In other news, Disney is generously funding any candidate whose name isn't Donald Trump in 2020. The only requirement is to support the "Save Our Childhoods Act of 2022" aka SOCA 2022.
I would guess that the Disney characters would still be copyrighted or otherwise protected. So even if the work steamboat willie went public domain, you still couldn’t advertise or sell Mickey Mouse. Not sure how that would play out but I’m sure Disney can keep it in the courts for years.
I would imagine that you could sell copies of the cartoons but couldn't use the name mickey mouse other than that which is in the cartoons themselves. So they'd have to be sold as "early animation classics" or some other generic title.
Honestly with Trump in the White House it may not happen. Say what you will about Trump, but unless they benefit Trump industries Trump doesn't care one bit about corporate politics.
Many Korean Pop Stars make Albums/videos in Japan. A lot of them are produced by Sony. Sony will even take down the group's own YT vids, and any live concert fan vids of songs that happen to be on a Sony label.
The content ID system is broken. It confuses performances of a piece with another, so I wouldn't be surprised if it accidently took down some kid playing Bach.
It's strange how copyright has morphed from a right for an individual to profit for a few years from their own idea, into a right for a company to profit indefinitely from some employee's idea.
Like how minimum wage was for people can afford things for life but now it's to save companies money and people can't barely afford an appartment with it.
Four Three Stooges shorts are in the public domain because they were accidentally skipped when filing for copyrights. That is why these four often appear on cheap DVDs.
Disney did that for years with the Oz books and got Ruth Plumly Thompson really P.O.'d. She even said in a letter to the publisher that she knew they acquired them just to stop other people from making Oz films. They made Return to Oz just before their option expired and the books used in the adaptation fell into public domain. Thompson wanted to see at least four of her Oz books turned into films in her lifetime (she didn't cite particulars, just a quantity), and that still hasn't happened between copyright law and a sense of public attachment to the MGM film that led Disney to pay a fee to use Ruby Slippers, when in the book they were Silver Shoes and never appeared in any of the sequels, yet seem given excessive importance in more recent adaptations as early as the 1964 Rankin/Bass Return to Oz TV special.
just like Electronic Assholes… i mean Arts, when they acquired the Porsche License and did NOTHING with it… Except this one "Need for Speed Porsche" game.
Felix the Cat was also the first character to appear on television! During the development of television in the late 1920's a Felix doll rotating on a turntable became the first broadcast test image.
I heard that the classic sega video game character sonic the hedgehog was inspired by felix. So if felix the cat never existed we wouldn't probably have had sonic the hedgehog.
I dunno. If Walt were still alive, he would probably have a different attitude towards the public domain than the current company given how he himself was a victim of copyright.
+Eric Stoverink Somewhere along the line funny coincidences became ironic. Which could make matters more confusing because now we have two kinds of ironic that mean different things but that people use interchangeably. We need Alanis Morrisette on the case, I heard she's an expert
Callum Cowan No, the situation of archeologists in the future finding Egyptian movie props would be a form of situational irony, where happenstance lines up to be completely different than what is expected. You see, archaeologists and anthropologists dig up old things all the time and study them, so their expectations to find relics of the past is subverted by the fact that the relics of the past that they find are actually just mockups of relics of the past before it was created. So the irony would be that they would think they made a great discovery, but actually found entirely useless junk. An example of situational irony goes something like this: Kid goes into candy store, walks in and talks to the candy man. The candy man seems distraught. The kid asks for a candy bar. The candy man shakes his head and says "Sorry, the candy shop ain't got no candy." Situational irony everyone, it's been a literary device before Shakespeare.
How is that ironic? It would be ironic if, say, during the filming of Indiana Jones and Raiders of the Lost Ark, they had filmed in a cave and it turned out that it had ACTUAL booby traps that had attacked them, that's an example of irony.... but your example is not.
You can do anything you wish with public domain media, except for one thing - Claim copyright on the original content. You can copyright any derivative work, any pictures/photos you add to books, or anything else you add that is your creation, but the original is still free to be copied, modified, and distributed by anyone.
Ironically there are all these parasitic photo image libraries who claim copyright on images that are out of copyright and scanned or reproduced by other means. Ok they may own licensing rights to modern photographers' work, but they sure as hell don't own any copyright on adverts, postcards and very old photos etc. purely by scanning and putting it on a database. There is no originality in the process of scanning and they never had the rights to the images in the first place, any more than anybody else. These agencies (alamy are one), charge hundreds for licensing usage of these materials much of which they don't own the rights to in the first place. Glad I got that out of my system!
Stuff's gonna enter the public domain? Did some judge finally turn down Disney's bri....er, bid to extend copyright? I've personally always thought that copyright should be immediately voided upon the death of the last living participant in a work. I really don't think it's right for people to be collecting royalties on stuff their long-dead grandparents did. That's doubly true in the case of important cultural works such as Frost's work and Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream" speech.
I used to do a lot of parody work, and I always hated how smug the lawyers and agents were when I’d have to ask them for permission to use something they had nothing to do with. Especially when it was content created by someone who died penniless.
I've always thought copyright should be like the original laws 35 years after creation, period. But, suppose we could bend it a little to appeal to big franchises and say 35 years (15 years would be fairer) after the last work in the franchise was published, then the problem of big conglomerates to keep copyright over their precious mascots would go away as they just need to keep publishing content of them and abandoned or underused IPs (like most of what EA and Activision hold in their vaults) wouldn't be a problem because after a while they would enter public domain.
I prefer the "use it or lose it" clause. A big company wants to protect their copyrighted IP? Then make it readily available. Treat it like you care about it, or it falls into the hands of the public to do what they like with it. There are tons of older properties which are unavailable or exceedingly difficult for the average person to experience. If a company can't be bothered with making it available in the digital age, they shouldn't be allowed custody of it. Also, they should be reasonable and lenient with licensing older disused properties.
Actually, Valve is incredibly lax with their IP. Hunt Down The Freeman was allowed to exist, and several teams have came out with "Half Life 3" projects.
A pseudo-official half Life 3 script was released publicly. If you had the skills, you could take to Source right now and code up a Half-Life 3! I would love to see it.
there are already to fan versions in the pipline on made in the source engine and one in unreal i think :) so if you have the time and to nowhow i say go for it mate
Meme Marine That's because Valve used to make games, now they make money. So who cares if some small fry indie developer makes 10k off half life, Valve makes exponentially more than that every day, and the legal fees alone wouldn't make it worth the cost for time and money, mostly time. Valve isn't doing anything with half life anytime soon, anyways, so someone might as well do something with it.
Yeah, I'm really looking forward to the likely resurgence in the popularity of old art/music now that they have a rolling copyright! If more youtubers use these new options, that could definitely happen and we could have a new roaring 20's phase! ;)
Exactly. While some characters and properties are still quite popular and in use, many, many more are languishing in copyright hell because they're not as popular, and copyright makes them unprofitable to actually bring back and use.
@laser325 That's why the big corporations are letting this stuff enter the public domain. If a whole heap of Disney movies or Elvis songs were just about to do so, then you can bet that copyright would get extended yet again because the corporate lobbyists would be howling in the halls of Congress.
It also allows people to make their own versions of properties that have already been done by others. I LOVE the public domain! There's so many characters that I'm going to be using from the public domain!
I didn't know that. I realized Nintendo has been around for over 100 years, but what iconic characters of theirs are due to become public domain any time soon?
We'll see if it actually happens or if the Disney abuse of the copyright system continues. As it stands I'd be surprised if Disney did not throw a wrench into preventing as many of these from entering into public domain as possible.
they already have. Mickey Mouse is SUPPOSED to be public domain nao. but nooo because Disney exists. But Walt is dead! basically Disney buys copyright extensions. Unfair as fuk
"Any lover of the beautiful will die rather than be associated with the Charleston ... It is neurotic! It is rotten! It stinks! Phew, open the windows." Do not let this man listen to dubstep.
They kind of tried with SOPA and PIPA in 2012 and it failed because of the internet hating it. I think the’ll have a hard time extending it this time cause we internet will be on it & telling people to call their politicians
"The new annual tradition.". Not if Disney has anything to say about it; the mouse is only safe until 2024. The best part of it to is, Disney made his best works based off, you guess it, public domain stories (Cinderella is one of them). If it weren't for them in 1998, we'd be talking about 1943 entering the domain.
@@XX-sp3tt Assuming you live in the US: Call your political representatives to tell them you oppose extensions to copyright law, vote for politicians who oppose the extension of copyright law and try to spread the message and get other people living in the US to do the above things as well.
Copyright is way too long a period. It's one thing to protect a creator with the rights to his or her creation but it is completely insane to protect the right of grandchildren and great grandchildren to lounge off the work of their illustrious ancestor. Let them create their own stuff or get a real job.
Happy Birthday has entered the public domain, but it took an actual lawsuit to do it. This was because they found evidence that the Birthday lyrics were first published in 1911, not 1934 as the music publisher claimed.
The lawsuit was brought by a documentary film producer making a movie about the history of the song...the lawsuit ended up giving the story a great ending. I really need to track down that thing and watch it.
Why is that wrong? Intellectual property is still property. If your grandchildren get to inherit your land, why can't they inherit the copyright to my artwork? What is insane about that?
@@kirkdarling4120 it's the difference between a physical object and an idea or thought. After time ideas and thoughts or so wide spread that they can't be owned by one person.
I could totally see the actual 10 commandments still being copyrighted if Disney existed back then. Then again, they sort of are. New translations of public domain works are copyrightable under US law. So, yes, some versions of the actual 10 commandments are copyrighted in the US.
Bill, why would that be "click bait" -- actually, _watch_ bait is the real issue; not a simple click -- according to you? OH! Yeah, your joke is that the copyright of the _actual Ten Commandments as they were written on stone_ expires, rather than just the movie, haha! Right?
If there isn't another extension, which our corporatist Congress is likely to do. The Cowardly Lion of Oz by Ruth Plumly Thompson goes public domain in 1919. In 1921, The Lost King of Oz goes public domain and frees up my novel, Tip of Oz, which deals directly with events from that novel, for publication.
Wasnt the issue with the post-Baum Oz books something involving the art being copyrighted? Because I did notice how even though his 14 books have been PD for about 30 years sometimes they omit Neil's art from Ozma and later.
This only applies to copyright protected by the US. Other countries have different rules some of which give longer protection for some works and less for others.
After the GATT talks in 1990 the terms were more or less standardized across almost all countries. There are still a few exceptions but not many. One of the last big ones was for sound recordings. That was changed in 2012 when the Beatles were about to go PD throughout Europe (publishing rights for songs would have remained under copyright but the recordings would be PD) but this was changed to protect The Beatles. However, recordings 1962 and earlier did remain PD in Europe. (A few early Beatles songs did slip in there.)
So if I invented a cure-for-cancer drug I would have 7 years to capitalize on the patent. If I act out a scene before a video camera I have 96 years to capitalize on the performance..... Seems fair!
+George Copyright renewal was dropped in the US sometime last century - it used to be that you paid to register a copyright, and again to renew it (up to a fixed maximum number of times), but somewhere along the line copyright became automatic and inextensible (except by changing the law).
Hunter deja: The public does benefit immediately from new inventions. They just have to pay the inventor to benefit from them. You're saying that actors and movie studios fairly deserve a paycheck for 96 years and inventors who actually do things to benefit mankind deserve a paycheck for only 7 years. In that world, acting is more rewarding. So inventors should rather go into the more lucrative field of acting and live an easier, richer life. The point I was trying to make that you missed is that both should have an equal time to profit exclusively before the publicly distributed material falls into the public domain. Seven years is fair for both inventors and actors. After a song or movie is 7 years old, it should be free to copy and free from royalties. If those actors and studios need more money, they should go work for it. Go make more movies that people want to watch.
"Steamboat Willie" was NOT the debut of Mickey Mouse. It was just notable for being the first Mickey cartoon with sound. Mickey's (and Minnie's) actual debut was in a silent (with sound added later) cartoon called "Plane Crazy."
There is porn from the period you could intercut, supposing you could access it. I know a guy who wrote a paper on 1929s stag movies he saw at The Kinsey Institute. He said the funniest part were the intertitles
pulkit kanwar Have a gander at "what the butler saw" films from the period. These mucky films were played through a coin operated projection unit with a binocular like viewing port. Some of em are quite dirty, great grandma was a naughty old bird lol
I don't think there are any porn movies from that period. The film they used back then degrades over time and disintegrates completely within a few decades unless someone does some tedious and expensive maintenance on it. We've lost a lot of cultural milestones that way because no one could be bothered with the upkeep. I can't imagine that anyone would put out the effort for a porn flick. You could probably find stills though, and maybe some nickelodeon (not the kid themed cable channel, the old timey machines it was named for) "films". They're really more like a flipbook than a movie, but meh.
I have L❤️VED Felix the Cat since I was lil. In the 80s a Pharmarcy in my home town of Rockford IL had a lil projection booth, a lil film booth that looks like what you sit in to have you and a friends pictures taken. My bother and I would put 25 cents in and watch Felix the Cat, Mighty Mouse, Heckle & Jeckle ,the 3 Stooges, Laurel & Hardy or Charlie Chaplin.
Copyrights and patent rights are so far from the original intent to protect creators to a protection racket for everything from books and wrenches to living creatures and obsolete software.
If you loved Safety Last, you gotta see Speedy. Babe Ruth makes a cameo appearance and it has a lovely scene on Coney Island when it was 100 times cooler than any Disney park.
Biographics is really awesome i can't believe more of your fan base doesn't sub to it as well. Anyway keep them up there are plenty of us that enjoy watching all of your channels you and everyone behind the scenes do a great job.
TBF my (limited) understanding of copyright law is that there's a "use it or lose it" element to it. Meaning if you fail to defend it, it could be taken away from you. Meaning Frost's estate has to defend it, even if said defense makes zero sense economically, and might even look bad from a public relations perspective.
The bigger problem is works that are in question; that is people are not sure who owns the copyright, the copyright owner cannot be located, or was owned by a company that went out of business decades ago. Congress still has not acted to clean up that mess.
@Zachary Rugar That's basically how it used to be. I have a screenplay with a registered copyright. They told me I wouldn't get a reminder for a registration renewal, but I did, and I paid it. You don't have to do this to have copyright, but it's much easier to defend legally if you do. It was required for submission to Project Greenlight. Ironically, I don't have access to a copy of this screenplay. I have been living in a homeless shelter for the past six years, and I never found this screenplay in my e-mail. I have it on a hard drive buried in the back of a storage unit. The copyright office charges something like a dollar a page to get a copy of the one they have on file.
Until I can afford to move out of the storage unit into an apartment, it's not really feasible to get at the screenplay. When my mother died, she left me some money that I mostly put into mutual funds, so I ought to be able to pay for storage and infinitum, but if I used it for housing, it would run out too quickly.
You need to explicitly say that these rules apply to the USA only. The EU and other countries have completely different rules about when things enter public domain. You also need to note that in the USA, sound recordings are not affected by the 95 year rule. In fact virtually no sound recordings are public domain in the USA, and will not be until 2067.
Films with sound would follow the 95 year rule in the USA. The sound recording "quirk" is a result of the USA not actually protecting sound recordings via copyright until 1972. For sound recordings prior to that, protection comes via a network of state and local anti-piracy laws, virtually none of which had expiration dates. That means that an old sound recording might technically be protected in one state and not in another, so in practice, it's best to assume protection still applies. The DMCA included language releasing all pre-1972 sound recordings into the public domain starting in 2067.
Let's say I'll make a video on the 1920's and use the Charleston music, the Harold Lloyd movie and the Felix the cat images but I'm not american. Is still legal? I mean, it will be public domain just for the U.S or in general?
About six years ago me and a buddy released an album of just public domain covers. I'm disappointed that no one ever tried to sell copies of it besides us. For some reason I've always had an unhealthy obsession with works in the public domain.
"Bambi" remains one of my favourite books ever. I am nearly 40 and I still read it every couple of years. Sequel is not bad as well. Distasteful to learn what Disney did, now the thought of the cartoon leaves a sour feeling in my mouth.
I want a high quality blu-ray. Disney will have to release it before they lose the rights or some other studio will release it and make a lot of money.
*sigh* US copyright law is so stupid (said as a person from the US) I blame "corporate personhood" since it should be pretty obvious that the creators of a work can't benefit from it after they die, and the average life expectancy in the US is around 78 years. However, since corporations don't suffer from natural death they can keep benefiting from creative works in perpetuity, even if that benefit is relatively tiny. (How much of Disney profits really come from movies they made in the 20's?) *sigh*
also in the early 2020's the copyrights on the earliest Mickey Mouse cartoons will expire under current US copyright law so some wealthy company or person could get the rights to the character if Disney doesn't get to it first
When Steamboat Willy enters public domain, anyone will have the right to make and sell copies of the movie, and make and sell derivative works. However, the ongoing trademark on Mickey Mouse (among others) means that Disney controls the right to use Mickey Mouse's name and likeness because they're so inextricably associated with Disney itself.
when i either die or feel like it when im really old i want to send the future comics and video games and their source codes and assets i want to make someday to the public domain
Wow. The comments really show how few people understand copyright law. You'd think if they can watch UA-cam, they could do some research online as well.
They own rights to use the Trademark. Trademark's don't expire. That's why Mickey Mouse, and detestably anything he's specifically in, will be safe as long as he remains identified solely with Walt Disney Enterprises.
@@Eunacis which would explain all the "hidden Mickey" things they put in everything they make. It wasn't harmless fun, it was them putting their trademark stamp on everything.
Well this needs to change. The character and works are the same thing. Both created at the same time. Noone should be able to hold the trademark when it's public domain.
"Innovation means new method/idea/product." You can not innovate off something that already exist. If your new idea incorporates/improves something that already exist, you have to pay to use parts of the previous patent. and most companies would rather not do that because of patent trolls. In America there are law firms that buy patents then sue everyone that tries to make something new, because someone made something similar over 50 years ago. I'm sorry if I can not convey the true thought that is in my head to you.
That depends where you live. In the United States, anything published in 1924 has entered the public domain. In Canada and other countries with copyright that endures for the life of the author + 50 years, anything published by authors who died in 1969 or earlier is now public domain. In European Union countries and others with a life + 70 year copyright system, works published by authors who died in 1949 or earlier are public domain.
Copyright for Bambi is actually 1926. He wrote it and had it published in 1923, but it was copyrighted in the US in 1926. There's a series of court cases about it people can look up if interested
The irony there being when Disney made the original Jungle Book movie, Rudyard Kipling's estate got ... nothing. The book was public domain. Kipling died in 1936, the movie came out in 1967. Maybe that's how it should be, but Disney sure doesn't act that way when the shoe is on the other foot. Under current law it would have been protected until 2006 or so.
that just like lego, they stole the design from its inventor and then made billions and sue others who try to copy it. big companies are almost always corrupt
There is actually a limitation on this. For instance, the new Criterion/Janus Films restoration of Safety Last will NOT be public domain, even though the film is.
...Until Disney push to get copyright extended even further.
Vortex Traveller. Well they stole bambi they have enough money to buy all these copyrights
disney was bought by the chinese wasnt it?! lol or maybe that was starwars?
Oh, yes, the Mouse bites! Disney made the copyright period longer because Mickey Mouse was heading into the PD.
Mickey Mouse is a trademark. Disney was concerned that Steamboat Willy would enter the Public Domain.
What?! How DARE they want to protect their properties!
You forgot about the Steamboat Willie rule: any time Steamboat Willie approaches copyright expiration, Congress extends the term of copyright.
In other news, Disney is generously funding any candidate whose name isn't Donald Trump in 2020. The only requirement is to support the "Save Our Childhoods Act of 2022" aka SOCA 2022.
I would guess that the Disney characters would still be copyrighted or otherwise protected. So even if the work steamboat willie went public domain, you still couldn’t advertise or sell Mickey Mouse. Not sure how that would play out but I’m sure Disney can keep it in the courts for years.
Trademarks not copyright for Mickey Mouse et al.
I would imagine that you could sell copies of the cartoons but couldn't use the name mickey mouse other than that which is in the cartoons themselves. So they'd have to be sold as "early animation classics" or some other generic title.
Honestly with Trump in the White House it may not happen. Say what you will about Trump, but unless they benefit Trump industries Trump doesn't care one bit about corporate politics.
A few weeks ago Sony Music smashed down on a youtuber who played Bach on his video. And they refuse to let it go.
Bach died 300 years ago.
Probably because he used a performance that is protected by copyright.
@@scottandrewhutchins
He played it on his piano.
@@TheEaldorman That's insane.
Many Korean Pop Stars make Albums/videos in Japan. A lot of them are produced by Sony. Sony will even take down the group's own YT vids, and any live concert fan vids of songs that happen to be on a Sony label.
The content ID system is broken. It confuses performances of a piece with another, so I wouldn't be surprised if it accidently took down some kid playing Bach.
It's strange how copyright has morphed from a right for an individual to profit for a few years from their own idea, into a right for a company to profit indefinitely from some employee's idea.
Laissez-Faire capitalism?
Nope
Like how minimum wage was for people can afford things for life but now it's to save companies money and people can't barely afford an appartment with it.
also known as capitalism
Copyright is legal protectionism, not a part of the capitalist economic system.
copyright would be legal protectionism if companies didnt make massive profits after the authors death
I would like to see a video on things already in public domain we might not realize.
Night of the living dead.
Orson Welles' The Trial.
Both copyrights were filed wrong and never followed up on.
It's a Wonderful Life had the copyright holder miss the deadline back in the seventies, which is why it's now a Christmas classic. True story.
Still want to see Simon do the video
The Happy Birthday song is finally in public domain
Four Three Stooges shorts are in the public domain because they were accidentally skipped when filing for copyrights. That is why these four often appear on cheap DVDs.
I just wish Dreamworks hadn't obtained the rights for Felix the Cat because I love felix the cat and they're doing NOTHING with it..
There's a legal case to be made that the character is already in the Public Domain as well as the specific cartoons.
Disney did that for years with the Oz books and got Ruth Plumly Thompson really P.O.'d. She even said in a letter to the publisher that she knew they acquired them just to stop other people from making Oz films. They made Return to Oz just before their option expired and the books used in the adaptation fell into public domain. Thompson wanted to see at least four of her Oz books turned into films in her lifetime (she didn't cite particulars, just a quantity), and that still hasn't happened between copyright law and a sense of public attachment to the MGM film that led Disney to pay a fee to use Ruby Slippers, when in the book they were Silver Shoes and never appeared in any of the sequels, yet seem given excessive importance in more recent adaptations as early as the 1964 Rankin/Bass Return to Oz TV special.
Relax.
When the copyright ends,you can
just like Electronic Assholes… i mean Arts, when they acquired the Porsche License and did NOTHING with it… Except this one "Need for Speed Porsche" game.
Games companies hold a lot of unused licences, I worked at one once and was amazed at what they owned the rights to and weren't doing anything with.
Felix the Cat was also the first character to appear on television! During the development of television in the late 1920's a Felix doll rotating on a turntable became the first broadcast test image.
I heard that the classic sega video game character sonic the hedgehog was inspired by felix.
So if felix the cat never existed we wouldn't probably have had sonic the hedgehog.
Doremon looks like felix the cat
When I saw felix I thought he was a sonic character
Also the first one to appear with a lightbulb above above its head indicating thoughtful idea or inspiration.
Greg Steinmayer het
Public Domain = Disney's Arch Nemesis
There are more like Frenemy*
* Because they benefit from the public domain. Disney would not be Disney if it wasn't because of the Public Domain.
More like "frequently exploited enemy". Disney has gotten a lot from the public domain, and in return, has tried to strangle it.
Nearly every movie Disney is known for is based on a public domain work.
I dunno. If Walt were still alive, he would probably have a different attitude towards the public domain than the current company given how he himself was a victim of copyright.
Exactly
I just think it's ironic that archeologists uncovered props from a movie that took place in Ancient Eygpt .
That's actually the opposite of ironic.
+Eric Stoverink Somewhere along the line funny coincidences became ironic. Which could make matters more confusing because now we have two kinds of ironic that mean different things but that people use interchangeably.
We need Alanis Morrisette on the case, I heard she's an expert
Callum Cowan
No, the situation of archeologists in the future finding Egyptian movie props would be a form of situational irony, where happenstance lines up to be completely different than what is expected.
You see, archaeologists and anthropologists dig up old things all the time and study them, so their expectations to find relics of the past is subverted by the fact that the relics of the past that they find are actually just mockups of relics of the past before it was created. So the irony would be that they would think they made a great discovery, but actually found entirely useless junk.
An example of situational irony goes something like this:
Kid goes into candy store, walks in and talks to the candy man. The candy man seems distraught. The kid asks for a candy bar. The candy man shakes his head and says "Sorry, the candy shop ain't got no candy."
Situational irony everyone, it's been a literary device before Shakespeare.
It's ironic that archaeologists uncovered props from a movie.
It's the opposite of ironic that said movie took place in Ancient Egypt.
How is that ironic? It would be ironic if, say, during the filming of Indiana Jones and Raiders of the Lost Ark, they had filmed in a cave and it turned out that it had ACTUAL booby traps that had attacked them, that's an example of irony.... but your example is not.
You can do anything you wish with public domain media, except for one thing - Claim copyright on the original content. You can copyright any derivative work, any pictures/photos you add to books, or anything else you add that is your creation, but the original is still free to be copied, modified, and distributed by anyone.
Ironically there are all these parasitic photo image libraries who claim copyright on images that are out of copyright and scanned or reproduced by other means. Ok they may own licensing rights to modern photographers' work, but they sure as hell don't own any copyright on adverts, postcards and very old photos etc. purely by scanning and putting it on a database. There is no originality in the process of scanning and they never had the rights to the images in the first place, any more than anybody else. These agencies (alamy are one), charge hundreds for licensing usage of these materials much of which they don't own the rights to in the first place. Glad I got that out of my system!
Stuff's gonna enter the public domain? Did some judge finally turn down Disney's bri....er, bid to extend copyright?
I've personally always thought that copyright should be immediately voided upon the death of the last living participant in a work. I really don't think it's right for people to be collecting royalties on stuff their long-dead grandparents did. That's doubly true in the case of important cultural works such as Frost's work and Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream" speech.
Kris Sisk I don't think it is judges that make that decision?
I used to do a lot of parody work, and I always hated how smug the lawyers and agents were when I’d have to ask them for permission to use something they had nothing to do with. Especially when it was content created by someone who died penniless.
ok cpg
I've always thought copyright should be like the original laws 35 years after creation, period.
But, suppose we could bend it a little to appeal to big franchises and say 35 years (15 years would be fairer) after the last work in the franchise was published, then the problem of big conglomerates to keep copyright over their precious mascots would go away as they just need to keep publishing content of them and abandoned or underused IPs (like most of what EA and Activision hold in their vaults) wouldn't be a problem because after a while they would enter public domain.
I prefer the "use it or lose it" clause. A big company wants to protect their copyrighted IP? Then make it readily available. Treat it like you care about it, or it falls into the hands of the public to do what they like with it. There are tons of older properties which are unavailable or exceedingly difficult for the average person to experience. If a company can't be bothered with making it available in the digital age, they shouldn't be allowed custody of it. Also, they should be reasonable and lenient with licensing older disused properties.
i wish i could live long enough for half life to go public domain so i can legally make a half life 3 game
Actually, Valve is incredibly lax with their IP. Hunt Down The Freeman was allowed to exist, and several teams have came out with "Half Life 3" projects.
A pseudo-official half Life 3 script was released publicly. If you had the skills, you could take to Source right now and code up a Half-Life 3! I would love to see it.
Your half life 3 would suck donkey balls.
there are already to fan versions in the pipline on made in the source engine and one in unreal i think :) so if you have the time and to nowhow i say go for it mate
Meme Marine That's because Valve used to make games, now they make money. So who cares if some small fry indie developer makes 10k off half life, Valve makes exponentially more than that every day, and the legal fees alone wouldn't make it worth the cost for time and money, mostly time. Valve isn't doing anything with half life anytime soon, anyways, so someone might as well do something with it.
Public Domain is a beautiful thing. It allows untouched properties to find new life.
Yeah, I'm really looking forward to the likely resurgence in the popularity of old art/music now that they have a rolling copyright! If more youtubers use these new options, that could definitely happen and we could have a new roaring 20's phase! ;)
Exactly. While some characters and properties are still quite popular and in use, many, many more are languishing in copyright hell because they're not as popular, and copyright makes them unprofitable to actually bring back and use.
Yeah
And right now we would have way more if Walt Disney wasn't greedy
@laser325 That's why the big corporations are letting this stuff enter the public domain. If a whole heap of Disney movies or Elvis songs were just about to do so, then you can bet that copyright would get extended yet again because the corporate lobbyists would be howling in the halls of Congress.
It also allows people to make their own versions of properties that have already been done by others. I LOVE the public domain!
There's so many characters that I'm going to be using from the public domain!
Disney and DC comics are the 2 biggest opponents of Public Domain.
And the Gershwin estate.
There is going to be a giant party when Fantasia 2000 is admitted to the public domain in the 22nd century.
Also Nintendo!
I didn't know that. I realized Nintendo has been around for over 100 years, but what iconic characters of theirs are due to become public domain any time soon?
Nintendo is opponent of Public Domain like Di$ney and Time Warner (master of DC). Search news about old NES ROMs.
We'll see if it actually happens or if the Disney abuse of the copyright system continues. As it stands I'd be surprised if Disney did not throw a wrench into preventing as many of these from entering into public domain as possible.
felix the cat isnt owned by disney though/
Don't give them any ideas! :D
Right, DreamWorks now has the rights to Felix.
they already have. Mickey Mouse is SUPPOSED to be public domain nao. but nooo because Disney exists. But Walt is dead! basically Disney buys copyright extensions. Unfair as fuk
If the Bono act hadn't passed almost all the Disney cartoons would be PD by now.
"Any lover of the beautiful will die rather than be associated with the Charleston ... It is neurotic! It is rotten! It stinks! Phew, open the windows."
Do not let this man listen to dubstep.
He would have had a heart attack.
disney: watches intently 'yes, we can put all these to use'
Yay Felix time for you to rise and kill that damn mouse
tony gilbert
lol
you know the image will now be used in commercials or for porn
@@lancelink2812 you could also make a cartoon about it.
@@blackearl7891 where the fun in that.
@@mandalorian_guy a dark grisley cartoon with pornographic imposition aka Ralph bakshi.
Doubt it'll happen. Big publishers (cough...cough....Disney...cough) will lobby to extend the protection timeframe.
12799MaDeuce probably not with these ones.
wikichris If Disney wins an extension..everything gets extended. It's not company specific.
They kind of tried with SOPA and PIPA in 2012 and it failed because of the internet hating it. I think the’ll have a hard time extending it this time cause we internet will be on it & telling people to call their politicians
@@senseiadam-brawlstars9465 Yeah because politicians always do what the people want. Wait, did I say "always"? Sorry, I meant "never".
Of course, everybody knows they need the money? Right? No? Oh ok
Time to break out the sick Charleston Remixes!
"The new annual tradition.". Not if Disney has anything to say about it; the mouse is only safe until 2024. The best part of it to is, Disney made his best works based off, you guess it, public domain stories (Cinderella is one of them).
If it weren't for them in 1998, we'd be talking about 1943 entering the domain.
It makes me sick too. Got any ideas on what to do about it?
@@XX-sp3tt Assuming you live in the US:
Call your political representatives to tell them you oppose extensions to copyright law, vote for politicians who oppose the extension of copyright law and try to spread the message and get other people living in the US to do the above things as well.
Copyright is way too long a period. It's one thing to protect a creator with the rights to his or her creation but it is completely insane to protect the right of grandchildren and great grandchildren to lounge off the work of their illustrious ancestor. Let them create their own stuff or get a real job.
When will the song "Happy Birthday" run out of copyright? That has to be one of the silliest examples of copyright insanity.
Happy Birthday has entered the public domain, but it took an actual lawsuit to do it. This was because they found evidence that the Birthday lyrics were first published in 1911, not 1934 as the music publisher claimed.
The lawsuit was brought by a documentary film producer making a movie about the history of the song...the lawsuit ended up giving the story a great ending. I really need to track down that thing and watch it.
Why is that wrong? Intellectual property is still property. If your grandchildren get to inherit your land, why can't they inherit the copyright to my artwork? What is insane about that?
@@kirkdarling4120 it's the difference between a physical object and an idea or thought. After time ideas and thoughts or so wide spread that they can't be owned by one person.
Thank you for not click baiting the title as "Ten Commandments copyright expires".
I'd click on that.
😂😂
Wel, something that doesn't exist can't expire.
I could totally see the actual 10 commandments still being copyrighted if Disney existed back then.
Then again, they sort of are. New translations of public domain works are copyrightable under US law. So, yes, some versions of the actual 10 commandments are copyrighted in the US.
Bill, why would that be "click bait" -- actually, _watch_ bait is the real issue; not a simple click -- according to you? OH! Yeah, your joke is that the copyright of the _actual Ten Commandments as they were written on stone_ expires, rather than just the movie, haha! Right?
So in December congress will ram another extension to 120 years and none of this stuff will make it.
MIMisguided prove it
The mouse has money. They did it in 1979 and 1998. Disney properties will be up in 2024 so what do you think?
wrong,
next planned change is 140 years.
No, really, google it, youtube does not like links.
@@fgregerfeaxcwfeffece noy surprising
Start agitating for repeal of the Bono Act. Call your congress people and Senators.
If there isn't another extension, which our corporatist Congress is likely to do. The Cowardly Lion of Oz by Ruth Plumly Thompson goes public domain in 1919. In 1921, The Lost King of Oz goes public domain and frees up my novel, Tip of Oz, which deals directly with events from that novel, for publication.
2019 and 2021. Oops.
Numbers were always my academic weakness.
Wasnt the issue with the post-Baum Oz books something involving the art being copyrighted? Because I did notice how even though his 14 books have been PD for about 30 years sometimes they omit Neil's art from Ozma and later.
No. That has more to to with keeping production costs down. The art can't be copyrighted if it was published before 1923.
You have made my day😊
This only applies to copyright protected by the US. Other countries have different rules some of which give longer protection for some works and less for others.
After the GATT talks in 1990 the terms were more or less standardized across almost all countries. There are still a few exceptions but not many. One of the last big ones was for sound recordings. That was changed in 2012 when the Beatles were about to go PD throughout Europe (publishing rights for songs would have remained under copyright but the recordings would be PD) but this was changed to protect The Beatles. However, recordings 1962 and earlier did remain PD in Europe. (A few early Beatles songs did slip in there.)
So if I invented a cure-for-cancer drug I would have 7 years to capitalize on the patent. If I act out a scene before a video camera I have 96 years to capitalize on the performance..... Seems fair!
Dawn Clark Wretch you can renew copyright.
+George
Copyright renewal was dropped in the US sometime last century - it used to be that you paid to register a copyright, and again to renew it (up to a fixed maximum number of times), but somewhere along the line copyright became automatic and inextensible (except by changing the law).
Hunter deja: The public does benefit immediately from new inventions. They just have to pay the inventor to benefit from them. You're saying that actors and movie studios fairly deserve a paycheck for 96 years and inventors who actually do things to benefit mankind deserve a paycheck for only 7 years. In that world, acting is more rewarding. So inventors should rather go into the more lucrative field of acting and live an easier, richer life. The point I was trying to make that you missed is that both should have an equal time to profit exclusively before the publicly distributed material falls into the public domain. Seven years is fair for both inventors and actors. After a song or movie is 7 years old, it should be free to copy and free from royalties. If those actors and studios need more money, they should go work for it. Go make more movies that people want to watch.
The actors get nothing. The copyright owners get everything.
Capitalism sucks.
"Steamboat Willie" was NOT the debut of Mickey Mouse. It was just notable for being the first Mickey cartoon with sound. Mickey's (and Minnie's) actual debut was in a silent (with sound added later) cartoon called "Plane Crazy."
Task added to calandar -> Jan 1 2019 - add porn to movies from 1923
There is porn from the period you could intercut, supposing you could access it. I know a guy who wrote a paper on 1929s stag movies he saw at The Kinsey Institute. He said the funniest part were the intertitles
Interesting, looking into it
pulkit kanwar Have a gander at "what the butler saw" films from the period. These mucky films were played through a coin operated projection unit with a binocular like viewing port. Some of em are quite dirty, great grandma was a naughty old bird lol
I don't think there are any porn movies from that period. The film they used back then degrades over time and disintegrates completely within a few decades unless someone does some tedious and expensive maintenance on it. We've lost a lot of cultural milestones that way because no one could be bothered with the upkeep. I can't imagine that anyone would put out the effort for a porn flick. You could probably find stills though, and maybe some nickelodeon (not the kid themed cable channel, the old timey machines it was named for) "films". They're really more like a flipbook than a movie, but meh.
Use the one where the chick takes off everything but her pajamas, you can almost see her form and it's hot as hell.
I have L❤️VED Felix the Cat since I was lil. In the 80s a Pharmarcy in my home town of Rockford IL had a lil projection booth, a lil film booth that looks like what you sit in to have you and a friends pictures taken. My bother and I would put 25 cents in and watch Felix the Cat, Mighty Mouse, Heckle & Jeckle ,the 3 Stooges, Laurel & Hardy or Charlie Chaplin.
Me too😺.Btw, can u picture any kid today actually watching a B&W cartoon ?
@@ROBYNMARKOW Well, I imagine that once it enters PD, someone will make a "technicolor" version of it.
totally agree i saw felix as an eighties kid and loved him and the animation
just like betty boop
I like Felix clocks with the swiveling eyes and wagging tails.
Love the new set. Looks a lot more educational and professional!
indeed! i looks classy and smooth
Agreed, but I just wish Christopher Walken would talk smoother. The pausing may work for scary videos, but not for informational ones.
“I waited 95 years for this book to enter public domain. Now I can make it a movie.”
Quick Disney, time to swoop in and own it all for 400+ years!
Copyrights and patent rights are so far from the original intent to protect creators to a protection racket for everything from books and wrenches to living creatures and obsolete software.
*Uses a character from Public Domain*
*Gets copyright claimed*
Me: WTF
I recently missed a chance to see "Safety Last" played alongside a live original Wurlitzer. So pissed.
I saw Safety Last! for the first time on May 28, 2018. I loved it!
If you loved Safety Last, you gotta see Speedy. Babe Ruth makes a cameo appearance and it has a lovely scene on Coney Island when it was 100 times cooler than any Disney park.
Oh gosh I have been using a certain Robert Frost Poem on my website since the late 1990s. I had no idea the estate were so litigious.
And they can keep it up until December 31, 2033 as Robert Frost died in 1963.
FELIX THE CAT AND HIS BAG OF TRICKS.
2019 Felix will be a straight up pimp.
And I always hate NC that He never knew about every Felix The Cat history for everybody.
Biographics is really awesome i can't believe more of your fan base doesn't sub to it as well. Anyway keep them up there are plenty of us that enjoy watching all of your channels you and everyone behind the scenes do a great job.
Do this every year!
They will do this every year.
One day when I have my own animation company I will use Felix the cat for some animated series or something idk I like the way he looks!
MC. Gemstone I want to work at your studio. Can you wait until I graduate and then go to art school for animation and graduate
I'm going to use that Frost poem in everything just out of spite for that estate.
TBF my (limited) understanding of copyright law is that there's a "use it or lose it" element to it. Meaning if you fail to defend it, it could be taken away from you. Meaning Frost's estate has to defend it, even if said defense makes zero sense economically, and might even look bad from a public relations perspective.
Copyright is too long. Movies from the 1950 back should NOT have copyright.
Blame Disney
The bigger problem is works that are in question; that is people are not sure who owns the copyright, the copyright owner cannot be located, or was owned by a company that went out of business decades ago. Congress still has not acted to clean up that mess.
Something like 80% - 90% of content is never released after the initial release because it never made a profit.
@Zachary Rugar That's basically how it used to be. I have a screenplay with a registered copyright. They told me I wouldn't get a reminder for a registration renewal, but I did, and I paid it. You don't have to do this to have copyright, but it's much easier to defend legally if you do. It was required for submission to Project Greenlight. Ironically, I don't have access to a copy of this screenplay. I have been living in a homeless shelter for the past six years, and I never found this screenplay in my e-mail. I have it on a hard drive buried in the back of a storage unit. The copyright office charges something like a dollar a page to get a copy of the one they have on file.
Until I can afford to move out of the storage unit into an apartment, it's not really feasible to get at the screenplay. When my mother died, she left me some money that I mostly put into mutual funds, so I ought to be able to pay for storage and infinitum, but if I used it for housing, it would run out too quickly.
I'm making a Felix the Cat poster
You need to explicitly say that these rules apply to the USA only. The EU and other countries have completely different rules about when things enter public domain.
You also need to note that in the USA, sound recordings are not affected by the 95 year rule. In fact virtually no sound recordings are public domain in the USA, and will not be until 2067.
Does this include movies with SOUND?
Films with sound would follow the 95 year rule in the USA. The sound recording "quirk" is a result of the USA not actually protecting sound recordings via copyright until 1972. For sound recordings prior to that, protection comes via a network of state and local anti-piracy laws, virtually none of which had expiration dates. That means that an old sound recording might technically be protected in one state and not in another, so in practice, it's best to assume protection still applies. The DMCA included language releasing all pre-1972 sound recordings into the public domain starting in 2067.
Let's say I'll make a video on the 1920's and use the Charleston music, the Harold Lloyd movie and the Felix the cat images but I'm not american. Is still legal? I mean, it will be public domain just for the U.S or in general?
Copyright rules vary from country to country. You'll have to check on your own country's copyright laws to answer your question.
Walt Disney used to push racism, and he personally toured a Nazi around his park, its always been political.
About six years ago me and a buddy released an album of just public domain covers. I'm disappointed that no one ever tried to sell copies of it besides us. For some reason I've always had an unhealthy obsession with works in the public domain.
Hmm...so THAT's where they got the hanging clock tower climax for Doc Brown in BTTF!
Simon, in addition to the information you provide, you are simply too funny! Thank you for always bringing smile to my face with your funny comments.
"Bambi" remains one of my favourite books ever. I am nearly 40 and I still read it every couple of years.
Sequel is not bad as well.
Distasteful to learn what Disney did, now the thought of the cartoon leaves a sour feeling in my mouth.
"Roger Rabbit called it the most famous scene in comedy history."
I cant wait till Disney loses the copy right to Song of the south so we can finally get it released on video here in the United states
You're gonna have to wait until 2039.
You can get it on LD. Just because Disney deleted a lot of LDs from their website years ago, doesn't mean it wasn't released.
I want a high quality blu-ray. Disney will have to release it before they lose the rights or some other studio will release it and make a lot of money.
The Universal Monsters films, Wizard of Oz and Snow White are gonna be Public Domain around the Mid 2030s.
That's gonna be a wild ride there.
Simon: The Ten Commandments are going public domain.
Me: God's been dead for 70 years!?
Wow you mean the Charleston in the public domain! Think of the possibilities!
No. 7: The Ten Commandments
Me: "What?"
A moment later: "Oh, right, the film."
You said at the very end that the first two Felix movies will enter public domain, but will Felix the character enter public domain?
I taught my middle schoolers about Orphism it's so cool and I love Kandinsky! I also love silent films. My day is officially made
I like the background better. Simon would blend into that blue background when he wore blue.
Mr. Simon Whistler clearly doesn't understand U.S. Copyright Law, which is like a mirage: the closer you get, the farther it moves away.
0:55 DON'T GIVE PEOPLE IDEAS!!!
You do know don't you, that this segment is causing anguish to lawyers everywhere. Have a heart.
so what you're saying, is that I could steal it,
And NO ONE WOULD EVER KNOW!
But wAlT DIsnEys 50 yeaR old cArcasS wiLl gO hUngry WitH ouT the roYalTies.
No that is not at all what he is saying lol
Dear Simon. I follow your videos religiously every day. Thank you for your contribution to the world!
*sigh* US copyright law is so stupid (said as a person from the US) I blame "corporate personhood" since it should be pretty obvious that the creators of a work can't benefit from it after they die, and the average life expectancy in the US is around 78 years. However, since corporations don't suffer from natural death they can keep benefiting from creative works in perpetuity, even if that benefit is relatively tiny. (How much of Disney profits really come from movies they made in the 20's?) *sigh*
that is until big companys just push to get copyright extended even longer because you know life + 70 years isnt long enough
Betty Boop and terry toons should be hitting this soon.
Will Dizknee's early alice in Wonderland shorts be public soon?
Yes in 2020
What?! Felix is actually ours now?! HES MINE NOW BABY ITS REMAKE TIME!
also in the early 2020's the copyrights on the earliest Mickey Mouse cartoons will expire under current US copyright law so some wealthy company or person could get the rights to the character if Disney doesn't get to it first
Actually, if the mouse enters PD anyone can use the character for any reason, no royalties required, just like it's with Sherlock now.
you really think thats ever going to happen cmon
@@UltimatePerfection I thought they also have trademark on their characters as well?
When Steamboat Willy enters public domain, anyone will have the right to make and sell copies of the movie, and make and sell derivative works. However, the ongoing trademark on Mickey Mouse (among others) means that Disney controls the right to use Mickey Mouse's name and likeness because they're so inextricably associated with Disney itself.
nice
you know what i got from this videon is that soon H.P Lovecraft works will become public domain.
when i either die or feel like it when im really old i want to send the future comics and video games and their source codes and assets i want to make someday to the public domain
It's pretty cool to know that these works go from completely restricted, to absolutely free to do anything you wish with them.
My father was in the fighting 31 during Vietnam
And you've carried on his legacy via youtube comments. Im sure he's proud.
Fascinating mix of art forms up for grabs
Wow. The comments really show how few people understand copyright law. You'd think if they can watch UA-cam, they could do some research online as well.
This was a pretty cool recap! I look forward to watching these every year now
ah Simon, youve gotten a chair :D
I love your videos. Thanks for the great work.
Safety Last needs some porn scenes.
Always love this channel
Popeye the sailor copyright will expire real soon too.
Thank you for the info!
I thought DreamWorks had the rights to Felix The Cat!
They have the rights to the character, so nobody can make new Felix cartoons or produce merchandise.
That's what they would tell you, but I'm sure someone could make a convincing legal case that the entire character has gone into the Public Domain.
They own rights to use the Trademark. Trademark's don't expire. That's why Mickey Mouse, and detestably anything he's specifically in, will be safe as long as he remains identified solely with Walt Disney Enterprises.
@@Eunacis which would explain all the "hidden Mickey" things they put in everything they make. It wasn't harmless fun, it was them putting their trademark stamp on everything.
Well this needs to change. The character and works are the same thing. Both created at the same time. Noone should be able to hold the trademark when it's public domain.
Simon: you are a great speaker! Great job as always, guys!
I hate how long copy right laws last in America! They keep real innovation from happening for decades.
That makes no sense. Innovation means *new* method/idea/product. Trying to piggyback off another's success is not innovative (i.e., original).
"Innovation means new method/idea/product." You can not innovate off something that already exist. If your new idea incorporates/improves something that already exist, you have to pay to use parts of the previous patent. and most companies would rather not do that because of patent trolls. In America there are law firms that buy patents then sue everyone that tries to make something new, because someone made something similar over 50 years ago. I'm sorry if I can not convey the true thought that is in my head to you.
Go search for videos that explain how patent laws in america stifle innovation.
for nimber five imagine if somebody didnt know the 10 commandments was filled there and sees a bunch of "egyption ruins" .
U look like vsauce
Happy New Year and hooray for having all this stuff available now! :D
It's 2020 now, so what has now entered the public domain?
That depends where you live. In the United States, anything published in 1924 has entered the public domain. In Canada and other countries with copyright that endures for the life of the author + 50 years, anything published by authors who died in 1969 or earlier is now public domain. In European Union countries and others with a life + 70 year copyright system, works published by authors who died in 1949 or earlier are public domain.
Copyright for Bambi is actually 1926. He wrote it and had it published in 1923, but it was copyrighted in the US in 1926. There's a series of court cases about it people can look up if interested
*laughs in Disney*
I love this channel generally... But *THIS* is awesome!
So naiv, they are already planning to extend the protection period to 140 years.
Writers, going through their bags/boxes/folders of loose pages: my time is near
disney is too busy making star wars 23---THE RETURN OF JAR JAR to worry about some old movie copyright
It involves Mickey though.
Disney is never too busy to keep the rat from going into PD.
🤣🤣🤣
The irony there being when Disney made the original Jungle Book movie, Rudyard Kipling's estate got ... nothing. The book was public domain. Kipling died in 1936, the movie came out in 1967. Maybe that's how it should be, but Disney sure doesn't act that way when the shoe is on the other foot. Under current law it would have been protected until 2006 or so.
that just like lego, they stole the design from its inventor and then made billions and sue others who try to copy it. big companies are almost always corrupt
There is actually a limitation on this. For instance, the new Criterion/Janus Films restoration of Safety Last will NOT be public domain, even though the film is.
First
Great video man. Just wish someone could do this for the UK!
Love the set, Simon!
Really got into this lately, so, thank you.
The song “All by myself” will enter public domain next year