I will say that with Batman many of the classic characters actually appear pretty quickly. Robin, The Joker, and Catwoman in 1940, and Penguin in 1941. So you can either: 1) string out your story/series so these characters appear when they enter the public domain or 2) wait a year or two. Of course as you said, you have to use the public domain version of the characters as your baseline.
Easy, just make a series that adapts each year of comics at a time. They will be going into public domain as you make them, and if they don't just go the anime route and do your own thing for a year while you wait.
The copyrights aren’t as important because these characters are trademarked. No matter what until dc were to stop using the character it is still under tight wraps.
@@Mike_Roch I don’t know about that, the estate of Arthur Conan Doyle’s daughter has tried to control Holmes’ adaptations through trademark and have had some setbacks
@@agr714 Yeah but Holmes has the issue of generalized as the design for the genius british detective. Relatively, Sherlock Holmes is a fairly generic name that doesn't really hold the muster of trademark if you do not do it the moment the books first come out. I don't think they went about handling the copyrights and trademarks until a fair bit later, which is probably why the early part of the character became public domain far earlier than the whole character. Batman and his iconography is thoroughly trademarked so, there's very little one can do with batman specifically aside from basic twists on public domain material. Though stuff from the early comics will come in the first few years.
2:17 Joker, Catwoman, Robin, No Killing, Gotham, the Bat-Gadets (Baterang, Mobile, Hook, ect.,), and the other Rogues were all added in the early 1940s. This means you literally have to just a few years after 2035 to get that stuff.
"Yeah, sure, it's legal, but you *WILL* go to Hell for doing that." -My mom, when I told her that there's a Winnie The Pooh slasher movie coming out this year
@@CorthosFellrin yeah flashpoint is a separate universe where Bruce dies and his father becomes Batman instead. Unlike Bruce’s no kill rule, his father brutally murders every criminal he comes in contact with.
The positive thing about all of Batman's iconic traits being locked down is that I am now free to have a Batman who drives a rusty pickup truck with rocket boosters, stops crime using boxing gloves and has an assistant named Jimothy Quarterdime.
Since the Greek and Norse mythologies have always been in the public domain, people have added new flavors to make their stories of them unique. Such with Wonder Woman, Hercules, Thor, Lore Olympus, Percy Jackson, Supernatural, etc. The same can be said with this Batman since even in comics he’s had multiple iterations of varying styles, so unique ones outside of DC continuity would still work pretty well
I think it's a little different with mythological characters. When it's a character like Thor that's been around for a long time, the differences seem normal. Of course there's different versions of him. With Batman, it'll feel weird, he's remaned basically the same all these years. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. Like another comments said, carrying batman back to his core ideas has a lot of potential for a fresh take. But meh, if the world even is still around that long, I probably may not even care anymore
Hearing the list of ‘limitations’ honestly sounds like it could give birth to the most refreshing Batman iteration we’ve seen in years or decades. Taking the character back to that primordial premise of billionaire detective who dresses as a bat man and losing all the decades and decades of now-played-out character, setting, and plot ornaments that the franchise has aggregated over the years is the most interesting thing I’ve heard in a long time
Literally this, DC itself hasn't tried anything truly new and original with the character in literal decades, they should let writers with passion for the character and creative minds do the job instead of them.
@@j3en534 False take, Batman in Dark Knight trilogy was not really a detective and literally his famous rogues like Joker, Two-Face, Bane, Catwoman, Scarecrow and Ra's al Ghul are all in the trilogy.
One example of a new spin: Bruce's parents weren't shot in an alley. They were greedy A-holes who cut costs whenever they could and ended up getting blown up in a factory explosion caused by their reckless disregard for safety. Growing up without parents leaves Bruce angry and violent. Good thing Smokeville's rampantly high crime rate gives him lots of acceptable targets to take his rage out on. He also decides to create a costume to avoid the consequences of his actions.
@@HonaJonah Man-Bat was first used in 1970, too long to wait. However, Batman vs Catman vs Mancat vs Manbat Ltd, Expressway Business Park, Abergele Rd Unit 1, Bodelwyddan, Denbighshire LL18 5SQ, could probably be agreed with the company in return for free advertising.
By 2120, every fictional characters we know will be public domain, and it's gonna be insane. We will have Gordon Freeman fighting ponies from MLP, adult action cartoon of Amazing World of Gumball, Ben 10 that's gory as The Invincible, Master Chief siding with Doomguy, etc.
I’m writing a public domain Batman story specifically for it falling out of copyright and I was LITERALLY just trying to figure out this shit yesterday. Thank you!
I wish you the best dude!!! Hope to read the story when it’s done if you’re ok with it! I’m glad that the original BatMan still drives a car, even if it’s not a flashy Batmobile! I’m absolutely making a story of that Batman told from the car’s perspective! I think since I can’t call it “Batmobile”, I might just call it “the red roadster”. For the time being, I’m probably gonna work on silly fan fiction to practice finding the vibe of this hypothetical “Batman” story. Or I’m probably just thinking out loud!
I know you said "No rogues gallery at all" but a good chunk of those rogues were introduced in 1940 so all you'd have to do is wait an extra year and you'd have access to the Joker, Robin (Dick Grayson), Tony Zucco, Catwoman, Hugo Strange, and Clayface. Most of his core rogue gallery was introduced relatively early on. You even have a couple of fun characters from the early Gothic stories of 1939 like Doctor Death and the Mad Monk which have been adapted by Scott Snyder and Matt Wagner respectively. Joe Chill is also 1939. Rogues Gallery Year of Introduction 1941-1950 Penguin, Scarecrow, and Rag Doll get introduced in 1941. Two Face and Salvatore Maroni were introduced in 1942. Solomon Grundy comes into play in 1944. The Riddler and Mad Hatter's first appearances are in 1948. Deadshot is introduced in 1950.
Important to note, though, that the original Clayface was just a serial killer wearing a mask. The first version of Clayface to be a living mud man debuted in 1961, just over two decades later.
I prefer you do a video with Steamboat Willie's Mickey Mouse entering public domain. Disney will be HELLBENT on making sure it never happens and if they fail, they’ll likely still sue people out of spite even though it would be legal to use Mickey Mouse in your own work
Steamboat Willie enters public domain next year. It's too late to pass another copyright extension before that happens. And once it goes PD, there's no going back. There's no legal precedent for a PD work going back under copyright. Hence why Night of the Living Dead has always been PD (because under the laws at the time you had to put a copyright notice on the film title and someone forgot to do that).
@@Ganondorfdude11 And the original copyright extension, though aggressively lobbied by Disney, was originally intended merely to bring US copyright law in line with that of France.
@@Ganondorfdude11 True, *however* they will inevitably do everything they can to stop anyone using Mickey. For example: They already have the ability to argue you can only use the Steamboat Willie version OF Mickey. And even then his name is still Trademarked, and your various expressions using Steamboat Willie Mickey might infringe on their existing toy copyrights which were made much more recently. It's stupid.
@@MrJoeyWheeler This is definitely a gray area Disney is entering. Those "infringement" toy copyrights would conflict with PD laws and I can tell someone will bring this up in a future court hearing.
What bothers me most is that the copyright of this one version of Mickey doesn’t even matter in the long run, they already have the design of just about every character in the episode trademarked. If they don’t want people to use it, they already have an easy way to go about this.
Fascinating to think about these major characters entering public domain not convinced they won't just find some way to hold onto the rights anyway lol knowing them.
@@shaggyrogers8869 I hope the aliens arrive and hold Disney CEOs at gunpoint in order for the US copyright law to be reverted. Screw Disney, Sonny Bono and their associates.
It’s gonna end up being something dumb. I guarantee almost every bat symbol used is copyright. So if your Batman doesn’t have the giant ears from 1939 or a bat symbol with no ears your probably gonna get dragged into court. I’d assume you’d get dragged into court either way but maybe you’d have a chance 🤷♂️
Winnie-the-Pooh vs Batman: *Dawn of Public Domain.* Nah but in all seriousness though, there should be a movie called "Public Domain" in like 10-15 years with literally every public domain character you can think of in it
It is true that many iconic Batman elements won’t be in the public domain until decades after the man himself, but several like Robin, Joker, Hugo Strange, Gotham City, etc. came just a couple years after Detective Comics #27. So if you hold off two or three more years, you’ll get the fuller package. Or you can just create your own villains for him to fight.
@@jadenbryant9283 I've heard people say this a lot, but I think it'd be perfectly fine legally if your story just didn't have Batman kill anyone as long as you didn't explicitly state that he has a no kill rule. And again, his no kill rule came only two years after his introduction, so you don't have to wait too long.
@@atypicalmedia7211 yeah but I think Batman killing would make things Safe legally and besides you can fo this joke. Criminal:WAIT PLEASE DONT! I THOUGHT THEY SAID YOUR NOT A KILLER Bat-Man: well there wrong. Murders the guy.
00:15 That movie is a parody of Winnie The Pooh, and parodies are protected by copyright regardless if the original property is under copyright or not. In fact, the movie used Disney's copyrighted version of Winnie the Pooh, the one with the red shirt.
Although I'd misheard the length of time involved (I thought it was ninety-THREE years), I've also given this development a lot of thought, ever since news got to me of the final settlement in 2019. It's remarkable, for me, to think that all of the 20th century's intellectual property could potentially go public before the end of the 21st, and that if I live to be 100 years old (c. 2075), everything up through "The Empire Strikes Back" will be public domain by that time. Theoretically.
I mean everybody who will have remembered those works and saw them at the time they were fresh will either be very old or dead. The Zoomers and Gen Alpha (if there will grow new Historians and those who look to the Past in that Gen) will have quite the buffet. If they realize it.
2035: The year we got 27 rushed batman movies, before being flooded with 127 the year after. Society never recovers, fashion regresses to the 1930s, people buy all sort of bat - gadgets the films keep advertising, at any crime scene people gather and discuss the clues in rough, monotone voices. Gordon becomes the 4th most common boy name, after Batman, Bat-man and Geonsno (in reference to the Game of Thrones revival). Meanwhile, a single excentric college student is working on a Superman movie but cannot secure anyone for the role, resorting to use A.I. actors. Curiously, they also turn him down to star in a Batman movie instead. The A.I. batman epidemic had just began. Looking at the city, a guy in a purple zoot suit laughs. He is served and executed by WB immedietly.
Wait, so you're telling me for the past year I've been writing a grim 1930s noir dick tracey vigilante parody with themes of vengeance and loss, and I'll LEGALLY BE ALLOWED TO MAKE IT A BATMAN FRANCHISE!?!?
I’m really interested to see if Disney lets Steamboat Willie and the original Mickey Mouse go. With Oswald, Mickeys predecessor cartoon, they’ve basically acted like he’s not in public domain, mostly because he only appeared in a few shorts and stuff like his color or his personality were only refined When Disney created Modern Oswald in the 2000s. But with Mickey, Disney struck gold immediately, he became the most popular and the most merchandised cartoon in the world. If they give up Mickey they will basically be giving up what the public sees as a modern Mickey Mouse just with creepier toys! If Disney can’t change the copyright law (like they did last time) next year will be very interesting legally (Lawsuits will 100% fly)
Disney would not "lose" Mickey Mouse simply because one short cartoon enters the Public Domain. They still have valid copyrights on basically everything afterwards, plus all the Trademarks associated with the character. Disney's money would be better spent creating new material to copyright that would make it more difficult for anyone to create something "original" with a hundred year-old cartoon about a whistling mouse.
Disney is keeping quiet on the copyright front because they'll be using the inevitable lawsuits over Mickey Mouse to try and set a new precedent they can take advantage of. Anyone who claims that they know what will happen when Steamboat Willie hits public domain doesn't know what they're talking about; trademarks are not supposed to substitute for copyright, and the continual extensions of copyright have mostly kept this fight out of court. The big names due coming up combined with the drastically changed media and political landscape since the last major extension in 1998 means that Congress will sit things out and let the legal fight inevitably end up in the Supreme Court to clarify what can and can't be protected by trademark. From Disney's perspective, this is a win-win. My guess is they'll try to tie Mickey Mouse inextricably to Disney itself as their sole brand icon, while leaving enough wiggle room for less-defined icons (like, say, Batman and Superman) to lose protection. DC will be forced to pick a horse, and whoever they leave out will now be free for Disney to adapt as the newest member of the MCU. And if they lose Mickey altogether because the Supremes feel some partisan drive to punish "woke" Hollywood, then their consolation prize is all of DC's library as it slowly enters public domain.
I think least likely because he doesn't like to see their mouse go after what happened with Oswell before they call him back If Nicki ever does go to copyright domain bankrupt or something Then again Disney is not that strict
I’m just waiting for The Phantom to go Public Domain. By 1936, imagine a golden-age-style Justice League-except-in-name-probably movie with Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman and then The Phantom and… I dunno what they’d do, per se, but they’d have a grand ol’ time adventuring or something :D
what? you cant now write that 10 page doodle script into your 50 cent notebook and hide it in your drawer? or you expect that in 2035 you can take it and walk to a publisher who says "oh this is gold and now its 2035 so we can totally publish it!"?
Other fun facts about public domain: Donald Duck, goofy, Horace horsecollar, clarabelle cow, Pluto, etc will enter public domain in the following years The mad doctor from 1933 was NEVER renewed, which means Mickey was..somewhat in the public domain, but most importantly the mad doctor is in public domain Doctor death is in public domain Other upcoming characters to be in public domain are the following: bugs bunny, popeye, Daffy Duck, and others Fun fact: the novelization of King Kong is IN the public domain You can use Mickey with gloves and red pants as of now because of some posters for steamboat Willie/etc Joker and robin enter the next year after Batman lol
My running tinfoil hat theory - all the Disney origin stories are in fact copyright traps to fill out their character backstories with mundane details to ensnare later derivative works when their characters enter the public domain. By including things like "character had a job" and "character went to school" and "character was happy/sad/angry" can all be used as "new" personality traits. The Arthur Conan Doyle estate has done that with Sherlock Holmes' later stories, why wouldn't Disney do that with all their new origin movies?
If they could dismiss 'Emotions and feelings are not a Copyrightable Exclusive Character trait' in the Lawsuit from the Enola Holmes Show they tried to fight. Then the same argument will be used for that.
I’m disappointed that there’s never been a serious live action Batman TV show. A series could explore so much lore that just can’t be touched upon in a movie. Batman could also demonstrate more of his detective skills, but for some reason, DC believes Batman is too big for the small screen.
Allow me to present you "Batman the Animated Series", part of the DC animated universe It is legitimately one of the best interpretations of the character and the lore surrounding it
I’ve heard it has to do with distribution. Fox apparently still owns the rights to any portrayal of Batman himself on TV thanks to the Adam West series, but can’t produce anything without Warner Bros.’ permission. That’s why we keep getting WB shows like Batwoman, Titans, and the upcoming Gotham Knights set in Gotham City but without Batman. Or Arrow turning the Emerald Archer into a dark vigilante who fights a lot of Batman’s rogues. Allegedly the Gotham prequel show was a special deal made in exchange for the home distribution rights to the Adam West show, but Fox still didn’t have permission to use Batman in full costume until literally the last shot of the series.
I'm honestly kind of pissed about all the copyright, because so much of modern media is built off of the public domain, yet as soon as we get to when a bunch of popular audiovisual things came out, these somehow, are DIFFERENT. They are precious gems that inherently need to be withheld from the public domain. I'm not just talking about the corporations, I'm talking that many every day people say this too, that they don't want stuff from the 20th century in the public domain. Mostly cause they're afraid of stuff like schlocky horror movies - rather than the simple fact that public domain can be a great source of creativity, and that yeah there will be crappy Robin hood movies, but there's also awesome ones too. I don't see why precious Mickey Mouse and other properties need protection. Walt is dead. Many of these properties are held not even by the families of the deceased, but by corporations just grasping onto money. It's just so stupid, don't have much more intelligent to contribute than that.
Making money: Good. Somebody make me make less money: Bad. I like this mentality. It separates me from the plebeians and I won't live in poverty like when I was a child and had to do my necessities in a bucket.
They don't need protection. Copyright was designed to make creators a little money, not protect their works for their children to sit at home and make money and certainly not for corporations. It's just another example of capitalism running amuck.
the copyrights were never really tested at all. people just a while ago in the early 1900s were living far and scarce and they just invented their folklore that was told and forgotten. personally i even hope some of the copyrights can be retained. i hate to think about opening youtube or almost any site and be greeted with an avalanche of shitty superman, batman, bugs bunny, mickey etc stories. everyone thinking their story about batman is the best one and deserves to be seen by the 5 people who care. makers will have even less incentive to create something new. even now there are tons of game creators who just ape some popular game and then get it taken down by lawyers. i dont see much any worth in them getting actually released.
@Wasatch Wind and i explained why i think its more than "i like the original winnie the pooh and i like corporations". modern time is different in all aspects compared to even the 1930s. people complain that copyright gives the inheritors and corporations something to milk without deserving it yet many of them are first in queue to create their mostly crappy adaptations of batman instead of coming up with something original. while most of these almost-batman things for sure dont require batman. if nothing else theres the environmentalist and societal reasoning. youtube for example gets craploads of stuff every hour and takes up insane server space. the world is full of entertainment and people can still make their own creations in drawer or whatever. world doesnt really need more junk even if 1% of the flood might be somewhat clever
In a just world everyone whether artist or not would be guarenteed a well enough standard of living that the vert idea of "copyright guarentees you exclisive right to profit off an idea" would sound deeply nonsensical to desire.
I feel when stuff starts becoming public domain, trademark will still stop a lot of things from getting off the ground. There's a reason why Disney released a bunch of Steamboat Willie merchandise to "celebrate" Micky's 90th anniversary... So the image of THAT version of Micky is under trademark. I expect to see, around the 90th anniversary of Batman and Superman, to see officially published replica comics, action figures, and merchandise of the Golden Age image.
I was gonna say 'Forget Batman... What about Superman?' but then you mentioned him. Archie Andrews debuted in something like 1942, so his copyright would be coming up soon, too, and his stories early on could be kinda raunchy...
There's actually already a public domain Batman. There's a newspaper article from the late 1800's about two sightings of a flying man above Coney Island. They called him the Brooklyn Batman. That's the only mention of him. So go make that Brooklyn Batman movie NOW!!!! 🦇🦇🦇🦇🦇🦇🦇🦇🦇🦇🦇🦇🦇
Batman enters the public domain 2035 The joker goes into the public domain in 2036 as well as cat women & the boy wonder The penguin in 2037 Two Face enters 2038 of coarse if you wanna make a Riddler movie you got some time to wait... 2044 and you got a really long time before Mr. Freeze enters the public domain 2055 and bat girl 2057 and if you want poison ivy good luck not until 2062
Imagine somebody coming up with their own rogues gallery of Batman villains that happen to become popular, and WB/DC are left angrily not being able to use them.
Although, if Disney hadn't spent billions lobbying to change American copyright laws in the 20th century, Batman would _already be_ in the public domain, along with Superman, Mickey Mouse, and a host of other popular characters.
Going by the rules prior to the Micky Mouse Protect Act (yes, that's actually what it's called), if I recall correctly, you could have copyright for 14 years, and apply for a 14 year extension if your work was especially successful. Going by this standard, anything from before 1995 would be in the Public Domain, as with most of anything pre-2009. Forget golden age comic books from the 30's, most of the medium would be in the Public Domain. As would: the original Star Wars trilogy, the old Ghostbusters movies, Back to the Future, Jaws, every other classic movie from the 80's and early 90's they wanna reboot now. Remember, local copyright rules apply to foreign properties too. Thus: the Super Mario Bros. trilogy, and all of the other NES classics with it, the classic Sonic trilogy, Final Fantasy I-VI, the original Star-Fox, Doom, every other classic game from the 16-Bit systems back. It would probably get an extension, but if it didn't, the Harry Potter books and most of the movies would be there too. This is what Disney took away from you. For most of human history, copyright didn't exist. Before Disney, it was meant to expire within a generation. The ludicrously extensive copyright and trademark laws we have now are an aberration. The historical norm is for people to have free access to the artistic work of their parents, creators be damned. I'm not that extreme, but I think it wouldn't hurt to undo Disney's shenanigans. All because they want to cling to a mouse cartoon. And that's just on media. Trademark applies far more broadly, to vaccines and medicine. Copyright was once upon a time just the artistic version of a patent. Meant to expire and contribute to wider society, once the creator had a chance to profit off it. The way the medical industry cloys to those trademarks is actively killing people. I say it's time to do away with a broken system.
@@izzyj.1079 The world is run by selfish greedy capitalist pigs that don't want the public to make money off things that make them money, they don't want equality, they always wanted superiority.
There will definitely be some interesting legal issues pertaining to technicalities with this. Legal Eagle should have a lot of content to work with in the next decade.
I'm pessimistic about Batman's chances becoming public domain. I just cannot shake the sinking suspicion that copyright will get extended again to prevent it from happening.I hope that I am wrong and I get to see your take on Batman someday.
The thing is... Even when it becomes public domain, a lot of what makes Batman iconic won't be. Arguably, the current presentation of Batman everyone seems to love is a product of the early Bronze Age (1970-1984) of comic or late Silver Age at earliest. And that doesn't even include trademark issues. If Warner Discovery can show they have plans to use the image of Golden Age Batman, that can also prevent a lot of stuff from getting made.
Public Domain was neutered a long time ago. Nothing valuable will enter public domain (in a meaningful way) without reforms to copyright and trademark law. It's actually pretty fucked up because public domain is an important concept and valuable for society. It would be great if more things made it to public domain and made it there faster. Honestly for things with a single creator it should be the creators death or 50 years (whichever is longer), and for things made by a company it should be 50 years in my opinion. It would help with the current culture of stagnation and repetition. 50 years or a lifetime, whichever is longer, is plenty of time to make your money off of your intellectual property.
@HexedWinters yep, superman could not fly or have heat vision and kryptonite didnt exist yet, I don't think he was even called superman for the first few years he was called superboy
You are completely right. Some form of Batman will still be under copyright meaning essentially all of batman will be under copyright. This video is just not how the public domain laws work. Interesting and funny idea for sure but unfortunately not going to happen
@@painttheedgeoff9504 It sounds like YOU don't understand how public domain laws work. A trademark doesn't mean you can sue for the content in a work of media. Even having Batman in the title is safe, as we've seen with Winnie the Pooh Blood and Honey. So, it is going to happen.
Worth remembering that different countries have different rules for when media enters the public domain. In the UK we operate on 70 years after the death of the original author. Which means Batman won't be public domain until either 2044 or 2068 depending on whether Bill Finger or Bob Kane is considered the original author for copyright purposes.
Mmm... normally it should be after the death of all creators (common sense to me). But Bob Kane's deal with DC was quite shady, and I think the law will only take Kane as the creator.
@@TheTurtleNexus It may function as the text and the images seperately. For instance with regards to Winnie The Pooh the text is public domain in the UK but the images are under copyright to the artist and still have a few years left.
"If you can't wait, Superman will hit the Public Domain in 2034..." And if you REALLY can't wait, then let me tell you about a little guy called Atlas: Man of Might...
My Batman will have a sidekick called Redbreast who's real name is Rich Gray. His butler will be Albert Pence, and his arch nemesis would be the Jester.
Wrong, in 2036 Robin, the Batplane, the Batmobile, the Joker, Catwoman, the Bat-signal, Scarecrow, in 2037, we'll see the Batcave, Alfred, Two-Face, and Penguin, Riddler will be available in 2043 though, and slightly later Ace the Bathound will enter the public domain, but he is right, no Mr. Freeze, no Batgirl, no Nightwing, etc.
Question: Would Batman’s Origin story also become public domain, as in would you be able to adapt the murder of the Wayne’s? Or would you have to come up with an entirely new origin story for Batman? After all, it wasn’t revealed why Batman became a crime fighter until later that year, so although I think it would still work under those laws, I’m not 100% sure.
You could use his origin and anything that was released in 1939 it doesn't matter when in 1939 it came out as long as it was in that year but there are some aspects you can't use for example the guy who shoots the Wayne's you can use him but you can't name him(his name is joe chill if you didn't know) because although he was introduced in 1939 he was not named until 1948.
You have to use what's on the page of the PD comic, or come up with something that's different from what's Copyrighted. If the triggering event of him being Batman wasn't described on the PD pages, I would stay away from crime alley. I honestly don't know if you could come up with a different tragic death of parents. But!
Ngl a Batman movie with all completely original characters and lore aside from the very basic origin and persinaliry of Batman would be pretty dope if it were done right. The Animated Series in the 90s made up OCs all the time (Harley, Condiment King, Grey Ghost, etc) which became so popular that they entered proper Batman lore later on. It all has to do with writing. If it's good, it's good, and limitations sometimes breed innovation. I for one would love to see a dozen Batman fanfilms with Doctor Death or some completely made up villain as opposed to the newest retelling of the Killing Joke for the fifteenth time.
"Steamboat Willie will enter the public domain in 2024" On an unrelated topic, I predict that US copyright protections will be extended another 20 years in 2023.
I doubt it. Disney isn't very popular with a certain faction of politicians. Also other media companies will want to be able to use Mickey mouse. While not a major property, Disney already allowed the copyright for oswald to expire.
One important point if you decide to do a Superman film: originally Superman couldn't fly; he just could cover great distances in a single bound. So if your Son of Krypton happens to fly, prepare for lawsuits. Also, you might be able to use Lex Luthor. Just remember that originally he was a red head (the baldness came later).
One day I can also direct my own Batman. Here's my budget: A super market cart to act as the boatmobile, but I will call it batcart A hired clown to act as the Joker A guy to be the lead that I will pay with lemonade Its gonna be epic
Orson Welles once said "The enemy of art is the absence of limitations." I think if someone wrote a phenomenal 1930s period piece murder mystery script that is suited for Batman, they could really make a fan film that's actually worth watching. You would just need the money to make the setting believable. Period pieces are not cheap.
The fact that it's taking this long just to reach this point just shows how absurd copyright law is. It should never have been made "life of the author + X years", it stifled creativity and the public domain, and let people rest on their laurels instead of continuing to innovate.
It could be worse. The Constitution gives Congress the power to grant "for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” Some lobbyist once tried to argue that eternity minus one day is a "limited time." Fortunately that got shot down.
There's actually some hope that the eternal copy extensions are over. There isn't any major sign of a push from any company to extend the copyright since there isn't public support for them to retain the characters any more. They'll probably rely more on suing anything too profitable to intimidate people into not trying to use the characters.
I don't know if I would ever actually do anything with the out of copyright characters. The problem with characters having nearly a century of history is that everything has been done. If you try and make a unique villian for a batman movie, they could probably dig up a dozen characters that are close enough to sue you over. If you try and give him a love interest, they could find one from the comics who looks vaguely like them. You try and give him a new suit... well you get the idea. They may not win the fight but they can make it expensive by just combing through old comics.
One thing is that I kind of feel like the existence of the MCU may have changed the perception of this dramatically over the years by making film goers aware of what they can and can’t get because of copyright stuff. Wolverine can’t fight Captain America because didn’t companies own the rights. Sony and Marvel were fighting over Spider-Man beyond the point where he could have previously entered the public domain.
@@fabianramos6033 No thanks, I'd rather not see shitty bootleg batman, superman or mickey mouse projects by hack fans that wanna depict their childhood fanfiction
Well, Detective Comics #38 came out in 1940 and that was the first appearance of Robin (Dick Grayson), Batman #1 came out the same year and that was the first appearance of Joker and Catwoman. So, in 2036 anyone could use not only the elements of Detective Comics #27, but also the friendly and smiling blue-caped Batman, the Boy Wonder, (the early) Catwoman and The Joker. That red car was technically the Batmobile so it will no longer be under copyright protection either.
Mind you, both Robin and the Joker were introduced in 1940, a year after Batman's introduction. So you will only need to wait for 2036 to come for you to write a story with these two in it without getting sued.
Honestly if I was in charge of a public domain Batman movie. I’d turn it into a superhero mixed psychological horror movie. The roster included to use could make for some dark gritty violent moments
5:20 That’ll be very interesting to watch! Not the movie itself, as I’m too scared of intense slasher movies, among other things, (although I’m sure it will also be pretty bonkers), but the interesting thing for me is how this whole film will go regarding Disney, and the public domain thing, and as you said, I want to learn from this to see what to be aware of whenever making my own adaptation of an IP that recently enters the public domain!
So basically you can make up an entirely new batman universe? That seems pretty sweet. A universe where Pooh is his butler and steamboat Willy is his other butler. And Tarzan is his other butler. He’ll have more and more butlers as characters become public.
When the MCU becomes or if it becomes public domain I expect for the start of the video to have the "I am inevitable and I am Iron Man" scene and then it cuts to you saying "And I am the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe!"
The thing I find funniest about the DC duo of Superman and Batman is that they themselves are derivative works of older heros. Specifically Superman is based upon Nietzsche's "ubermench", the ideal human. And Batman is based on The Scarlet Pumpernickel, a wealthy playboy at the height of the French revolution who dawns a cape, mask, and secret identity in the dead of night to help those in need. Granted most of those he helped were nobility trying to flee the country, but it was humanised a bit in the film adaptation by him prioritising the wellbeing of the children if the parents couldn't be saved. In theory you could still use Gotham City, it just couldn't be the same one. It was inspired by upstate New York, with the name coming from the British town of Gotham (pronounced "goat-am"). It was used to describe the people of New York mockingly by a satirist. And from there, was used by Bill Finger when looking for a name for Batman's locale.
3:32 People would go nuts, that would be super hilarious to see, I mean I prefer a Batman who doesn't kill or use guns, but people I don't know exaggerate
You know, assuming the laws don’t change within the next decade or two (which let’s be honest they probably will) imagine if we could one day see a public domain feature length film of the justice league teaming up with the avengers!
@@ender7278 So, if I understand the law correctly, they should be public domain by the 2050s? I am no lawyer, nor am I a film Director, so I’m not sure.
Wow, I can make my own iteration of some of comics biggest names. Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman. Think people will have a blast worth of content that first year of new variations of those characters.
I'm of the opinion that trademark in relation to an existing copyright needs to be revamped. My ideas... First of all, Trademark as it applies to a specific copyright should become void when the character enters public domain. If a Trademark related to a copyright lapses and another company captures the trademark, the company that owns the earlier copyright may still use the trademark without the permission or compensation of the new owners. They must, however, find a way to differentiate between their own and the new application of the trademark directly within the use of the trademark. If the previous situation occurs and the older copyright enters public, the trademark also becomes public domain, but only as it applies to the earlier copyright. If a trademark enters the public domain via a connection to an associated copyright, the trademark may not be registered in relation to any new unrelated copyright which is created after the date in which the original trademark and copyright entered the public domain. Yes, this all stems from being a Captain Marvel fan.
The bright side is that, for certain IP holders, it will be harder for them to sue, if you merely take inspiration from the original Batman character. You could have your own comic book, with your own original superhero, and then they run into a guy who looks a bit like a bat, but is called something else, and does stuff WB wouldn't, like blow guys heads off with a shotgun. Clearly not ripping off their Batman, any more than they are already ripping off the one created almost a century ago.
Some media cost money,a lot of it,and investing a lot just to release it for free,and for everyone to take part of it,I’m sure that isn’t fair,and that’s why we have copyright.
I believe you meant to say "next year public domain laws are gonna change yet again to keep Steamboat Willy from going public domain". Weird misspeak ya did there.
It's too late for copyright laws to change, and there's not a concerted lobbying effort by Disney to do so like there was in the 1990s. And once a work is in the PD, there is no going back.
@@Ganondorfdude11 The thing is Disney owns the TRADEMARK on the IMAGE of Micky Mouse. So even when Steamboat Willie becomes public domain, it really isn't truly able to be used by just anyone
@@BazukinBelyugovich That was to bring it in line with the Berne Convention, which was why the US changed its laws in 1978 as well. You often had the situation of something being public domain in Canada or Australia but not the rest of the English-speaking world, and with the Internet that meant you could functionally get things for free which were still under copyright in the US or UK. For instance, some James Bond novels are public domain but only in Canada. A guy on a Discord server I'm in actually wrote a "James Bond vs. Cthulhu" story that he proudly proclaimed was "Only legal in Canada!"
![KSI - Dirty [Official Visualiser]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VoDh1h1dPUE/mqdefault.jpg)
No sidekick named Robin, but what about Batman and Christopher Robin?
Now you're thinking with portals.
There is a British bus driver and artist called Joe Kerr.
This Public Domain stuff sounds fun now 💀
@@ccelite3782 always has been,thats why the big company pay alot of money in lobbying to extend the copyright law so we cant have fun
As I kid, I came up with the joke "Christopher Robin will never be Batman's sidekick" lol
I will say that with Batman many of the classic characters actually appear pretty quickly. Robin, The Joker, and Catwoman in 1940, and Penguin in 1941. So you can either: 1) string out your story/series so these characters appear when they enter the public domain or 2) wait a year or two. Of course as you said, you have to use the public domain version of the characters as your baseline.
Easy, just make a series that adapts each year of comics at a time. They will be going into public domain as you make them, and if they don't just go the anime route and do your own thing for a year while you wait.
@@sparkaward and you could take characters from both major comic universes. The Batman v. Namor book would be epic.
The copyrights aren’t as important because these characters are trademarked. No matter what until dc were to stop using the character it is still under tight wraps.
@@Mike_Roch I don’t know about that, the estate of Arthur Conan Doyle’s daughter has tried to control Holmes’ adaptations through trademark and have had some setbacks
@@agr714 Yeah but Holmes has the issue of generalized as the design for the genius british detective. Relatively, Sherlock Holmes is a fairly generic name that doesn't really hold the muster of trademark if you do not do it the moment the books first come out. I don't think they went about handling the copyrights and trademarks until a fair bit later, which is probably why the early part of the character became public domain far earlier than the whole character. Batman and his iconography is thoroughly trademarked so, there's very little one can do with batman specifically aside from basic twists on public domain material. Though stuff from the early comics will come in the first few years.
Finally, after all these years, I will be able to make Batman vs Winnie the Pooh, the greatest crossover of all time
I can't wait to see it
Make it a setup for the Pooh's Adventures Cinematic Universe with other Public Domain characters
"Tell me Winnie. Do you bleed?"
Batman VS Sherlock Holmes VS Winnie the Pooh!
Oh, bother
2:17 Joker, Catwoman, Robin, No Killing, Gotham, the Bat-Gadets (Baterang, Mobile, Hook, ect.,), and the other Rogues were all added in the early 1940s. This means you literally have to just a few years after 2035 to get that stuff.
"Yeah, sure, it's legal, but you *WILL* go to Hell for doing that." -My mom, when I told her that there's a Winnie The Pooh slasher movie coming out this year
she's right you know
@Don't Read My Profile Picture ok I won't then. Now what dummy.
She is a wise woman
Religious parents are scared of everything
What she mean by "doing"? Seeing it? Making it?
Having the opening shot be Batman pulling a Glock on a villain would funny af.
"I thought you didn't kill?"
"Wrong Bat"
*Bang*
You'd probably enjoy the Flashpoint story arc
@@TheSecondVersion Did that happen in the story? If so that would be based af
@@CorthosFellrin yeah flashpoint is a separate universe where Bruce dies and his father becomes Batman instead. Unlike Bruce’s no kill rule, his father brutally murders every criminal he comes in contact with.
It’s so bad ! It’s good ❤
The positive thing about all of Batman's iconic traits being locked down is that I am now free to have a Batman who drives a rusty pickup truck with rocket boosters, stops crime using boxing gloves and has an assistant named Jimothy Quarterdime.
Batdude since the name is still trademarked
He will be from Michigan since no Gotham, and his main choice of weapon besides his gloves is a baseball bat called the Bat Bat.
Can't wait to see it 😂
@@definitelynot_tfol36 Batdude and his trusty Bat Bat
@@timotheninja and his sidekick Pidgeon
Since the Greek and Norse mythologies have always been in the public domain, people have added new flavors to make their stories of them unique. Such with Wonder Woman, Hercules, Thor, Lore Olympus, Percy Jackson, Supernatural, etc. The same can be said with this Batman since even in comics he’s had multiple iterations of varying styles, so unique ones outside of DC continuity would still work pretty well
I think it's a little different with mythological characters. When it's a character like Thor that's been around for a long time, the differences seem normal. Of course there's different versions of him. With Batman, it'll feel weird, he's remaned basically the same all these years. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. Like another comments said, carrying batman back to his core ideas has a lot of potential for a fresh take. But meh, if the world even is still around that long, I probably may not even care anymore
Funny you mention that cause DC is planning a Batman movie with Camazotz, the Mayan god of bats
I'm looking forward to your adaptation in 12 years
wasn’t expecting you here
now i have a question…
what is the pleasant green?
Never was expecting Pleasant Green, hacker fighter and RUclipsr, to be under an Austin McConnell comment section.
Mr. scam destroyer is here
It will take 12 years to make...
Austin Mc Conell is truly one of the batman ever
Hearing the list of ‘limitations’ honestly sounds like it could give birth to the most refreshing Batman iteration we’ve seen in years or decades. Taking the character back to that primordial premise of billionaire detective who dresses as a bat man and losing all the decades and decades of now-played-out character, setting, and plot ornaments that the franchise has aggregated over the years is the most interesting thing I’ve heard in a long time
Literally this, DC itself hasn't tried anything truly new and original with the character in literal decades, they should let writers with passion for the character and creative minds do the job instead of them.
Expect massive Lawsuita
This sounds a lot like the dark knight trilogy
@@j3en534 False take, Batman in Dark Knight trilogy was not really a detective and literally his famous rogues like Joker, Two-Face, Bane, Catwoman, Scarecrow and Ra's al Ghul are all in the trilogy.
One example of a new spin: Bruce's parents weren't shot in an alley. They were greedy A-holes who cut costs whenever they could and ended up getting blown up in a factory explosion caused by their reckless disregard for safety. Growing up without parents leaves Bruce angry and violent. Good thing Smokeville's rampantly high crime rate gives him lots of acceptable targets to take his rage out on. He also decides to create a costume to avoid the consequences of his actions.
Austin really keeps looking for things to add to his cinematic universe
Batman vs Catman vs Mancat
Imagine year ten of the bargain bin cinematic universe and Batman shows up
He’s too low tier compared to Six Gun Gorilla.
@@AgentHeroic vs manbat
@@HonaJonah Man-Bat was first used in 1970, too long to wait. However, Batman vs Catman vs Mancat vs Manbat Ltd, Expressway Business Park, Abergele Rd Unit 1, Bodelwyddan, Denbighshire LL18 5SQ, could probably be agreed with the company in return for free advertising.
By 2120, every fictional characters we know will be public domain, and it's gonna be insane.
We will have Gordon Freeman fighting ponies from MLP, adult action cartoon of Amazing World of Gumball, Ben 10 that's gory as The Invincible, Master Chief siding with Doomguy, etc.
I could see one of the biggest fighting games of all time being made with this idea
I’m writing a public domain Batman story specifically for it falling out of copyright and I was LITERALLY just trying to figure out this shit yesterday. Thank you!
Good luck in 10 years I’m rooting for you
Can't wait to see it! I'll sub to you for potential updates!
Can’t wait to see it!
Same here. I have a old script for a alternate universe Batman when the world is In ruins.
I wish you the best dude!!! Hope to read the story when it’s done if you’re ok with it!
I’m glad that the original BatMan still drives a car, even if it’s not a flashy Batmobile! I’m absolutely making a story of that Batman told from the car’s perspective! I think since I can’t call it “Batmobile”, I might just call it “the red roadster”.
For the time being, I’m probably gonna work on silly fan fiction to practice finding the vibe of this hypothetical “Batman” story.
Or I’m probably just thinking out loud!
I know you said "No rogues gallery at all" but a good chunk of those rogues were introduced in 1940 so all you'd have to do is wait an extra year and you'd have access to the Joker, Robin (Dick Grayson), Tony Zucco, Catwoman, Hugo Strange, and Clayface. Most of his core rogue gallery was introduced relatively early on. You even have a couple of fun characters from the early Gothic stories of 1939 like Doctor Death and the Mad Monk which have been adapted by Scott Snyder and Matt Wagner respectively. Joe Chill is also 1939.
Rogues Gallery Year of Introduction 1941-1950
Penguin, Scarecrow, and Rag Doll get introduced in 1941.
Two Face and Salvatore Maroni were introduced in 1942.
Solomon Grundy comes into play in 1944.
The Riddler and Mad Hatter's first appearances are in 1948.
Deadshot is introduced in 1950.
Thank you kind sir
Waiting a few more years to use the Scarecrow definetely would pay off for a badass Batman fan made project.
Imma wait like 20 more years to make him fight Lord Death Man💀
Important to note, though, that the original Clayface was just a serial killer wearing a mask. The first version of Clayface to be a living mud man debuted in 1961, just over two decades later.
and thers is also the fact that you can make analogs of them as well if you want
I prefer you do a video with Steamboat Willie's Mickey Mouse entering public domain. Disney will be HELLBENT on making sure it never happens and if they fail, they’ll likely still sue people out of spite even though it would be legal to use Mickey Mouse in your own work
Steamboat Willie enters public domain next year. It's too late to pass another copyright extension before that happens. And once it goes PD, there's no going back. There's no legal precedent for a PD work going back under copyright. Hence why Night of the Living Dead has always been PD (because under the laws at the time you had to put a copyright notice on the film title and someone forgot to do that).
@@Ganondorfdude11 And the original copyright extension, though aggressively lobbied by Disney, was originally intended merely to bring US copyright law in line with that of France.
@@Ganondorfdude11 True, *however* they will inevitably do everything they can to stop anyone using Mickey. For example: They already have the ability to argue you can only use the Steamboat Willie version OF Mickey. And even then his name is still Trademarked, and your various expressions using Steamboat Willie Mickey might infringe on their existing toy copyrights which were made much more recently.
It's stupid.
@@MrJoeyWheeler This is definitely a gray area Disney is entering. Those "infringement" toy copyrights would conflict with PD laws and I can tell someone will bring this up in a future court hearing.
What bothers me most is that the copyright of this one version of Mickey doesn’t even matter in the long run, they already have the design of just about every character in the episode trademarked. If they don’t want people to use it, they already have an easy way to go about this.
You can use the grappling hook, of course :)
Fascinating to think about these major characters entering public domain not convinced they won't just find some way to hold onto the rights anyway lol knowing them.
Just like what they did to Mickey Mouse.
@@shaggyrogers8869 I hope the aliens arrive and hold Disney CEOs at gunpoint in order for the US copyright law to be reverted. Screw Disney, Sonny Bono and their associates.
It’s gonna end up being something dumb. I guarantee almost every bat symbol used is copyright. So if your Batman doesn’t have the giant ears from 1939 or a bat symbol with no ears your probably gonna get dragged into court. I’d assume you’d get dragged into court either way but maybe you’d have a chance 🤷♂️
Yeah, basically what'll happen is DC will pay a large sum of money (say a couple hundred million) to hold onto the rights for a couple billion years.
@@ccchezer Nah Trademark is whats gonna bite ppl in the ass
How to avoid trademarks whilst being recognizable
Movie title: "the man in the bat costume"
City name: Havesteak
Have=got
Steak=ham
Finally, time to make all of my crappy Fan Fictions a reality.
"B-Batman I don't think we should-"
"Shh," Batman said an odd warmth in his voice, "It's ok Joker-- *AH FUCK*
I'm genuinely looking forward to it.
And to anyone out there who have yet to do this too.
Winnie-the-Pooh vs Batman: *Dawn of Public Domain.*
Nah but in all seriousness though, there should be a movie called "Public Domain" in like 10-15 years with literally every public domain character you can think of in it
@@ccelite3782 Alan Moore's league of extraordinary gentlemen comic is basically that
Who needs to wait? I just uploaded mine last week lmfaoooo.. They can't do anything about fan film that seek no profit correct?
Don't forget the biggest potential of this: Crossovers! Once in public domain we can mix every one of these characters in a single movie!
We will FINALLY be able to have a live action adaptation of That Sense Of Right Alliance! Eat your heart out, Avengers: Endgame!!!😅🤣
Imaginationland is a reality
Batman and El Zorro fighting together would be really cool
By 2037 you will be able to use Joker, Gotham and Robin tho
Step 1: Survive the next 14 years 😁
The Joker?? oh boy, the last thing we needed was more attempts at "reinventing" the joker
I will make my own Batman and joker original romance graphic novel and no one can stop me except dc’s legal team but I will defeat them
@@gavin6095 🤨🔫
Wouldn't it be 2036? I'm still really confused on the math for this since Batman #1 came out in 1940
It is true that many iconic Batman elements won’t be in the public domain until decades after the man himself, but several like Robin, Joker, Hugo Strange, Gotham City, etc. came just a couple years after Detective Comics #27. So if you hold off two or three more years, you’ll get the fuller package. Or you can just create your own villains for him to fight.
Late I know but anyway and considering how batman was a killer in his first apperance you will have to make a lot of new villains lol.
@@jadenbryant9283 I've heard people say this a lot, but I think it'd be perfectly fine legally if your story just didn't have Batman kill anyone as long as you didn't explicitly state that he has a no kill rule. And again, his no kill rule came only two years after his introduction, so you don't have to wait too long.
@@atypicalmedia7211 yeah but I think Batman killing would make things Safe legally and besides you can fo this joke.
Criminal:WAIT PLEASE DONT! I THOUGHT THEY SAID YOUR NOT A KILLER
Bat-Man: well there wrong.
Murders the guy.
The exact same thing happened with Sherlock Holmes over the past few years, which was also very interesting to follow.
00:15 That movie is a parody of Winnie The Pooh, and parodies are protected by copyright regardless if the original property is under copyright or not. In fact, the movie used Disney's copyrighted version of Winnie the Pooh, the one with the red shirt.
I've been thinking a lot about this, I have many ideas for a public domain Batman movie
I can't wait to see The Bat-Man and Blue Jay take on the nefarious Legally Distinct Clown Gangster
@DontReadMyProfilePicture.7 don't put pineapples in your butt
Time to make the world's crappiest batman movie using the world's worst batman costume
@@LiMe251 make sure to include the bat nipples.
Not gonna lie I feel like the villains have potential especially the scarlet syndicate and the jewelry thief. He could be like batmans equal
Finally I can make my own spiritual successor to 00s masterpiece Batman vs Dracula. Batman vs Werewolf
God I hope Batman is added to the Superzeroes just to be unceremoniously killed
It would explain why people need them of all heroes if the good ones were canonically killed off
Trips over his cape and breaks his neck.
@@pattheplanter No capes!
Alfred why is the cape so long? - Batman
It’s the public domain suit sir- alfred
"Oh no Batman's been killed for legal reasons!"
Although I'd misheard the length of time involved (I thought it was ninety-THREE years), I've also given this development a lot of thought, ever since news got to me of the final settlement in 2019. It's remarkable, for me, to think that all of the 20th century's intellectual property could potentially go public before the end of the 21st, and that if I live to be 100 years old (c. 2075), everything up through "The Empire Strikes Back" will be public domain by that time.
Theoretically.
That sounds like fun
I mean everybody who will have remembered those works and saw them at the time they were fresh will either be very old or dead.
The Zoomers and Gen Alpha (if there will grow new Historians and those who look to the Past in that Gen) will have quite the buffet. If they realize it.
2035: The year we got 27 rushed batman movies, before being flooded with 127 the year after. Society never recovers, fashion regresses to the 1930s, people buy all sort of bat - gadgets the films keep advertising, at any crime scene people gather and discuss the clues in rough, monotone voices. Gordon becomes the 4th most common boy name, after Batman, Bat-man and Geonsno (in reference to the Game of Thrones revival).
Meanwhile, a single excentric college student is working on a Superman movie but cannot secure anyone for the role, resorting to use A.I. actors. Curiously, they also turn him down to star in a Batman movie instead. The A.I. batman epidemic had just began.
Looking at the city, a guy in a purple zoot suit laughs. He is served and executed by WB immedietly.
> fashion regresses to the 1930s
That sounds awesome.
I died at the name part
That would actually make for a good movie plot
Wait, so you're telling me for the past year I've been writing a grim 1930s noir dick tracey vigilante parody with themes of vengeance and loss, and I'll LEGALLY BE ALLOWED TO MAKE IT A BATMAN FRANCHISE!?!?
technically, if its parody, I think you can anyway
You already can if it’s a parody
I’m really interested to see if Disney lets Steamboat Willie and the original Mickey Mouse go. With Oswald, Mickeys predecessor cartoon, they’ve basically acted like he’s not in public domain, mostly because he only appeared in a few shorts and stuff like his color or his personality were only refined When Disney created Modern Oswald in the 2000s.
But with Mickey, Disney struck gold immediately, he became the most popular and the most merchandised cartoon in the world. If they give up Mickey they will basically be giving up what the public sees as a modern Mickey Mouse just with creepier toys! If Disney can’t change the copyright law (like they did last time) next year will be very interesting legally (Lawsuits will 100% fly)
Disney would not "lose" Mickey Mouse simply because one short cartoon enters the Public Domain. They still have valid copyrights on basically everything afterwards, plus all the Trademarks associated with the character. Disney's money would be better spent creating new material to copyright that would make it more difficult for anyone to create something "original" with a hundred year-old cartoon about a whistling mouse.
Disney is keeping quiet on the copyright front because they'll be using the inevitable lawsuits over Mickey Mouse to try and set a new precedent they can take advantage of. Anyone who claims that they know what will happen when Steamboat Willie hits public domain doesn't know what they're talking about; trademarks are not supposed to substitute for copyright, and the continual extensions of copyright have mostly kept this fight out of court. The big names due coming up combined with the drastically changed media and political landscape since the last major extension in 1998 means that Congress will sit things out and let the legal fight inevitably end up in the Supreme Court to clarify what can and can't be protected by trademark.
From Disney's perspective, this is a win-win. My guess is they'll try to tie Mickey Mouse inextricably to Disney itself as their sole brand icon, while leaving enough wiggle room for less-defined icons (like, say, Batman and Superman) to lose protection. DC will be forced to pick a horse, and whoever they leave out will now be free for Disney to adapt as the newest member of the MCU. And if they lose Mickey altogether because the Supremes feel some partisan drive to punish "woke" Hollywood, then their consolation prize is all of DC's library as it slowly enters public domain.
I think least likely because he doesn't like to see their mouse go after what happened with Oswell before they call him back
If Nicki ever does go to copyright domain bankrupt or something
Then again Disney is not that strict
disney is evil and shouldn't be allowed to exist
I’m just waiting for The Phantom to go Public Domain. By 1936, imagine a golden-age-style Justice League-except-in-name-probably movie with Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman and then The Phantom and… I dunno what they’d do, per se, but they’d have a grand ol’ time adventuring or something :D
If Batman comes into the public domain, I can finally adapt my childhood fanfictions into actual stories.
Do it
Dew it!
I will finally be able to make the movie of my childhood dreams: Batman vs T-Rex 😯
Same here!😁
what? you cant now write that 10 page doodle script into your 50 cent notebook and hide it in your drawer? or you expect that in 2035 you can take it and walk to a publisher who says "oh this is gold and now its 2035 so we can totally publish it!"?
Imagine a batman show or movie without anyone that is apart of the rogues gallery or sidekicks or even alferd
@@Jamesyboi135 well Gordon can still show up he did also appera in detective comics issue 27.
Other fun facts about public domain:
Donald Duck, goofy, Horace horsecollar, clarabelle cow, Pluto, etc will enter public domain in the following years
The mad doctor from 1933 was NEVER renewed, which means Mickey was..somewhat in the public domain, but most importantly the mad doctor is in public domain
Doctor death is in public domain
Other upcoming characters to be in public domain are the following: bugs bunny, popeye, Daffy Duck, and others
Fun fact: the novelization of King Kong is IN the public domain
You can use Mickey with gloves and red pants as of now because of some posters for steamboat Willie/etc
Joker and robin enter the next year after Batman lol
My running tinfoil hat theory - all the Disney origin stories are in fact copyright traps to fill out their character backstories with mundane details to ensnare later derivative works when their characters enter the public domain. By including things like "character had a job" and "character went to school" and "character was happy/sad/angry" can all be used as "new" personality traits.
The Arthur Conan Doyle estate has done that with Sherlock Holmes' later stories, why wouldn't Disney do that with all their new origin movies?
If they could dismiss 'Emotions and feelings are not a Copyrightable Exclusive Character trait' in the Lawsuit from the Enola Holmes Show they tried to fight. Then the same argument will be used for that.
I’m disappointed that there’s never been a serious live action Batman TV show. A series could explore so much lore that just can’t be touched upon in a movie. Batman could also demonstrate more of his detective skills, but for some reason, DC believes Batman is too big for the small screen.
Allow me to present you "Batman the Animated Series", part of the DC animated universe
It is legitimately one of the best interpretations of the character and the lore surrounding it
there is alr a show called gotham, thought, it only shows bruce as a teenager
@@14aeon because WB doesn't believe Batman should be in TV, so the best show creators can use is Bruce Wayne. Seriously
Same with Spider-Man.
Give me a faithful adaptation of the Ultimate Spider-Man across two or three seasons of TV.
I’ve heard it has to do with distribution. Fox apparently still owns the rights to any portrayal of Batman himself on TV thanks to the Adam West series, but can’t produce anything without Warner Bros.’ permission. That’s why we keep getting WB shows like Batwoman, Titans, and the upcoming Gotham Knights set in Gotham City but without Batman. Or Arrow turning the Emerald Archer into a dark vigilante who fights a lot of Batman’s rogues. Allegedly the Gotham prequel show was a special deal made in exchange for the home distribution rights to the Adam West show, but Fox still didn’t have permission to use Batman in full costume until literally the last shot of the series.
I'm honestly kind of pissed about all the copyright, because so much of modern media is built off of the public domain, yet as soon as we get to when a bunch of popular audiovisual things came out, these somehow, are DIFFERENT. They are precious gems that inherently need to be withheld from the public domain.
I'm not just talking about the corporations, I'm talking that many every day people say this too, that they don't want stuff from the 20th century in the public domain. Mostly cause they're afraid of stuff like schlocky horror movies - rather than the simple fact that public domain can be a great source of creativity, and that yeah there will be crappy Robin hood movies, but there's also awesome ones too.
I don't see why precious Mickey Mouse and other properties need protection. Walt is dead. Many of these properties are held not even by the families of the deceased, but by corporations just grasping onto money.
It's just so stupid, don't have much more intelligent to contribute than that.
Making money: Good.
Somebody make me make less money: Bad.
I like this mentality. It separates me from the plebeians and I won't live in poverty like when I was a child and had to do my necessities in a bucket.
They don't need protection. Copyright was designed to make creators a little money, not protect their works for their children to sit at home and make money and certainly not for corporations. It's just another example of capitalism running amuck.
the copyrights were never really tested at all. people just a while ago in the early 1900s were living far and scarce and they just invented their folklore that was told and forgotten.
personally i even hope some of the copyrights can be retained. i hate to think about opening youtube or almost any site and be greeted with an avalanche of shitty superman, batman, bugs bunny, mickey etc stories. everyone thinking their story about batman is the best one and deserves to be seen by the 5 people who care.
makers will have even less incentive to create something new. even now there are tons of game creators who just ape some popular game and then get it taken down by lawyers. i dont see much any worth in them getting actually released.
@@kallemetsahalme5701 My comment was about you.
@Wasatch Wind and i explained why i think its more than "i like the original winnie the pooh and i like corporations". modern time is different in all aspects compared to even the 1930s. people complain that copyright gives the inheritors and corporations something to milk without deserving it yet many of them are first in queue to create their mostly crappy adaptations of batman instead of coming up with something original. while most of these almost-batman things for sure dont require batman.
if nothing else theres the environmentalist and societal reasoning. youtube for example gets craploads of stuff every hour and takes up insane server space. the world is full of entertainment and people can still make their own creations in drawer or whatever. world doesnt really need more junk even if 1% of the flood might be somewhat clever
I am already working on writing my own batman movie so I can make it as soon as it becomes public domain
noice!
Can you make him vegetarian so the title can be the untrademarked Fruitbat-Man?
well depends on the characters
There is NO REASON for copyright to be more than 20 years. Except of course corporate greed. Which isn’t a good reason!!
In a just world everyone whether artist or not would be guarenteed a well enough standard of living that the vert idea of "copyright guarentees you exclisive right to profit off an idea" would sound deeply nonsensical to desire.
I feel when stuff starts becoming public domain, trademark will still stop a lot of things from getting off the ground. There's a reason why Disney released a bunch of Steamboat Willie merchandise to "celebrate" Micky's 90th anniversary... So the image of THAT version of Micky is under trademark. I expect to see, around the 90th anniversary of Batman and Superman, to see officially published replica comics, action figures, and merchandise of the Golden Age image.
Capitalist pigs don't want to share their toys that make them money.
and you won't be able to call them their iconic codenames aside from something alluding to it
I was gonna say 'Forget Batman... What about Superman?' but then you mentioned him. Archie Andrews debuted in something like 1942, so his copyright would be coming up soon, too, and his stories early on could be kinda raunchy...
There's actually already a public domain Batman. There's a newspaper article from the late 1800's about two sightings of a flying man above Coney Island. They called him the Brooklyn Batman. That's the only mention of him. So go make that Brooklyn Batman movie NOW!!!! 🦇🦇🦇🦇🦇🦇🦇🦇🦇🦇🦇🦇🦇
Batman enters the public domain 2035
The joker goes into the public domain in 2036 as well as cat women & the boy wonder
The penguin in 2037
Two Face enters 2038
of coarse if you wanna make a Riddler movie you got some time to wait... 2044
and you got a really long time before Mr. Freeze enters the public domain 2055
and bat girl 2057
and if you want poison ivy good luck not until 2062
Tarzan , Batman, Sherlock Holmes team up comic would be cool.
Batman better join the Superzeroes when he becomes public domain.
You could literally make a sidekick named Robin the following year though.
Imagine somebody coming up with their own rogues gallery of Batman villains that happen to become popular, and WB/DC are left angrily not being able to use them.
I already have ideas for that just with a different set of heros now I can use them with someone the public is familiar with
Although, if Disney hadn't spent billions lobbying to change American copyright laws in the 20th century, Batman would _already be_ in the public domain, along with Superman, Mickey Mouse, and a host of other popular characters.
Going by the rules prior to the Micky Mouse Protect Act (yes, that's actually what it's called), if I recall correctly, you could have copyright for 14 years, and apply for a 14 year extension if your work was especially successful. Going by this standard, anything from before 1995 would be in the Public Domain, as with most of anything pre-2009. Forget golden age comic books from the 30's, most of the medium would be in the Public Domain. As would: the original Star Wars trilogy, the old Ghostbusters movies, Back to the Future, Jaws, every other classic movie from the 80's and early 90's they wanna reboot now. Remember, local copyright rules apply to foreign properties too. Thus: the Super Mario Bros. trilogy, and all of the other NES classics with it, the classic Sonic trilogy, Final Fantasy I-VI, the original Star-Fox, Doom, every other classic game from the 16-Bit systems back. It would probably get an extension, but if it didn't, the Harry Potter books and most of the movies would be there too.
This is what Disney took away from you. For most of human history, copyright didn't exist. Before Disney, it was meant to expire within a generation. The ludicrously extensive copyright and trademark laws we have now are an aberration. The historical norm is for people to have free access to the artistic work of their parents, creators be damned. I'm not that extreme, but I think it wouldn't hurt to undo Disney's shenanigans. All because they want to cling to a mouse cartoon.
And that's just on media. Trademark applies far more broadly, to vaccines and medicine. Copyright was once upon a time just the artistic version of a patent. Meant to expire and contribute to wider society, once the creator had a chance to profit off it. The way the medical industry cloys to those trademarks is actively killing people. I say it's time to do away with a broken system.
@@izzyj.1079 The world is run by selfish greedy capitalist pigs that don't want the public to make money off things that make them money, they don't want equality, they always wanted superiority.
@@Patrick-pc3vq I never argued otherwise
Can’t wait for the Batman horror movie coming out in 11 years!
Wait that would actually be awesome
Yeah but a year after (1940) Joker first appeared in Detective Batman
So would someone be able to use him then ??
There will definitely be some interesting legal issues pertaining to technicalities with this. Legal Eagle should have a lot of content to work with in the next decade.
I'm pessimistic about Batman's chances becoming public domain. I just cannot shake the sinking suspicion that copyright will get extended again to prevent it from happening.I hope that I am wrong and I get to see your take on Batman someday.
The thing is... Even when it becomes public domain, a lot of what makes Batman iconic won't be. Arguably, the current presentation of Batman everyone seems to love is a product of the early Bronze Age (1970-1984) of comic or late Silver Age at earliest. And that doesn't even include trademark issues. If Warner Discovery can show they have plans to use the image of Golden Age Batman, that can also prevent a lot of stuff from getting made.
Public Domain was neutered a long time ago. Nothing valuable will enter public domain (in a meaningful way) without reforms to copyright and trademark law. It's actually pretty fucked up because public domain is an important concept and valuable for society. It would be great if more things made it to public domain and made it there faster. Honestly for things with a single creator it should be the creators death or 50 years (whichever is longer), and for things made by a company it should be 50 years in my opinion. It would help with the current culture of stagnation and repetition. 50 years or a lifetime, whichever is longer, is plenty of time to make your money off of your intellectual property.
@HexedWinters yep, superman could not fly or have heat vision and kryptonite didnt exist yet, I don't think he was even called superman for the first few years he was called superboy
You are completely right. Some form of Batman will still be under copyright meaning essentially all of batman will be under copyright. This video is just not how the public domain laws work. Interesting and funny idea for sure but unfortunately not going to happen
@@painttheedgeoff9504 It sounds like YOU don't understand how public domain laws work. A trademark doesn't mean you can sue for the content in a work of media. Even having Batman in the title is safe, as we've seen with Winnie the Pooh Blood and Honey. So, it is going to happen.
Worth remembering that different countries have different rules for when media enters the public domain. In the UK we operate on 70 years after the death of the original author. Which means Batman won't be public domain until either 2044 or 2068 depending on whether Bill Finger or Bob Kane is considered the original author for copyright purposes.
Mmm... normally it should be after the death of all creators (common sense to me). But Bob Kane's deal with DC was quite shady, and I think the law will only take Kane as the creator.
@@TheTurtleNexus It may function as the text and the images seperately. For instance with regards to Winnie The Pooh the text is public domain in the UK but the images are under copyright to the artist and still have a few years left.
Thats a very bad copyright system
"If you can't wait, Superman will hit the Public Domain in 2034..."
And if you REALLY can't wait, then let me tell you about a little guy called Atlas: Man of Might...
"THE SuperMan"
"The Man Of Steel"
"A MAN OF STEEL"
My Batman will have a sidekick called Redbreast who's real name is Rich Gray. His butler will be Albert Pence, and his arch nemesis would be the Jester.
Would definitely like to see you do more videos about the public domain. Keep up the good work.
We'll never find out. in fact they're probably lobbying for a longer copyright period as we speak.
Wrong, in 2036 Robin, the Batplane, the Batmobile, the Joker, Catwoman, the Bat-signal, Scarecrow, in 2037, we'll see the Batcave, Alfred, Two-Face, and Penguin, Riddler will be available in 2043 though, and slightly later Ace the Bathound will enter the public domain, but he is right, no Mr. Freeze, no Batgirl, no Nightwing, etc.
Honestly, I would absolutely love to go see an indie noir film about the classic iteration of Batman.
Question: Would Batman’s Origin story also become public domain, as in would you be able to adapt the murder of the Wayne’s? Or would you have to come up with an entirely new origin story for Batman?
After all, it wasn’t revealed why Batman became a crime fighter until later that year, so although I think it would still work under those laws, I’m not 100% sure.
You could use his origin and anything that was released in 1939 it doesn't matter when in 1939 it came out as long as it was in that year but there are some aspects you can't use for example the guy who shoots the Wayne's you can use him but you can't name him(his name is joe chill if you didn't know) because although he was introduced in 1939 he was not named until 1948.
@@TheCtp96 Couldn't you just name him something different? Or change the killer into a female, etc.?
@@TheCtp96 you can name him.. his name just can’t be Chill
You have to use what's on the page of the PD comic, or come up with something that's different from what's Copyrighted. If the triggering event of him being Batman wasn't described on the PD pages, I would stay away from crime alley. I honestly don't know if you could come up with a different tragic death of parents. But!
Ignore the but I had some bad advise that I deleted.
Ngl a Batman movie with all completely original characters and lore aside from the very basic origin and persinaliry of Batman would be pretty dope if it were done right. The Animated Series in the 90s made up OCs all the time (Harley, Condiment King, Grey Ghost, etc) which became so popular that they entered proper Batman lore later on. It all has to do with writing. If it's good, it's good, and limitations sometimes breed innovation. I for one would love to see a dozen Batman fanfilms with Doctor Death or some completely made up villain as opposed to the newest retelling of the Killing Joke for the fifteenth time.
"Steamboat Willie will enter the public domain in 2024"
On an unrelated topic, I predict that US copyright protections will be extended another 20 years in 2023.
I doubt it. Disney isn't very popular with a certain faction of politicians. Also other media companies will want to be able to use Mickey mouse. While not a major property, Disney already allowed the copyright for oswald to expire.
Well, the first Oswald shorts are public domain now at least in America.
You could still technically use Arkham (Sanitarium, not Asylum) since they took that idea from Lovecraft.
One important point if you decide to do a Superman film: originally Superman couldn't fly; he just could cover great distances in a single bound. So if your Son of Krypton happens to fly, prepare for lawsuits.
Also, you might be able to use Lex Luthor. Just remember that originally he was a red head (the baldness came later).
"no Arkham asylum"
Ironic since that was stolen from Lovecraft's Arkham Sanitarium.
One day I can also direct my own Batman.
Here's my budget:
A super market cart to act as the boatmobile, but I will call it batcart
A hired clown to act as the Joker
A guy to be the lead that I will pay with lemonade
Its gonna be epic
Orson Welles once said "The enemy of art is the absence of limitations." I think if someone wrote a phenomenal 1930s period piece murder mystery script that is suited for Batman, they could really make a fan film that's actually worth watching. You would just need the money to make the setting believable. Period pieces are not cheap.
The fact that it's taking this long just to reach this point just shows how absurd copyright law is. It should never have been made "life of the author + X years", it stifled creativity and the public domain, and let people rest on their laurels instead of continuing to innovate.
It could be worse. The Constitution gives Congress the power to grant "for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”
Some lobbyist once tried to argue that eternity minus one day is a "limited time." Fortunately that got shot down.
It won't be allowed. The corporation will argue material harm and it will be extended, as it has for other IP over and over and over again.
There's actually some hope that the eternal copy extensions are over. There isn't any major sign of a push from any company to extend the copyright since there isn't public support for them to retain the characters any more. They'll probably rely more on suing anything too profitable to intimidate people into not trying to use the characters.
I don't know if I would ever actually do anything with the out of copyright characters.
The problem with characters having nearly a century of history is that everything has been done. If you try and make a unique villian for a batman movie, they could probably dig up a dozen characters that are close enough to sue you over. If you try and give him a love interest, they could find one from the comics who looks vaguely like them. You try and give him a new suit... well you get the idea. They may not win the fight but they can make it expensive by just combing through old comics.
One thing is that I kind of feel like the existence of the MCU may have changed the perception of this dramatically over the years by making film goers aware of what they can and can’t get because of copyright stuff. Wolverine can’t fight Captain America because didn’t companies own the rights. Sony and Marvel were fighting over Spider-Man beyond the point where he could have previously entered the public domain.
No Batman and Superman deserve to be free from Warner bros and dc just like mickey mouse.
@@fabianramos6033 No thanks, I'd rather not see shitty bootleg batman, superman or mickey mouse projects by hack fans that wanna depict their childhood fanfiction
@@envi2273 But the movies disney make now and DC are fanfiction the orignal creators are long dead xD
Well, Detective Comics #38 came out in 1940 and that was the first appearance of Robin (Dick Grayson), Batman #1 came out the same year and that was the first appearance of Joker and Catwoman. So, in 2036 anyone could use not only the elements of Detective Comics #27, but also the friendly and smiling blue-caped Batman, the Boy Wonder, (the early) Catwoman and The Joker.
That red car was technically the Batmobile so it will no longer be under copyright protection either.
I could see it being turned blue or have bits of black in someone's adaptation
What if, as detective Batman, he asks “Where is he?” Although in a different manner from Christian bale?
Mind you, both Robin and the Joker were introduced in 1940, a year after Batman's introduction.
So you will only need to wait for 2036 to come for you to write a story with these two in it without getting sued.
Honestly if I was in charge of a public domain Batman movie. I’d turn it into a superhero mixed psychological horror movie.
The roster included to use could make for some dark gritty violent moments
in 2035 jim hammond the orginal human torch and namor will be in the public domain.
IF Batman does become public domain, I can imagine this..... A Miami Vice version of Batman!
5:20
That’ll be very interesting to watch! Not the movie itself, as I’m too scared of intense slasher movies, among other things, (although I’m sure it will also be pretty bonkers), but the interesting thing for me is how this whole film will go regarding Disney, and the public domain thing, and as you said, I want to learn from this to see what to be aware of whenever making my own adaptation of an IP that recently enters the public domain!
Can't wait to read your trash fan fiction
So basically you can make up an entirely new batman universe? That seems pretty sweet. A universe where Pooh is his butler and steamboat Willy is his other butler. And Tarzan is his other butler. He’ll have more and more butlers as characters become public.
When the MCU becomes or if it becomes public domain I expect for the start of the video to have the "I am inevitable and I am Iron Man" scene and then it cuts to you saying "And I am the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe!"
that’s probably not gonna happen for atleast a century tho, cus the current rule is 70 years after death of the creator
@@sylvy16 damn that sucks
@@sylvy16 Or 95 years since publication if it was made for or by a company.
Won't be within our lifetimes.
I mean, we’d all be dead
Robin and a lot of Batmans rogue debut a year later ; so yeah you can use the characters
The thing I find funniest about the DC duo of Superman and Batman is that they themselves are derivative works of older heros.
Specifically Superman is based upon Nietzsche's "ubermench", the ideal human.
And Batman is based on The Scarlet Pumpernickel, a wealthy playboy at the height of the French revolution who dawns a cape, mask, and secret identity in the dead of night to help those in need. Granted most of those he helped were nobility trying to flee the country, but it was humanised a bit in the film adaptation by him prioritising the wellbeing of the children if the parents couldn't be saved.
In theory you could still use Gotham City, it just couldn't be the same one. It was inspired by upstate New York, with the name coming from the British town of Gotham (pronounced "goat-am").
It was used to describe the people of New York mockingly by a satirist. And from there, was used by Bill Finger when looking for a name for Batman's locale.
If Batman became public domain there will 1000000% be a horror movie with Batman in it
so some kind of Victor Zaza re imagined or batman killing off criminals in brutal ways
Guess I'm making a Star Wars movie 2072!
Love that you're making videos more often!
Can’t wait for the Batman horror movie
3:32 People would go nuts, that would be super hilarious to see, I mean I prefer a Batman who doesn't kill or use guns, but people I don't know exaggerate
in 2035 Imma make a batman film where he still has his parents.
Just wait till 2086 when Sonic the hedgehog becomes public domain, lol.
You know, assuming the laws don’t change within the next decade or two (which let’s be honest they probably will) imagine if we could one day see a public domain feature length film of the justice league teaming up with the avengers!
We probably won't be alive to see it but at least SOMEONE will be lol
We can do an unofficial adaptation of Kurt Busiek and George Perez's JLA/Avengers in 2098!
@@KetsubanSolo
At least my great grandchildren would get to enjoy what I could not.
The film itself wouldn't be public domain, and neither of those teams will be until the 60s.
@@ender7278
So, if I understand the law correctly, they should be public domain by the 2050s? I am no lawyer, nor am I a film Director, so I’m not sure.
The fact they can just ever so slightly tweak the character and now it's legally a whole different one with a reset clock is pretty stupid.
No one can take the place as Batman more than Kevin Conroy. Rest In Peace, Kevin Conroy.
Wow, I can make my own iteration of some of comics biggest names. Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman. Think people will have a blast worth of content that first year of new variations of those characters.
Did superman Lois and joker will be public domain in this year?
I'm of the opinion that trademark in relation to an existing copyright needs to be revamped. My ideas...
First of all, Trademark as it applies to a specific copyright should become void when the character enters public domain.
If a Trademark related to a copyright lapses and another company captures the trademark, the company that owns the earlier copyright may still use the trademark without the permission or compensation of the new owners. They must, however, find a way to differentiate between their own and the new application of the trademark directly within the use of the trademark.
If the previous situation occurs and the older copyright enters public, the trademark also becomes public domain, but only as it applies to the earlier copyright.
If a trademark enters the public domain via a connection to an associated copyright, the trademark may not be registered in relation to any new unrelated copyright which is created after the date in which the original trademark and copyright entered the public domain.
Yes, this all stems from being a Captain Marvel fan.
We already have Black Bat and he's awesome just look it up.
The bright side is that, for certain IP holders, it will be harder for them to sue, if you merely take inspiration from the original Batman character. You could have your own comic book, with your own original superhero, and then they run into a guy who looks a bit like a bat, but is called something else, and does stuff WB wouldn't, like blow guys heads off with a shotgun. Clearly not ripping off their Batman, any more than they are already ripping off the one created almost a century ago.
Why can't everything media related be public domain?
Some media cost money,a lot of it,and investing a lot just to release it for free,and for everyone to take part of it,I’m sure that isn’t fair,and that’s why we have copyright.
Ah, excellent. We can give Wonder Woman her original weakness. Bindings.
I believe you meant to say "next year public domain laws are gonna change yet again to keep Steamboat Willy from going public domain".
Weird misspeak ya did there.
It's too late for copyright laws to change, and there's not a concerted lobbying effort by Disney to do so like there was in the 1990s. And once a work is in the PD, there is no going back.
@@Ganondorfdude11 The thing is Disney owns the TRADEMARK on the IMAGE of Micky Mouse. So even when Steamboat Willie becomes public domain, it really isn't truly able to be used by just anyone
@@Ganondorfdude11 Unfortunately Canada also extended its copyright very recently. It used to be 50 years after the death of the author, now it's 70.
@@BazukinBelyugovich That was to bring it in line with the Berne Convention, which was why the US changed its laws in 1978 as well. You often had the situation of something being public domain in Canada or Australia but not the rest of the English-speaking world, and with the Internet that meant you could functionally get things for free which were still under copyright in the US or UK. For instance, some James Bond novels are public domain but only in Canada. A guy on a Discord server I'm in actually wrote a "James Bond vs. Cthulhu" story that he proudly proclaimed was "Only legal in Canada!"