cheer too much, surprisingly works can retroactively be snatched back from the public domain and go back into copyrighted state. The prime exampl

Before people cheer too much, surprisingly works can retroactively be snatched back from the public domain and go back into copyrighted state. The prime example is the movie Metropolis. It became public domain in 1953 but copyright was restored in 1996 only to re-enter the public domain a year ago today.

Caligatio 3y ago
This intrigues me as I had no idea, at one time, that the US didn't have the most restrictive copyright laws in the world. It looks like the US had to restore/extend copyrights to foreign works as part of the agreement that established the WTO? That being said, copyright is a product of laws and laws can always change. Your comment made me believe that the copyright owner somehow extended their rights; not a literal act of Congress.
- josteink 3y ago
  > It looks like the US had to restore/extend copyrights to foreign works as part of the agreement that established the WTO? What happens is that lobbyists for the same (copyright) interest groups instructs their governments that extended copyright is in their interest, and that whoever have the longest should “win” and become the norm. WTOs are basically big business “negotiating” with itself through nation states.
- mytailorisrich 3y ago
  Initially (19th century) the US did not recognise copyright of foreign works. This is all about interests: when you are a net importer you want to make it easy and cheap to reproduce and use works. Buy once you start being an exporter you want your works protected, and that's a quid pro quo.
- xorcist 3y ago
  Read up on the history of Hollywood! It's deeply intertwined with the history of copyright.
- direwolf20 3y ago
  The copyright owners persuaded other countries to make copyright very long, then persuaded the USA to fall in line with other countries.
mod50ack 3y ago
> Before people cheer too much, surprisingly works can retroactively be snatched back from the public domain and go back into copyrighted state. The United States is decidedly not going to extend copyright terms. The US only very reluctantly pulled works out of the public domain after it joined the Berne Convention in 1989. The reason ''Metropolis'' was in the public domain was because it failed to comply with renewal formalities, which are prohibited by Berne. Essentially, other countries threatened trade deals if the US made terms dependent on formalities for non-US works. So the law was changed and copyrights were restored. As someone who works in the field (and who isn't a fan of the URAA), I can tell you that isn't going to happen again.
- echelon 3y ago
  > As someone who works in the field What's your read on what's going to happen with AI? Will companies be allowed to train on copyrighted works? Seems like we'll fall behind international competition or supercharge monopolies if we don't allow it. Japan and China permit training on copyrighted works. China goes a step further and allows AI outputs to be copyrighted. Really interested in what insiders think or know about this.
  - mod50ack 3y ago
    Well, to be clear, I am mainly a public domain and copyright theory guy. I do keep up to date with everything here. But I also don't write laws; if I did, they would look different. Companies are allowed to train on copyrighted works - or, to be more precise, there is no prohibition in copyright law on them doing so. On the other hand, there are no particular protections. The real question is to what extent an AI generator can return its copyrighted training data as a non-de minimis output. In other words, can I get one of the existing copyrighted works by putting in a prompt? This is something that AI developers are trying to avoid, but it's actuallg a pretty tricky problem. Allowing AI output to be copyrighted is one of the worst ideas in copyright. Thankfully, the US Constitution as interpreted by the courts only allows for copyright to inhere in works of human creativity. By the way, while I'm very excited about certain "AI" things, I have a very poor opinion of the merit of generative AI — and I mean in theory we well as how it stands today.
traverseda 3y ago
I'd be interested in hearing why that isn't tortious interference, or did the government pay out a bunch of money when it became copywritten again?
Solvency 3y ago
Just curious...why would anyone here cheer? Have HNers been desperate to launch their own Mickey Mouse novelty tee Etsy stores for years?
- kemayo 3y ago
  It's not about Mickey specifically, but rather about what it represents. The entry of new works into the commons was shut down for a long time, with Disney keeping Mickey under copyright being viewed as the main driver for the lobbying that's kept it closed. We're coming off of two sequential 20-year extensions, and got our first works entering the public domain in the US in 2019, at which point there was a clear deadline for Disney to either get copyright extended again or cede the point. So Mickey starting to creep into the public domain means the commons probably won't be closed again, since nobody else has as much interest in pushing that as Disney did.
- danbolt 3y ago
  CS Lewis’ last novel was inspired by an ancient myth, and it wasn’t a quick rehash. It was reworked and retold with a new voice. Perhaps Steamboat Willie will be the same!
- hylaride 3y ago
  Because culture is built on itself. Almost everything is built, remixed, rewritten at some level. A good chunk of the Disney classics are taken from older stories, fairy tales, etc that were by then public domain. Borrowing/"stealing"/copying happens with movies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-HuenDPZw0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-HuenDPZw0 (fast forward to 3:12 to see how much star wars borrowed from other pieces) It happens with music (kirby had to remove this originally because of...copyright) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmjHlkQYoOM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmjHlkQYoOM
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Caligatio 3y ago

This intrigues me as I had no idea, at one time, that the US didn't have the most restrictive copyright laws in the world. It looks like the US had to restore/extend copyrights to foreign works as part of the agreement that established the WTO? That being said, copyright is a product of laws and laws can always change. Your comment made me believe that the copyright owner somehow extended their rights; not a literal act of Congress.

josteink 3y ago
> It looks like the US had to restore/extend copyrights to foreign works as part of the agreement that established the WTO? What happens is that lobbyists for the same (copyright) interest groups instructs their governments that extended copyright is in their interest, and that whoever have the longest should “win” and become the norm. WTOs are basically big business “negotiating” with itself through nation states.
mytailorisrich 3y ago
Initially (19th century) the US did not recognise copyright of foreign works. This is all about interests: when you are a net importer you want to make it easy and cheap to reproduce and use works. Buy once you start being an exporter you want your works protected, and that's a quid pro quo.
xorcist 3y ago
Read up on the history of Hollywood! It's deeply intertwined with the history of copyright.
direwolf20 3y ago
The copyright owners persuaded other countries to make copyright very long, then persuaded the USA to fall in line with other countries.

mod50ack 3y ago

> Before people cheer too much, surprisingly works can retroactively be snatched back from the public domain and go back into copyrighted state. The United States is decidedly not going to extend copyright terms. The US only very reluctantly pulled works out of the public domain after it joined the Berne Convention in 1989. The reason ''Metropolis'' was in the public domain was because it failed to comply with renewal formalities, which are prohibited by Berne. Essentially, other countries threatened trade deals if the US made terms dependent on formalities for non-US works. So the law was changed and copyrights were restored. As someone who works in the field (and who isn't a fan of the URAA), I can tell you that isn't going to happen again.

echelon 3y ago
> As someone who works in the field What's your read on what's going to happen with AI? Will companies be allowed to train on copyrighted works? Seems like we'll fall behind international competition or supercharge monopolies if we don't allow it. Japan and China permit training on copyrighted works. China goes a step further and allows AI outputs to be copyrighted. Really interested in what insiders think or know about this.
- mod50ack 3y ago
  Well, to be clear, I am mainly a public domain and copyright theory guy. I do keep up to date with everything here. But I also don't write laws; if I did, they would look different. Companies are allowed to train on copyrighted works - or, to be more precise, there is no prohibition in copyright law on them doing so. On the other hand, there are no particular protections. The real question is to what extent an AI generator can return its copyrighted training data as a non-de minimis output. In other words, can I get one of the existing copyrighted works by putting in a prompt? This is something that AI developers are trying to avoid, but it's actuallg a pretty tricky problem. Allowing AI output to be copyrighted is one of the worst ideas in copyright. Thankfully, the US Constitution as interpreted by the courts only allows for copyright to inhere in works of human creativity. By the way, while I'm very excited about certain "AI" things, I have a very poor opinion of the merit of generative AI — and I mean in theory we well as how it stands today.

traverseda 3y ago

I'd be interested in hearing why that isn't tortious interference, or did the government pay out a bunch of money when it became copywritten again?

Solvency 3y ago

Just curious...why would anyone here cheer? Have HNers been desperate to launch their own Mickey Mouse novelty tee Etsy stores for years?

kemayo 3y ago
It's not about Mickey specifically, but rather about what it represents. The entry of new works into the commons was shut down for a long time, with Disney keeping Mickey under copyright being viewed as the main driver for the lobbying that's kept it closed. We're coming off of two sequential 20-year extensions, and got our first works entering the public domain in the US in 2019, at which point there was a clear deadline for Disney to either get copyright extended again or cede the point. So Mickey starting to creep into the public domain means the commons probably won't be closed again, since nobody else has as much interest in pushing that as Disney did.
danbolt 3y ago
CS Lewis’ last novel was inspired by an ancient myth, and it wasn’t a quick rehash. It was reworked and retold with a new voice. Perhaps Steamboat Willie will be the same!
hylaride 3y ago
Because culture is built on itself. Almost everything is built, remixed, rewritten at some level. A good chunk of the Disney classics are taken from older stories, fairy tales, etc that were by then public domain. Borrowing/"stealing"/copying happens with movies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-HuenDPZw0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-HuenDPZw0 (fast forward to 3:12 to see how much star wars borrowed from other pieces) It happens with music (kirby had to remove this originally because of...copyright) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmjHlkQYoOM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmjHlkQYoOM

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]