7 ms·

A similar HN post, which may be of interest: "What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2012?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4802849 https:

A similar HN post, which may be of interest: "What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2012?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4802849 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4802849 I find this overextension of copyright laws maddeningly frustrating. My previous comment (unfortunately) still stands: Also still under copyright: "I Have a Dream" until 2038[1]. This is particularly frustrating because the copyright holders include the estate of the person who delivered the speech, but not the estate of the two other people who wrote it (and likely most of it) - not to mention the fact that, by any web-era definition, it was a public performance and also a 'general publication'. "Happy Birthday" (certainly in the EU until 2016, and potentially in the US too until 2030, though this is disputed[2]). There is also one movie - whose name escapes me now - which entered the public domain and was then put back under copyright protection subsequently. In the case of "I Have a Dream", think of the societal cost of raising two generations of students without a complete copy of the speech in their textbooks (as is generally the case). Alternatively, think of how a 2012 version of "I Have a Dream" would happen today. If hundreds of cell phone recordings of the speech were distributed halfway around the world within mere minutes after the speech, of what relevance would copyright protection be? [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_a_Dream#Copyright_disput.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_a_Dream#Copyright_disput.... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You

Guvante 13y ago
[It's a Wonderful Life](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Its_a_Wonderful_Life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Its_a_Wonderful_Life) I have heard on several occasions that the reason it is currently so popular is because it went into the Public Domain and was shown on many channels due to this. Whether that is actually the case no one knows for sure.
- wisty 13y ago
  It's also just a fantastic movie. It's kind of like "A Christmas Carol", but instead of Ebenezer Scrooge being saved, it's the guy who's standing up to him. It's warm, it's funny, and it asks a lot of big questions. And it doesn't appeal to a single viewer. And it's not too heavy, either - Citizen Kane might be better, but it's not really a film you can get a 6 year old to watch. There's very few movies which are so critically acclaimed (top 100), which can appeal to adults and kids alike. It's subject is both completely commonplace, and the most important thing there is. Also, how many good Christmas movies are there? It's got to be in the top 5 Christmas films, at least.
  - lmm 13y ago
    And yet it was unsuccessful on initial release, both critically and commercially. (And while the same can be said of several films now considered classics, such films were generally unconventional (at least for their time) in a way that It's a Wonderful Life really isn't)
    - advice4u 13y ago
      Which only makes it more remarkable that its popularity continues to grow. That fact suggests there is a special timelessness to the film, since as you say most classics are either prototypical, unconventional, or artistically innovative (like, as was mentioned, Citizen Kane). The closest analogy I can think of while remaining in the realm of the arts is Vermeer, who was a fairly typical Dutch genre painter unrecognized in his time and ignored for two centuries. Nowadays he is popular and beloved, but unlike Rembrandt who is held as a great master or van Gogh who is held as a quixotic genius, Vermeer himself is taken as wholly mundane; his works simply have some "je ne sais quoi" that resonates with the average person.
    - throwaway1980 13y ago
      In my experience, "A man who hates his life to the point of suicide is shown by a guardian angel how much the other people around him depend on him. As a result of seeing what the world would be like without him, he changes his mind about the suicide and ends up embracing the life he has, recognizing the simple yet wonderful things about it for what they are." is not a conventional Hollywood story. Do you have any other examples? I'm mostly interested not because I want to prove you wrong, but because I actually want to be wrong and I want to watch these movies if they exist. Groundhog Day is the only other one that comes to mind.
      - omegaham 13y ago
        The Twilight Zone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Changing_of_the_Guard_%28The_Twilight_Zone%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Changing_of_the_Guard_%28Th...
- dmckeon 13y ago
  It appears that the copyright on the film was not renewed, leaving it in public domain, but the copyright on the story that the film was based on was renewed, which became a pivotal point after 1993, when that copyright holder was able to negotiate for licensing for more limited showings. This is covered in the URL you provide, and the details are corroborated by several other sources. It is complicated. One of the effects of the film's popularity in the 1980s is on the popular perception of runs on banks and of bankers - I wonder how much American views of the recent financial crisis are colored by the grim visage of Mr. Potter?
  - Guvante 13y ago
    I understand the situation but wanted to be brief. The important point that there was a time when the movie was in public domain and was shown quite a bit. Given the costs of licensing, assuming that is coincidence is suspect. Since number of views affect popularity, it is possible that a classic is a classic because it became public domain. By extension, would more public domain improve things for everyone?
hammock 13y ago
The shorter the copyright, the less incentive there is to create something timeless and lasting (if copyright terms provide incentive to invest in creative work). If spoils are only provided for life+70 years, then an artist may have little incentive to create something that could be enjoyed for a period longer than that.
- malnourish 13y ago
  No incentive? What about the incentive of enduring name recognition, creating timeless works, and creating art? There is incentive that transcends monetary gain and for many artists that is what they're after. I am not saying they shouldn't be compensated for their work, if they desire compensation.
- ckannan90 13y ago
  That's such a strange thing to say. When artists create their work, do they rank them by the estimated number of years of their legacy, and discard the ones that fall outside of the copyrightable timeframe? I mean, are you implying there are artists out there who aren't creating works because they feel that this one is definitely a "life+75" piece of work, and so what's the point if all I get is life+70?
  - hammock 13y ago
    Imagine a copyright that lasts only one day. Would you ever write something to appeal to an international audience? There wouldn't be time enough to translate it. Imagine someone lives beneath a volcano and knows that at some point an eruption will destroy his house such that he no longer extracts economic benefit from it. Do you think that the way he builds his house (e.g. using straw, or stone) will differ based on whether the eruptions come every 10 years or every 100? If artists are motivated by the economic incentive afforded by copyright, then the level of that motivation is variable based on the length of copyright.
    - nano111 13y ago
      Are you saying that home builders and engineers should get paid royalties for as long as the house stands?
krenoten 13y ago
Fans of the cult movie "The Room" may be interested in knowing that Tommy Wiseau spent a substantial amount of the total budget on securing rights to sing "Happy Birthday".

Guvante 13y ago

[It's a Wonderful Life](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Its_a_Wonderful_Life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Its_a_Wonderful_Life) I have heard on several occasions that the reason it is currently so popular is because it went into the Public Domain and was shown on many channels due to this. Whether that is actually the case no one knows for sure.

wisty 13y ago
It's also just a fantastic movie. It's kind of like "A Christmas Carol", but instead of Ebenezer Scrooge being saved, it's the guy who's standing up to him. It's warm, it's funny, and it asks a lot of big questions. And it doesn't appeal to a single viewer. And it's not too heavy, either - Citizen Kane might be better, but it's not really a film you can get a 6 year old to watch. There's very few movies which are so critically acclaimed (top 100), which can appeal to adults and kids alike. It's subject is both completely commonplace, and the most important thing there is. Also, how many good Christmas movies are there? It's got to be in the top 5 Christmas films, at least.
- lmm 13y ago
  And yet it was unsuccessful on initial release, both critically and commercially. (And while the same can be said of several films now considered classics, such films were generally unconventional (at least for their time) in a way that It's a Wonderful Life really isn't)
  - advice4u 13y ago
    Which only makes it more remarkable that its popularity continues to grow. That fact suggests there is a special timelessness to the film, since as you say most classics are either prototypical, unconventional, or artistically innovative (like, as was mentioned, Citizen Kane). The closest analogy I can think of while remaining in the realm of the arts is Vermeer, who was a fairly typical Dutch genre painter unrecognized in his time and ignored for two centuries. Nowadays he is popular and beloved, but unlike Rembrandt who is held as a great master or van Gogh who is held as a quixotic genius, Vermeer himself is taken as wholly mundane; his works simply have some "je ne sais quoi" that resonates with the average person.
  - throwaway1980 13y ago
    In my experience, "A man who hates his life to the point of suicide is shown by a guardian angel how much the other people around him depend on him. As a result of seeing what the world would be like without him, he changes his mind about the suicide and ends up embracing the life he has, recognizing the simple yet wonderful things about it for what they are." is not a conventional Hollywood story. Do you have any other examples? I'm mostly interested not because I want to prove you wrong, but because I actually want to be wrong and I want to watch these movies if they exist. Groundhog Day is the only other one that comes to mind.
    - omegaham 13y ago
      The Twilight Zone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Changing_of_the_Guard_%28The_Twilight_Zone%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Changing_of_the_Guard_%28Th...
dmckeon 13y ago
It appears that the copyright on the film was not renewed, leaving it in public domain, but the copyright on the story that the film was based on was renewed, which became a pivotal point after 1993, when that copyright holder was able to negotiate for licensing for more limited showings. This is covered in the URL you provide, and the details are corroborated by several other sources. It is complicated. One of the effects of the film's popularity in the 1980s is on the popular perception of runs on banks and of bankers - I wonder how much American views of the recent financial crisis are colored by the grim visage of Mr. Potter?
- Guvante 13y ago
  I understand the situation but wanted to be brief. The important point that there was a time when the movie was in public domain and was shown quite a bit. Given the costs of licensing, assuming that is coincidence is suspect. Since number of views affect popularity, it is possible that a classic is a classic because it became public domain. By extension, would more public domain improve things for everyone?

hammock 13y ago

The shorter the copyright, the less incentive there is to create something timeless and lasting (if copyright terms provide incentive to invest in creative work). If spoils are only provided for life+70 years, then an artist may have little incentive to create something that could be enjoyed for a period longer than that.

malnourish 13y ago
No incentive? What about the incentive of enduring name recognition, creating timeless works, and creating art? There is incentive that transcends monetary gain and for many artists that is what they're after. I am not saying they shouldn't be compensated for their work, if they desire compensation.
ckannan90 13y ago
That's such a strange thing to say. When artists create their work, do they rank them by the estimated number of years of their legacy, and discard the ones that fall outside of the copyrightable timeframe? I mean, are you implying there are artists out there who aren't creating works because they feel that this one is definitely a "life+75" piece of work, and so what's the point if all I get is life+70?
- hammock 13y ago
  Imagine a copyright that lasts only one day. Would you ever write something to appeal to an international audience? There wouldn't be time enough to translate it. Imagine someone lives beneath a volcano and knows that at some point an eruption will destroy his house such that he no longer extracts economic benefit from it. Do you think that the way he builds his house (e.g. using straw, or stone) will differ based on whether the eruptions come every 10 years or every 100? If artists are motivated by the economic incentive afforded by copyright, then the level of that motivation is variable based on the length of copyright.
  - nano111 13y ago
    Are you saying that home builders and engineers should get paid royalties for as long as the house stands?

krenoten 13y ago

Fans of the cult movie "The Room" may be interested in knowing that Tommy Wiseau spent a substantial amount of the total budget on securing rights to sing "Happy Birthday".