Public domain and the future of American culture
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 янв 2024
- A look at how public domain law has helped shape American culture, and how it will continue to in the post-Mickey era.
Buy Jef's shirt: www.teepublic.com/t-shirt/560...
SUBSCRIBE: ruclips.net/user/jjmccullough?...
FOLLOW ME:
🇨🇦Support me on Patreon! / jjmccullough
🤖Join my Discord! / discord
🇺🇸Follow me on Instagram! / jjmccullough
🇨🇦Read my latest Washington Post columns: www.washingtonpost.com/people...
🇨🇦Visit my Canada Website thecanadaguide.com
Some music by:
Craig Henderson- / @craighendersonmusic
ComradeF- / comradef ,
HASHTAGS:
![BETA SQUAD vs AMP FOOTBALL MATCH [OFFICIAL STREAM]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ChEmvP52p0U/mqdefault.jpg)
![TRASH or PASS! Eminem ( Houdini ) [REACTION!!!]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cB1WrZcMwMc/mqdefault.jpg)
I think it is important to stress that copyright in the beginning was only 28 years to protect the original author. The 95 years today is to protect the corporations.
Well 14 witg the ability to double it once
Fair, but it is also worth noting that copyright law was quickly revised to be longer--42 years in 1831, and then 56 years in 1909. Long before Disney put their thumb on the scale. (Disney didn't start mucking with extending copyright until 1976 when they first pushed it to 75 years).
The current 95 is obviously silly, but 28 is probably a little too short. Like...especially when it comes to comic books, a lot of them get their first film adaptation around 20-30 years after the comic. The Watchmen was 23 years later, for example. The infinity saga (with Thanos and his glove) was right around 28 years later. Filmmakers will obviously just wait the extra year or two to release their film when they get to pay nothing to the people who came up with the story.
I think I favour going back to the 1909 56-year number or maybe the 1831 42 year number. Author works, especially those that appeal to young people, often have a nostalgia moment 20-25 years after the work first became popular, and authors probably should get paid for the licencing kickbacks from that nostalgia moment.
@@KaitlynBurnellMathis there any way we can have it put back to 56 yrs?
@@KaitlynBurnellMath It is a conflict between free speech vs. private ownership.
@@WxIxLxLxIxAxMxSI'm not an expert, but as far as I can tell only Congress can do that, and probably can only do it without too much pushback with exemptions to the works already published.
I think this whole micky mouse situation really shows how the design of a single character can be transformed so many ways
Yes and Mickey is a pretty typical 1920s funny animal. Oswald has a very similar design. I think it's kind of how the current Studio Ghibli art style is a product of the 1960s, but nowadays it's the only one.
My grandfather is 90 years old and I'm worried about him entering public domain when he turns 95 :(
no it's just the baby version of your grandpa entering the public domain. Your current grandpa is safe
HE'S MY GRANDFATHER IN A FEW YEARS. 😁
I will make a fanfiction with him as Alice in Alice in wonderland
As someone who just lost their last grandpa, I'd appreciate having a shared one in 5 years... :'0.
Here's a better question: has it been 95 years since the death of your grandfather's original creators (aka his parents), assuming it was before 1978? He may still be under copyright! 😊
The funniest detail on the Wizard of Oz is that the wicked witch of the west being green is also unique to the MGM version, but in practice, they only own the exact shade of green that was in the film, so every adaptation uses its own specific green.
For Return to Oz, Disney probably could have gotten away with slightly different red slippers, but being able to call them "the ruby slippers" was probably why the went with paying for the license.
That is wild!
Colours in general are kind of thematic in The Wizard of Oz - the ruby slippers, the yellow brick road etc. Colour was extremely new to film at the time, so the emphasis on colour is maybe comparable to the spate of 3D gimmicks we saw in movies in the late noughties to early tens.
I haven't read the book, but it was my understanding that the slippers were in the book, but they were a different color.
@@KasumiKenshirou- that is correct. They were silver in the books
@@alexpotts6520 yeah! They even do it at the expense of some of the original ideas of the book. Like how in the book, the city of emeralds is supposed to be this big fraud put on by the Wizard, where everyone has to put on green glasses that just make a normal city look green. But in the movie it’s played straight, and everything actually is made of emeralds.
I worked in the copyright space for 20 years and this is one of the best “lay person” recaps of copyright and public domain I have seen.
I bestow a special award to JJ for this episode.
I will now bookmark this episode so I can release it with full monetization 70 years after JJ’s passing (or the passing of his co-writer, if he has one, whichever is later).
Thanks for the future fat stacks.
Finally an award winning video for @jjmccullough 😂🎉🏆
possibly earlier, depending on this work's orphaned status, if you are a daring copyright rascal.
A company in Paraguay (called Mickey S.R.L.) trademarked Mickey Mouse for use on packaged food products in the country before Disney did. Disney lost the lawsuit against the company, so they still use the mouse on its products to this day. It's Micky facing sideways which for some reason is ok. It's very alarming to see it in the grocery store. Just seems odd seeing Micky on low budget packages of salt pepper and other condiments.
I'm just surprised they didn't sell the trademark to Disney, for a lot of money of course.
@@wta1518Any victory against Disney is a win.
They kept it just to spite Disney. They said had Disney privately contacted them, and politely asked to stop, they would've. But since Disney was petty and sued their tiny little company nobody knew of, they decided to be petty, and keep using it.
@@I_WANT_MY_SLAWthat isn’t petty. It’s treating Disney the way they treated them. Furthermore it’s probably way better for them to be able to use it in the long run.
@@williamhamilton1154it’s super petty, it’s not like a small food distribution company in Paraguay was hurting Disney’s bottom line or anything.
So I know that It’s a Wonderful Life fell into the public domain because no one renewed it. Because it was free to use lots of tv stations played it during the holidays to fill time where people finally learned to appreciate it. Then the studios somehow took back its copyright because of the popularity.
Is that so? That’s interesting and explains a lot.
@@JJMcCulloughIt's also why there are so many crappy DVDs of It's A Wonderful Life out there.
@@JJMcCulloughOrson Welles’ 1962 film, “The Trial,” has *always* been in the public domain. He deliberately never copyrighted it. I’ve tried to find out why for years, but never really been able to get a conclusive answer other than that he intentionally left it undone.
This low box office near flop became a Christmas tradition because of glitches in the 1976 Copyright Act. Stations that had a print could hype it as a holiday classic , show it, and rake in the money and pay no share. This started with indie UHF stations in larger markets. Channel 39 in Houston was one of the first to get on the gravy train.
The film is still in the public domain, but they can claim copyright on the story from the book & film music, which they do establish copyright on, so all you can freely use is still frames of the movie. It would be interesting for someone to dub and edit the movie to make a different story. Let’s make Jimmy Stewart the villian and Clarence a wizard. I wonder if that can get past copyright.
Another interesting quirk about US copyright law is that any media produced for the US Government is automatically in the public domain
There is one exception to this, of course. Smokey the Bear. He was in the Public Domain as you say, but was taken out of the Public Domain in 1952 when the Ad Council and the U.S. Forest Service secured his rights for commercial use. This move was aimed at promoting wildfire prevention and educating the public about the dangers of unattended fires. Since then, Smokey the Bear has become a well-known symbol for fire safety, and his image is now protected by trademark to ensure responsible usage and prevent unauthorized commercial exploitation.
I love those weird old public domain government films about WW2 and the cold war etc. They're just so weird now. I've used a few of them to make RUclips videos
“Duck and Cover” is probably the most well known example, due to its wide availability and its use in thousands of Cold War documentaries (and the general inanity of its message).
@MrScottbot101 Is that the video that's telling kids to get under there desk if there's a nuclear attack, like that would prevent anything
@@ArthurSanford3706 also when it came out, they weren't even using those smaller hiroshima sized bombs, which could possibly be survivable, but they were up to hydrogen bombs by that point, which a desk would obviously not be able to protect anyone against a massive blast
My favorite part of Public Domain is the possibilities it gives to new creations. A lot of creators overlook the way you can derive from Public Domain work to make something new and exciting. Take Disney for example, they would not be anything without making derivative and adaptive works of stories in the Public Domain.
Cant wait for the hit movie in 2060 that'll use 20th century movie and cartoon characters the way Shrek and Puss In Boots uses fairytale characters
Fun fact about the Donkey Kong case: The lawyer who defended Nintendo was named Kirby, so they named a character after him. 😂
The head of Nintendo USA was named Mario. Thus what was intended to be Popeye was renamed first "Jump Man" and later Mario.
@@Bacopa68it was actually their landlord
@@foursidekm Yeah, Mario Segale, who died recently. (RIP.) I'm not 100% sure if Nintendo is telling the truth about Kirby being named after the lawyer. Kirby is the name of a company that makes vacuum cleaners, and Kirby's main method of attack is to inhale his enemies.
It's a shame how abused copyright is by companies. The fact that it's practically almost a century is insane. Well beyond most of our lifespans
This is why I'm quite anti-copyright - it's longer than a human lifetime and a lot of the things in the public domain (especially music) are pretty bad. Also nobody ever goes to jail or gets arrested for copyright infringement.
I find the relationship between a works status and its popularity to be fascinating. Like "Its A Wonderful Life" becoming a classic because it was public domain. Or how a large portion of Robert Frost's poems became obscure because they got caught in the freeze. So everyone knows Two Roads Diverged but little else. Or how the "Welcome to Las Vegas" sign was never copyrighted (on purpose, a gift to the city) so it became ubiquitous. Id love to find more such examples.
There’s one instance I know of where a company intentionally put a product into the public domain.
Back when the Atari brand was owned by the toy company Hasbro, the properties included the rights to all its home consoles. When some game developers wanted to release titles they were working on for the Atari Jaguar, they contacted Hasbro to get licensing agreements. No one at Hasbro wanted to deal with the hassle of licensing for a system as unpopular as the Jaguar, so effectively wash their hands of the situation, they released the system’s patents and rights to the public domain so that the developers could release games without worrying about licensing. It’s been an “open system” ever since.
What's your source for this?
I worked with the people who made the game “BattleSphere” to get the Jaguar’s encryption key from Hasbro so they could release the game publicly, and saw the announcement of system being released to the public domain first-hand, so… me, I guess. ;)
Wait, so it's actually possible to deliberately release something to the public domain if you want to, after it had previously been copyrighted? Like, for example, could I have something I created copyrighted during my lifetime, but then arrange it so that it gets released to the public domain once I die?
@@seanmyster6 Yes, as long as you own the copyright, you can release it at any time into the public domain.
@@seanmyster6Yes, it's called copyright abandonment. If the owner of a work wants to they can denounce their copyright, thus abandoning it. The problem though is that because this doesn't happen automatically if a work is not used or made available by the creator, it can lead to some works being "orphaned", and while certain groups are allowed to make copies of "orphaned" works for archival, they still aren't considered abandoned and part of the public domain.
Some further notes:
Night of the Living Dead did originally have a full copyright stamp on its original planned title card. But that title card dubbed the movie "Night of the Flesh Eaters". At the last minute, the title was changed to "Night of the Living Dead", so a new title card had to be made. In their rush, though, they neglected to add the copyright stamp to the new card, and the movie ended up falling into the public domain.
The ownership status of King Kong is still in dispute. Different studios and authors have had their hands on the property over the years, each with their own copyrights, so it can be difficult to tell who should be allowed to do what with the character, or what aspects of the story are and aren't public domain.
While the ruby slippers are an invention of MGM's Wizard of Oz, they were a replacement for the silver shoes from the original public domain novel, which serve the same narrative purpose, but were less impressive for a Technicolor showcase. So your own original adaptation of The Wizard of Oz can have all the magic shiny footwear you want, as long as they aren't the ruby slippers iconic to MGM's version.
The NOTLD error was not made by George Romero, but by the film's original distributor, The Walter Reade Organization.
@@themoviedealers
Did the lack of copyright status effect the explosion of zombie movies as a genre?
@@bcubed72 I don't think you can copyright something as general as a "genre," so probably not. The bigger influence was probably that lots of people like the movie, inspiring others to make similar films.
The ruby slippers definitely don’t evoke the value of a silver backed dollar
I want the deep fried in Bisquick slippers.
I find it interesting how the conversation around public domain relating to Steamboat Willie has focused so heavily on reimagining and re-markeing the character and using the original work as a springboard for derivative works, rather than just reproducing the original work and making it more freely available, the latter being how public domain had always seemed to be understood on the rare occasions I heard about it in the past. Really goes to show how important remix culture and "IP" have become in the modern zeitgeist.
"Remix culture" is just culture. If it's owned and has to be licensed, it's not culture, it's a product.
Americans didn't have culture for over a century because American creative industry worked tirelessly to destroy our legal right to create. The only pockets where culture could flourish were in places where nobody was looking and wouldn't bother suing you - e.g. the underground music scenes where sampling was extremely commonplace and where the word "remix" comes from. These scenes tended to also have a lot of socially marginalized people in them. In other words... white people didn't have culture because *Congress made it illegal multiple times over*.
@@SuperSmashDolls This is wrong on so many levels and sounds like commie gobbledygook.
Most of Culturcide's copyright violating works have been on RUclips for years because most of their derived works have been credited to the original creators. That's why "Santa Clause is my Lover" is here on YT.
Culturcide also has plenty of original work. Just look up "Culturcide Vintage Synth Punk" for a good example. BTW, The Cult adopted a riff from Culturcide did well, because Culturcide does not sue.
In the case of "Steamboat Willie," I think part of the reason is that it's a relatively simple black and white cartoon that happens to have an iconic character in it. These days, people are more interested in Mickey as a character than "Steamboat Willie" per se.
@@SuperSmashDolls That sounds like a load of barnacles
Imagine being jumped by a gang of devious-looking stock image people, their flat 2D forms menacingly sliding closer to you and your precious intellectual property. Truly a nightmare.
As a musical worship leader at a church, my biggest interaction with the public domain is with hymnody. Especially when an artist or musician writes a new chorus or verse to a hymn which then no longer makes it public domain and proper attribution must be given in any printing or projection of lyrics. Sometimes old hymns in the public domain are given new tunes which means that song becomes an entirely new work with the text being Public Domain but the tune and arrangement copyrighted.
And most of the new additions are terrible (imo). Wish my church would sing the original "Amazing Grace" at least once this decade 😂
@@NakAlienEd yea the Tomlin chorus goes way too high for the average congregant to sing.
I worked in my last church's office and was the person in charge of reporting the songs we sung on CCLI. It was crazy to see how many different versions there were of some of the songs. When the music leader of the week would give me songs without the CCLI number, it sometimes was a bit of a puzzle to figure out which version I was looking to report online or make into the slides for the congregation to sing.
I'm not a musician and can't read music. I always hated the newer arrangements because they were sometimes really hard to figure out what way they wanted to sing the song as it wasn't necessarily the way the musician recorded it and put on the paper.
My current church likes older music and hymns more. It is fantastic to not have a service full of songs with verses that actually have deep meaning versus singing the same line over and over again.
I love public domain so much. I use public domain films and cartoons to make music videos for instrumental trip-hop songs I make on my RUclips channel. I also remember being excited when happy birthday became public domain in 2015 because I was working on an indie film with a birthday scene. I was very excited to tell my bosses, and we were able to sing the normal song instead of making up some weird version lol
But I want copyright
Watching all the new IP's that get bumped into the public domain is definitely going to be a New Year's Day tradition for me.
I'm sure JJ will be feasting the next few years with all of the cultural icons hitting the public domain. It will be a neat thing to watch in the near future what we do and don't decide to do with cultural icons as they become available for public use.
Probably one of the biggest will be superman in 2034 and batman in 2035.
@@switchplayer1016My understanding is that the earliest versions of Superman and Batman are quite different from how most people imagine them, it'll be a while yet before anyone can freely produce a work featuring characters who are widely recognisable as Superman or Batman.
Not in Canada, Public Domain doesn't open back up until 2043.
The one thing I dont like about copyrights is in reference to music, especially covers of songs on RUclips.
There are only finite sequences in music, yet somehow people are able to copyright certain music patterns, and even if a song you make features a few of these patterns, you can still get flagged for it!
One of the things that I think isn't touched on enough, is how copyright is less strictly enforced than it used to be. In the 40s and 50s, if you had a character that even had a passing resemblance to another, you were going to get sued, and you were going to lose. The perfect example of this, was when Fawcett Comics was sued by DC for "ripping off" Superman with Captain Marvel (now Shazam). Characters like Omniman and Homelander would not have been okay back then, but are considered fine now.
And then DC acquired Captain Marvel, but in the meantime Marvel Comics made their own Captain Marvel and now owns the *trademark*. So DC can still call their character Captain Marvel (and had done so until relatively recently), but they can't use that name on their comic book covers.
@@KasumiKenshirou I remember Linkara's Marvelman review where he joked that the character should have been renamed "Lawsuit Man" to better represent the clusterfuck of ownership claims orbiting the Captain Marvel brand.
@@KasumiKenshirou DC and Marvel just continuously play chicken with each other when it comes to having similar characters and names. 😂
It’s interesting how Superman is practically a character archetype at this point. When a new superhero work is created, it’s stranger for it to not have a Superman knockoff.
@@Snickerway I'd argue that him, Batman, and Spider-Man have all become archetypes for super heroes at this point.
Your thought (16:19) that American culture, as it passes into the public domain, is becoming akin to fairy tales or folklore, is a really salient (and joyous) observation.
I think an interesting aspect of Copyright Law is the question of Celebrity Likenesses. There was a really interesting lawsuit back in the 90s when airports decided to open franchises based on the bar Cheers from the hit TV Show. And, I think inspired by places like Disneyland and Chuck E Cheese, the bar included animatronic characters of Norm and Cliff. This was very cool and exciting to everyone, except for the actors who played Norm and Cliff. They sued claiming that their likenesses had been used without consent, and the bar countered saying that the animatronics were depicting the characters, not the actors. Norm and Cliff lost the suit, as the animatronics were determined to resemble the characters and not the actors.
The whole difference of ownership between an actor and a character is why you will find Kylo Ren and Iron Man at Disneyland, but they won't remove their masks: Disney has the rights to these characters, but the actors Robert Downy Jr. and Adam Driver didn't sell their faces to the Walt Disney Corporation. Also I think there's a really interesting question about the difference between an actor and a character from a different Sitcom from the 1990s: The Nanny. Fran Drescher is very plainly playing a fictionalized version of herself. If I created a derivative work based on Fran Fine, could Fran Drescher sue me for using her likeness, since Fran Fine is just a fictionalized version of Fran Drescher? You own your face, of course. But what's the line between a likeness of Vin Diesel the actor, and a likeness of Dom Toretto the character? I think this likeness problem is why Disney is leaning so hard on masked characters and puppets for their major franchises. Most of the major Star Wars and Marvel Characters are masked characters or aliens (including Kylo Ren, the Mandalorian, Grogu, Ahsoka, Spider-Man, Iron Man, Ant-Man, Star Lord, Groot, Thanos, etc), meaning that Disney retains full ownership of the characters, and they don't need to pay an actor for the use of their likeness. Especially when you pair the rise of masked characters with the rise of AI-generated deepfakes (apparently the recent Obi-Wan Kenobi show on Disney+ used an AI deepfake to replicate the voice of retired actor James Earl James), I think it's pretty clear why actors got spooked and went on strike in 2023. Actors don't want their jobs replaced by automation either.
Great insights here
AI and music will also be an interesting dilemma. When you own the rights to music, do you own the song, or the melody, or the voice, or some combination of all of that?
I must confess it hadn't occurred to me that Mickey Mouse himself had entered into public domain - or at least the 1928 iteration of Mickey has - when _Steamboat Willie_ fell out of Disney's control. This suddenly feels like a bigger deal now, although saying that I suppose media is annually entering into the public domain.
I recently saw a playthrough of a game that's a fantastic example of what can be done with a freed intellectual property. There's a Dark Souls/Bloodborne-esque title named _Lies of P_ that's a dark fantasy action interpretation of _The Adventures of Pinocchio,_ with Pinocchio himself being a clockwork android, Geppetto his "father" (who's essentially the creator of the in-game world's world's "puppets" within the city of Krat) and other characters referencing those that appear in the original Carlo Collodi novel. Although the game takes enormous liberties with the original's plot and establishes its own distinctive lore and world building, it still manages to hit upon the broad themes that the novel tackles - albeit with a far more gothic inclination, and more sobering sense of imperilment.
*EDIT:* Why do people hate _Return to Oz_ so much? xD That's one of my all time favourite films!
I promise I'm not throwing shade J.J. ;p Thanks for the video.
I agree with you, "Return to Oz" is woefully underrated.
Yeah! when he said horrible film, i was like 😱🤬 how DARE you JJ! lol but seriously it's sooooo good! the production value is amazing!!! if you liked that i HIGHLY recommend watching Shirley Temple's Blue Bird!!! AMAZING film!
@@bartolomeothesatyr @calliemyersbuchanan6458 It's genuinely nice to know I'm not the only fan of that film :3 Seems to be either forgotten about, or broadly disliked by those who remember or otherwise aware of it. I'm suppose I'm just a sucker for sombre 80's fantasy.
Wait, they made a "classic children's character in dark and gritty setting" thing that's actually good?
Great stuff that entered the public domain this year (besides Mickey Mouse):
- The Man who Laughs (1928 silent movie whose main character inspired the look for the Joker)
- Tigger from Winnie-the-Pooh
- All Quiet on the Western Front (the original book in its original German)
- In Old Arizona & Lights of New York (two of the first movies to have synchronized dialogue throughout the entire movie; The Jazz Singer only had synchronized dialogue for a handful of scenes)
Stuff that has been in the public domain that most people aren’t aware of:
- Oswald the Lucky Rabbit
- the video game Rogue (inspiration behind the rougelike genre)
- several movies by Roger Corman
- a Woody Woodpecker cartoon called “Pantry Panic”
- a Popeye cartoon called “Popeye the Sailor Meets Simbad the Sailor”
- a Daffy Duck / Elmer Fudd cartoon called “To Duck or Not to Duck”
Things that will enter the public domain next year (USA):
- The Cocoanuts (oldest surviving Marx Brothers film)
- The Skeleton Dance
- The Sound and the Fury
How old is Rogue? What system did it ran on?
"The Skeleton Dance" is the movie used on "Spooky Scary Skeleton"?
Are the Daffy Duck, Popeye and Woody Woodpecker in a similar situation like "Steamboat Willie"?
@@burner555 Rogue was created in 1980, and is now open-source, which means its original code is free to distribute and build upon.
Yes, The Skeleton Dance is used in that.
No, because previous incarnations of those characters are still under copyright, it’s only the individual pieces of media that are public domain.
I've heard that there are quite a handful of 30s/40s Looney Tunes shorts that are already in the public domain since the 60s because WB didn't bother to renew their copyrights. Because of this those can be uploaded to YT and probably not be taken down. Though I guess the derivative works side of PD might not fully apply until those characters' debut shorts eventually become PD in the next decade.
@@KremBotop Yep, that’s correct. I looked into it and there’s quite a handful of WB cartoons that are in the public domain. There’s even a WW2 propaganda cartoon featuring Donald Duck called “The Sprit of ‘43” that’s public domain too. But yes, derivative works based on characters in those public domain cartoons (unless they happen to be those characters’ debut appearances) will not be possible without a copyright violation because previous incarnations of those characters are still subject to copyright.
@@burner555Any video game currently in the public domain had its copyright relinquished early.
Because of the absurdly-long copyright terms we have now, there won't be any video games entering the public domain "naturally" until several decades from now.
Pong (published in 1972) won't become public domain until 2068.
There are actually multiple Mickey cartoons that are public domain that aren’t Steamboat Willie. These are Gallopin Gaucho, Plane Crazy, The Mad Doctor, Minnie’s YooHoo, and Mickey’s Surprise Party. There is also a public domain poster that depicts Mickey with red shorts, brown shoes, and yellow gloves.
The poster is being battled as a marketing trademark so that one is still risky as posters are seen as only marketing and that is a mess that can get you sewed into the ground.
I'd heard about those other shorts being in the public domain, so I don't understand why the character wasn't already in the public domain. Just guessing here, but does the first depiction of the character have to fall into the public domain before the character himself is in the public domain?
There was also some Mickey Mouse newspaper comic strips that were thought to be in the public domain, and were published by a company other than Disney under the title "The Uncensored Mouse", with no images of nor mentions of Mickey Mouse on it's cover. (The covers were mostly completely black except for the title, the name of the publisher, etc..) Disney sued them and the whole thing was shut down.
Dorothy’s slippers in the book are silver, and are sometimes interpreted as representing bimetallism (or the free coinage of silver) by people who think the novel was an allegory for the Presidential Election of 1896.
There are several competing political interpretations of the Wizard of Oz.
Each dumber than the last
This makes me want to see you do a video on this...@@JJMcCullough
The really frustrating part is that all of the problems you identify (orphan works, petty claims over Sherlock Holmes liking dogs, etc.) would be greatly mitigated if the copyright term were shorter.
Nobody is making serious money on (the vast majority of) works published 50-95 years ago. There is no reason for them to be protected under copyright. We could literally cut the copyright term in half and not have much of an impact on the average rightsholder's income, especially when you consider trademark law. For example, let's say the copyright term is shortened to 50 years, which means Star Wars: A New Hope expires in 2027. That doesn't mean you can just make a new Star Wars movie in 2028, because Lucasfilm (Disney) still owns the trademark on "Star Wars." You wouldn't be able to market your movie as "Star Wars," or use any of the other Lucasfilm iconography in your marketing materials, because that would infringe Lucasfilm's trademarks and trade dress. At best, you'd be able to make an obvious knockoff that most audiences would avoid like the plague. From this example, it is apparent to me that Lucasfilm does not actually need to own the copyright on A New Hope in order to continue its monopoly on Star Wars films. Most other large franchises are in a similar place, and most small franchises are no longer profitable anyway, so lengthy copyright terms accomplish little other than to inconvenience fans and archivists.
It strikes me as ironic that the reason that copyright terms are so long now is because Disney lobbied for this; they'd return to Congress every 20 years or so to appeal for an extension so their properties wouldn't fall into the public domain. They'd probably have done so again, except they seem to have worn out their welcome with the conservatives, who probably weren't interested in handing Disney another favor. It's perhaps the only inarguably positive thing to come from anti-woke backlash.
@@benjaminrobinson3842I don't think anti-wokeness has anything to do with it. The last time this happened it was already very unpopular before wokeness was a thing. It didn't matter who was in control, Disney knew they wouldn't be able to get it pushed back further. What is lost in all the hoopla is that if Disney was going to do anything about it it would have been in 2021 before Winnie the Pooh went into the public domain.
@@evancombs5159
And I don’t think they’ll try again until they’re about to lose Donald Duck or Spider-Man.
2:14 It'd be interesting to explore how patents, the Sciences to copyright's useful Arts, have kept their term of a mere 28 years, which I believe was the original copyright term in the US.
The fact that we in effect treat artistic expression as worth protecting 3 times as much as practical invention is an implication worth considering.
In fairness, the costs of keeping an invention locked behind a patent for a long time is less than keeping art locked behind copyright. Also, technologies don't have nostalgia cycles the way art does.
The original 28 year term comes from legal reforms of the Whig Parlaiment of Queen Anne. US law followed this for a long time.
As I remember it, the term was 28 years, which could be renewed for another 28 years. Many of the books I read had multiple copyright dates attached; perhaps this is the reason why.
Also the cost of patents being maintained for a very long time is way greater; imagine if only Edison could make light bulbs for 95 years. (And patent terms are 20 years not 28 years.)
Should be noted that the 1932 King Kong Novel was never copyrighted by RKO, so it's public domain.
You just have to be careful and stick to the events of the book and avoid any references to the movies or other adaptations.
Remember to consult a copyright expert and lawfirm before you make your adaptation.
The claymation Rudolph is public domain. But the CHARACTER has a few years to go before it is public domain. That's why Rudolph is usually not in works about Santa even when they include the 8 other raindeer from the older poem.
Which is why SpongeBob had a parody named “Bludolph”
About your last point with corporations being the main driving force of cultural development in NA, I really do believe that since the internet age really kicked off in the 2010s with social media becoming more mainstream, the last 14 years of cultural development have once again been more driven by individual persons or small groups of people.
I hope that on day in the future, you are presented with no-less-than three awards for your outstanding, fun and quirky informationals.
I remember hearing somewhere that Irving Berlin's career was so long (He lived to be 101) that he was able to see some of his songs go out of copyright while he was still alive. I think this was back in the day when it was around 70 years after publication that the copyright lasted.
My wife bought me Bryan Lee O’Malley’s, Scott Pilgrim series for Christmas & I must say that watching your videos helped improve my experience, by giving me a better understanding of Canadian culture & background
A few things regarding Mickey Mouse here:
Steamboat Willi was the first SOUND movie featuring Mickey but it's not the only one in the public domain now. Previously he also appeared in the silent movies The Galloping Goucho and Plane Crazy both of wich are also publich domain now. They also had sound version re-released in 1929 wich are still copyrighted until next year.
Also, your buddy shouldn't have had those problems with his shirt because it would've been perfectly fine to have Mickey colorized like that, given that an almost identical colour scheme was used on a promotional poster for Steamboat Willi, making his iconic red pants public domain aswell. The hat is also not mandatory because he didn't wear it in the other tow movies and even looses it halfway through Steamboat Willi.
And technically the tune Mickey whistles in the cartoon is also public domain because it's called "Steamboat Bill" and is from 1911.
The only thing still not allowed is using "Mickey Mouse" as a brand or title because that falls under trademark law wich can't expire the same way copyright does. However, if one where to make a commercial Mickey Mouse cartoon they could still call him by his name within the work itself, just not in the title. Kinda like DC can't title any comic Captain Marvel but still can call him that within the pages themselves.... even tho they still don't do that for some reason.
Honestly, I think copyright has been too heavily abused by corporations and should retroactively be reduced to the 14 years from the date of publication (+14 additional years) it was originally because the current timeframe is just unreasonable.
It's even hurting the coporations themselves at this point. I mean, look at Disney right now: they're dragging themselves along buying more and more big franchises and eating away at their own legacy just to barely keep themselves alive. Without copyright they'd be forced to become innovative again because everything slips away from them wich in turn would improve their bottomline.
Good video. I think it's interesting that every time a children's character enters the public domain a lame horror movie will be made of it.
I only know of one case
But that is the aspect of public domain that I like the best: Someone can take the character and portray and use the character differently.
@@langreeves6419 well a winnie the pooh horror movie was made last year and currently there's a mickey mouse horror movie in development so there's that.
It makes sense that horror movies are the first thing to be produced since they are the cheapest, fastest, and most attention grabbing things. Even if somehow something big is produced before it, it’s not gonna get as much coverage by news and social media as a horror movie. Something I find funny about it though is that one aspect of the copyright is that the work inspired by Steam Boat Willie isn’t supposed to be able to confuse consumers into thinking that it was made by Disney. Obviously the farthest thing from Disney would be a cheap horror movie, therefore the safest thing to make to avoid getting sued.
Shock value
Plus, bad/cheesy horror movies are pretty easy to write
I liked the way the "like and subscribe" outro screen (17:11), something that normally doesn't get much attention from creators, is formatted like a golden-era comic book page.
The song Funiculi Funicula had a history of being unintentionally used without permission, as many people thought it was older than it really was (1880). It is free to use now :)
The buddies shirt at the beginning of the video is amazing! it's such a fun design.
This video inspired me to look up the status a book I've been using for research that has only been published once and is now traded as a "rare book" at an extremely over-inflated price. Success! The copyright holder was the author's widow, who died in 1949, so I can republish it in tandem with the relevant video.
Yeah Google Books is your friend in this, if they have already scanned it, you don't even have to scan it yourself (there scan may not be up to the quality you want or maybe you want to redo the fonts etc.). If they think it is still copyright you can ask them to review it and if they agree with you it's public domain they will release it so you can download a scan of the whole book free and clear to use.
Also it doesn't matter when the last owner of copyright dies it matters when the original author died copyright term is either fixed from 1st publication (95 years in the US) or life of one of the creators/authors + 50 or 70 years etc. If there is no living owner then it is an orphaned work and you can use it and no one can claim it, but you can't be sure someone did not buy the widow's estate including her book rights for example so that would be a risk if the copyright term might still last. But the term is not extended by transfer of ownership, a new owner can only own during the original term.
Also copyright term is whatever the local law says it is in most countries it will be life of the creator + 70 years (or some fixed term for works with no specific author), but in some places it is life of the creator + 50 years (China, New Zealand) and in some places + 100 years (Mexico for reasons I can not fathom). So things can be public domain in one country and still under copyright in another.
@@allanolley4874Well, the book was published five years after the death of its author and so the copyright was held by his widow.
That clause from the constitution ("securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries") reads like the founders did not intend for copyright to be transferable, much less to extend after the author's death. Copyright lasting for life + 70 years is absolutely ridiculous.
Imagine if you could ask the founding fathers questions about what they REALLY meant with the constitution. Did they intend for the 2nd amendment to let everyday Americans own guns capable of shooting hundreds of rounds a minute? Did they intend for the 4th amendment to stop the police spying on hundreds of people all at once? Did they intend for the 1st amendment to protect speech when that speech is depictions of explicit nudity, brutal violence, foul language or drug abuse? Did they intend for the 5th amendment to stop law enforcement from forcing suspects to unlock a device that contains far more personal information than any safe or lock-box could ever contain?
@@jfwfreo To the gun question, yes. We have no reason to believe the Framers had any limits in mind for the ability of the American people to own firearms. They didn't even care if somebody bought their own cannon or warship. And multiple-shot firearms did exist at the time, Thomas Jefferson owned a few.
I just gotta say, “Return to Oz” is indeed one of the greatest fantasy films of the 1980s. A little darker and disturbing, yet still somehow full of wonder.
One complicating factor with classical music is that the recording copyrights are separate from the composition copyrights, so if you want to use a piece of classical music, you either need to record a new performance of it, license an existing recording, or make due with sound quality from 95 years ago.
Shout out to musopen for creating high quality professional recordings of classical music specifically in order to release them into the public domain.
There are people who intentionally publish things like this into the public domain from the get go
@@SuperSMT Also animals. Any art not created by a human is public domain in the US. The animal case only comes up occasionally, but the same precedent currently seems to apply to AI so it will be interesting to see how case law shakes out on that.
As a Canadian, we consume so much media from the states where the law is discussed, and it pretty well makes us ignorant of our own laws. So I like that you went into the Canadian law as well on this. It's interesting to know the differences.
My wife watches a lot of police encounter videos. It's full of people exercising their rights in very blatant ways (like they're using the law to purposely test and antagonize the police, and sometimes the police fail that test.) But it made me realize that when that sort of thing happens, some Canadians will be silly enough to say "I have a second amendment right!" as if they were in America. But they don't, per say. Our constitution isn't a concise document, and most Canadians have no idea what their rights are.
Hardly unique to Canada, almost every English speaking country has the same problem. I recall reading on the garda (Irish Polease) website speedily stating that the Maranda rights are an American thing and that the right to remain silent is not a thing there.
A lot of people who are uploading Steamboat Willie to RUclips are getting copyright strikes by Disney but they get removed really quickly but then they get another copyright strike after that by Universal Music Group who is the company that deals with Disney's music and they are in Europe where Steamboat Willie is not public domain yet
This video presents this info super clearly & much more in depth than I've seen from other channels, thanks for sharing it!
& how dare you reference Scott Cramer!! I'm always thrilled when my favorite creators reference my other favorite creators! Much love
You didn't mention that until recently, copyright in Canada extended to only 50 years after death. They unfortunately extended it to 70 years (like the US & EU), but they didn't take anything out of public domain that had already expired in Canada. It's for this reason that James Bond is public domain in Canada, but not the US, UK, or EU.
Thanks J.J. for your hard work keeping us informed and entertained. Love, Uncle Kevin
Always love to get my weekly JJ fix 😊 Super interesting topic this week, particularly when you showed Bugs and Marvin the Martian since they were staples of my youth. It really does open a can of worms around folklore and reimagining these characters specifically around traits that emerged later on in the life of the characters.I wonder if public domain augments or solidifies the characters as they were. It would be interesting to see how far they deviate from the source material over time. Lots to think about as always JJ 😊 I appreciate you and hope everyone has a great week!
Some reprints of classic PD books contain new essays, annotations and translations which, to a book nerd such as myself, can be worth a buy. Whenever I give Ulysses a reread I have several versions to choose from.
PD?
I really don't like the idea of "increments of expression in derivative works" being protected for their own copyright term. The whole point was for there to be a limited time for the original author to build on their work before the public could as well. This is a major reason why big studios make so many sequels and remakes of their classic stories: they are hoping to effectively extend their copyright by adding new recognizable qualities to the characters.
Every work is derivative in some way, so if derivative works weren't copyrightable, nothing would be truely copyrightable
@@EnigmaticLucas Yeah we all use sentences composed of words people have used before for example.
I watched an obscure Wizard of Oz cartoon from the 80s where they clearly tried to change as many things as possible to keep themselves from getting sued, but the voice actor for Dorthy was still clearly doing an over top Judy Garland impression.
The outfit and hair are exactly what my mom rocked in the 80s. Total nostalgia. lol
I think this is one of your best videos JJ. I really enjoyed this plus really learned a lot at the same time.
That end card was sick! Loved the little cherry on top
I think we need to go beyond just keeping an eye on Congress, and push hard for the repeal of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998.
Yes. And, the story goes that a lot of it was about protecting Mickey Mouse/Steamboat Willy, who would've gone into public domain years ago if not for that law
Rudolph (the character and original poem) is not in public domain. The original poem came out in 1939, and the copyright is owned by the original creator and doesn’t expire until 2034. The copyright status for any characters originating from the original poem still fall under that copyright. The Copyright status for the 1964 rankin bass special is also a little unclear, but it is mostly considered to be public domain, so any characters created for the special (which i believe to be the entire cast except for Rudolph) are in public domain. So Hermes the elf and Cornelius, Bumble, king Moonracer are in public domain. The special is under copyright but because of the typo is mostly considered to be invalid, thus placing any original characters created for the special in the public domain. Somebody might dispute that claim but will have a harder time defending the copyright.
The original creator of Rudolph had been dead since 1976, just letting you know that.
@@marissawolff8491 yes I’m aware of that but Rudolph is still protected under copyright to the original owners, and is currently held by the family of the owner. It was just easier to write the original thing I said.
Just because the original creator dies doesn’t mean his work automatically goes into public domain.
@@michaelroque2662 Note copyright term is dictated by local copyright law. Everything is copyrighted internationally (under the Bern convention and or the WTO TRIPS convention) but what it means to be copyrighted is given by local law. So something can still be within its copyright term in one country and have entered the public domain in another, so copyright protected in one country and not the other.
There are a couple of countries that are not signatory to any international copyright law so I don't know what happens there, but the minimum under Berne etc. is life + 50 years which is still the case in China, New Zealand and a few other countries, most rich countries now have a term of life + 70 years (including the US but most stuff is still grandfathered under the old system using a fixed term of 95 years from publication etc.).
So the copyright on the original story will end in New Zealand, China and some other countries in 2026 (life of the author + 50 years) then in the US in 2034 (under US 95 years after publication for works from before 1978), but it will still be copyright in much of the world until 2046 (under the term life of the creator + 70 years and then in Mexico until 2076 (Mexico gives a copyright term of life + 100 years). There are probably other countries with other terms, but those are the ones I remember from looking up recently.
I have very limited legal knowledge, but from what I’ve read from prominent IP law experts, the Walt Disney Company could make a compelling case that Mickey is so intrinsically linked with Disney the corporation in the mind of the public that it qualifies for trademark protection (notably trademarks, unlike copyrights, have no expiration date). It’s unclear if courts will agree with this interpretation, or if Disney will even choose to pursue litigation if such a sort, but it could redefine IP law at this critical frontier
Mickey *is* a registered trademark of the disney corp, but I think that would be limited to the specific version they actually submitted AS a trademark, and not all prior versions
This is a realm of the law I don’t really understand.. The difference between a copyrighted thing and a trademark. This was actually part of the Donkey Kong lawsuit, the degree didn’t matter if King Kong was public domain if universal could still prove they had a trademark on the character.
As far as I understand it (IANAL) a copyright is IP, and a trademark is a name/word/phrase or graphic used to identify a product or service. Copyright could protect something of almost unlimited length, but a trademark would be limited to a short name or simple graphic. And single English words can't be trademarked usually. This is why companies purposely misspell words to get unique combinations. Or pharmaceutical companies just name drugs like Quflexavon, or other combinations of letters that aren't words. Other times they can only be used in a single category. You can't make a laundry detergent called Tide, but you can sell a tuna salad called Tide. Apple Records vs. Apple Computer probably the most obvious example. And I think a trademark can be eternal as long as you can prove you have continued using it in commerce. You can abandon a trademark by not using it. There was a chain of taco restaurants called Naugles (started by a guy named Naugles). Taco Bell bought them out in the 1980s but never used the name again, so in 2015 a guy who missed their food just took the name and reopened the restaurant again. Taco Bell couldn't do anything about it.
@@JJMcCullough Trademarks are often brand ID markers that you protect so that the public can trust that you made something. It can be your logos or your versions of stuff. For Disney they started using the whistling as a logo for animated movies to trademark that as a brand ID. But unlike full copyright trademark law is a double edged sword. It lets you protect things that people can use to know you made something but it was not a weapon you can just use to bypass copyright when it ends. What Disney can use trademark to fight is brand confusion over the idea you tricked or confused people. If you are open enough that your work is based on a public domain work and that you are not the person or company that made it you start to have more legal wiggle room. Trademark law helps with brand confusion or when you steal something used to ID the brand or company. Even Disney can not just toss trademark laws around to take you down if your case is strong enough to say that you never acted like you were Disney. And Disney fears that tossing trademark around to fight tons of uses of this version of Mickey would mean they lose the trademarks. America might be crazy but even when they got the 95 year copyright it was noted that misuse of trademark law to bypass copyright loss could get your trademarks taken away. While that has never happened it could if the right people agree that Disney is tossing around trademark law to control a public domain work.
It's not just Steamboat Willie, it's also Plane Crazy, and all other promotional material. For example there's a poster of Mickey from 1928 where he has red pants, yellow gloves, and brown shoes. He also has white gloves in the intro card of Steamboat Willie, so those can be used as well.
You’d make a great entertainment lawyer. Have you ever thought about it? I interned for one in college, and I love the knowledge the both of you have.
You have a great way of making learning very entertaining. Love the Scott Cramer reference 😂
Wonderful content as always!
I’m surprised you thought Return to Oz was terrible! I thought it had a lot of charm with genuinely tense moments, and the visuals and practical effects are outstanding. The movie’s got quite a following!
I was gonna say, I haven't seen it in decades, but I don't remember it as terrible.
It’s such a bleak movie. I think it could’ve worked on its own terms, but making it into an Oz movie was pointless. Oz is not supposed to be some 80s horror world.
The original L. Frank Baum Oz novels embraced the kind of darkness inherent in the genre of classic European fairytales, @@JJMcCullough - "Return to Oz" felt to me much more like the tone of the novels than did the 1939 film.
@@bartolomeothesatyr this is a popular thing people say, but it’s not true. The books are incredibly lighthearted and were written for young girls. In many ways, the first book is probably the bleakest, and they just get more whimsical and goofy as the series progresses.
@@JJMcCullough I guess I'll have to revisit them, my memories of them were made years and years ago.
I admire your ability to find pictures of the most obscure facts you discuss. And if not you draw it!
You are 100% my favorite creator.
the editing always goes hard
“It’s a Wonderful Life” was in the public domain for a time, then reclaimed later. Any VHS’ published in btwn were all bought back and destroyed
I think there should be a movie about a horror author losing the rights to his works, and then a bunch of monsters entering the literal public domain and rampaging through a town. Steamboat Willie-era Mickey Mouse could even make a cameo!
Excellent legal-ethnography analysis. Keep up the great work.
magnificent work as usual friend!
An interesting note about Rudolph being in the public domain: while the special technically is PD (and has been for the last 800 years according to the copyright notice), all the original characters and songs created for it are still under copyright. The character of Rudolph is also copyrighted as well as the original Rudolph song, which are expected to go PD around 2034 and 2044, respectively.
I believe the original version of your friend's shirt should have been DMCA-safe, considering that the "full color", gloved version of Mickey Mouse existed in several promotional posters that were created the same year as Steamboat Willie.
edit: smh Return To Oz isn't bad
comment of positive support. I always enjoy your videos and wry sense of humor. thank you
Really great video! An underrated topic.
Appreciate the use of public domain music in this video
In general, I'm not a fan of long copyright, but I do think a creator should get exclusive rights for a short time. Imagine you're a producer who's sunk money into a project, only to find you've lost ownership because there's an "m" missing from your copyright notice: that's not right: it's things like this that being the administration of justice into disrepute!
I always thought copyright automatically belongs to the creator. Like when that monkey took a selfie. I don't get why a copyright card would be necessary as anything except a handy record.
One interesting special case is in the UK where there is a provision in copyright law that grants the rights to Peter Pan to the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children in perpetuity (so the character will never become public domain in the UK unless the law is changed and I doubt any politician would want to do that)
Personally I think copyright should be capped at 50 years. And a copyright claim should need to be manually renewed every decade to maintain it. With the first two renewals being automatically approved based upon proper maintenance of the copyright, while the latter two renewals would require sufficient justification for the necessity to perpetuate the copyright.
The superman thing is actually fairly interesting, if you care to research it. Essentially they were throwaway animations created by Max Fleischer's studio involved in some underhanded negotiations and price disputes. Both parties were unhappy, the product was unwanted, and intentionally abandoned or forgotten about.
Still some stellar animation for the time.
So it's public domain because nobody wanted to do it, and nobody wanted to claim it?
The original copyright term was 14 years, with another 14 years for renewal, the current term of 95 years is ridiclous.
You can thank, you guessed it, Disney. Steamboat Willie was the reason it was bumped from 75 to 95 years. 75 years is a good limit, the original creator will 99% likely be dead after that amount of time, and any immediate family would be very old at minimum.
@@ArthurSanford3706 "with renewal" is a good way to do it. Something like 25 years with two allowable renewals, total of 75
Yeah it's absolutely disgusting. People don't live that long
Just subbed! Really like someone is promoting free internet themed videos
Huh?
You should look into the fascinating story of how “it’s a wonderful life” entered and then was removed from public domain
This was an excellent explainer video from my Unitedstatesian lay POV.
You are the only person on RUclips I've ever seen call Return to OZ bad, there are countless in depth essays on how it's an underrated masterpiece.
And if you thought Return was bad, Great & Powerful is worse.
@@austinreed7343 That film does seem to be disliked by most people. I enjoyed it but I'm notoriously easy to please.
would love to see a community poll on this topic
I liked how the Hotel Transylvania monster designs skirt how the Universal Monster movies depicted the monsters. Right on the edge of what is original vs what is recognizable.
As a Russian Canadian American, I always appreciate my Cannadienne content ! 🎉 much love from South Florida
You've ticked a lot of boxes
I cant wait for JJ's hair to get into the public domain so i can copy his hairstyle
One interesting case is the copyright to Lovecraft's works, which is really unclear. Two of his 'disciples', Derleth and Wandrei, de facto took control over the rights by founding a publishing house for his stories with the permission of his heirs, but who actually owned copyright was never clarified. At any rate it was never renwed, which was necessary in those days.
You've reminded me that in early 2020 I was able to listen to a free recording of all but the last set of Sherlock Holmes stories. Sadly my preferred narrator doesn't seem to have recorded a version. The Casebook stories supposedly aren't as good anyway but I would have been psyched if David Clarke read them
I think the language used in conversations about copyright has a huge effect on how we feel about it. We often talk about owning the work rather than owning the right to the work. We say things like, "that is my song," when really, ideas can't be owned. It feels like theft when someone takes "our" song, story, etc., but it isn't. All a copyright infringer is doing is disregarding your exclusive right to use those ideas. Not that that shouldn't be taken seriously, but it is not theft, and thinking of it as such makes us feel more protective and controlling of copyrightable works. I think corporations know this and have worked to promote this idea.
As a musician this topic is a constant source of fascination/protection/pain in the butt. Thanks for such comprehensive coverage with Canadian differential.
I’m surprised JJ hasn’t gone into colors. While it’s hard to copyright one, many brands do this, whether it’s John Deere Green or the red on the Campbells Soup Can or Pepto Bisol Pink. Can these colors ever go into public domain? I’d love to know.
My only comment is that the length of copyright needs to be sharply trimmed down. The only reason that it is so long is because Disney lobbied Congress multiple times specifically to extend Mickey Mouse. I would suggest a flat 50 years of copyright protection, regardless of the author's age.
thx for very good presentation
Copyrights in the production of media is often important, but less than trademarking. While a copyright can die causing a character to enter public domain, but as long as a company exists that owns a trademark, the same technically public domain characters can still be protected and left causing use in the public domain to be a thorny issue.
My favourite public domain activity is when I find a book on Google books that I think is public domain, but is not viewable in whole I note the location of the book, go to help and request they review to see if we should be able to see the whole book. Google will review the copyright and decide whether to release the scan (if they have it, they don't always). I then archive a copy for future reference on a free public database.
I have HAD IT with your “Return to Oz” slander