It never ceases to amaze me that Walt Disney made his fortune from animating works in the public domain, and he and his estate are responsible for extending the copyright date more than anyone else.
Disney died in 1966, when the copyright period was still 56 years maximum (if you remembered to renew during year 28). I don't think he ever had anything personally to do with efforts to extend the terms of copyright protection.
It stood out to me in that film in which Tom Hanks played him. He sympathized with the Mary Poppins author because he'd been in her position before. Is it just not practical for him, as head of studio, to adapt her intellectual property without forcing her to forfeit all rights?
@@alm2187 I assume your question is at least partly rhetorical, and I'm at a disadvantage in answering it, because I haven't yet seen *Saving Mr. Banks* (2013), but I'll take a stab at it anyway. The author of *Mary Poppins* (P.L. Travers) did not forfeit all rights. She *sold* the movie rights for $100,000 (which doesn't sound like much today, but was probably over a million in today's money), plus 5% of the gross. In addition, the sales of her books presumably skyrocketed. She could have held out for script approval, but I don't think she did. She could also have held out for final cut approval, but I know she didn't. In either case, she would most likely have received less money, or the movie never would have been made at all. In general, the more control an author demands over how his or her work is adapted, the less money he or she will receive. The reason for this is simple. It costs much, much more money to make a movie than it does to publish a book, and in general, book authors know how to write successful books, and filmmakers and movie studios know how to make successful films (not that they always do, but these are their areas of expertise). For better or for worse, filmmakers typically don't want the original author around trying to micro-manage every aspect of the movie, and most authors would rather have more cash than more creative control (which, after all, typically involves a lot of extra labor). But no one can force an author to forfeit all rights. The author chooses which rights to sell, and when, and to whom, and if at all.
It may not technically have been his hand which pushed the copyright law in that direction, but Walt was indeed a shrewd businessman, and the nature of the Disney corporation today is not completely disconnected from how he ran his business when he was alive. He once lost the rights to an early creation, Oswald the Lucky Rabbit, and he was certainly ready to overcorrect in an attempt to favor of creators. If you don't want to pin anything on him that happened after his death, there are still plenty of stories of socialism phobia, anti-either policies, and antisemitism to draw on. But that's another topic.
Fun fact about the Holmes estate, they wouldn't allow Capcom to use the names "Sherlock Holmes" and "John H. Watson" in the English version Great Ace Attorney video games (which I love), but the characters had been used with their original names in the Japanese version. The workaround? Name the characters "Herlock Sholmes" and "John H. Wilson." Honestly it suits the humor of the games very well and the doofy representation of Holmes is one of my favorites.
Were they whimsical aliases in the game? 🤗 Crossover potential crosses my mind: Sholmes & Wilson meet Nosferatu (the cinematic vampire trying to not exactly be Dracula).
Funnily enough, there is actual historical basis for those name changes. The author of the original Arsene Lupin books, Maurice Leblanc, used the name Herlock Sholmes and Wilson when he wrote a cross-over book between Lupin and Sherlock. This was due to the fact that Leblanc wrote a short-story featuring the two, and Conan Doyle's lawyers protested the use, so when he wrote the full cross-over book, he had to change the name.
@@alm2187 Unfortunately no, but I love that idea. In Japan all names are correct so the changed names aren’t factored in the story. Although they did do something really smart with Watson’s name. In the game, Watson’s place is taken by a little girl with pink hair named Iris Watson. She’s basically Sherlock’s adoptive daughter, and there is some connection to OG Watson, but I won’t spoil it. The cool thing is in the localization her name (and any other mention of Watson) was changed to Wilson. If you don’t know, Wilson is the name of the man from the Red-Headed-League in the original story. Considering that there is a reference to the Red-Headed-League in the game and Iris’s pink hair, I feel like the reference was intentional by the localization team.
That's the plan. I did one a few years ago, too, but forgot last year and the year before. I'd like to make it a yearly thing, though. I'm definitely doing one next year, what with Steamboat Willie scheduled to enter the public domain in 2024.
A sad reality of copyright: no piece of software has ever entered the public domain other than through the generosity of its author. It won't be until the 2040s that the first pieces of software start entering the public domain due to their age.
Just like being an organ donor, your family has override if you let it be in your will... you want to have the works released under an open license while you are still alive so they are limited to simply complaining about how people are disrespecting your genius.
Honestly it’s just a reminder of how thoroughly captured by industry our copyright laws are to reflect that *the first talkie* is only now entering the public domain.
So far as the US, Disney's lawyers are slowly to blame because they kept lobbying for the lifespan of a copyright to be extended everytime a moment they were at risk for a large chunk of their catalog doing Public Domain came up. So now we have this absurd situation where a properly filed and notified copyright lasts for 70 years after the copyright holders death essentially freezing the rate at which works lapse into public domain to a slow crawl
Thankfully, a single year's time is way too short for a single company (even Disney) to put forth the motions for a legal battle to extend copyright again. Besides, they still have 90-odd years of Mickey that will still be under their control. Only Mickey, how he appears and acts in Steamboat Willie, will become public domain. Much like how Winnie the Pooh as he appeared in the original novels is public domain, but red-shirt wearing Pooh is specifically Disney's legal variant that won't be in the public domain until 2062.
Unfortunately, they will probably succeed. Copyright extensions are esoteric enough for the general public's eyes to glaze over and politicians love handing out corporate welfare.
@@redmage87 You're assumption is that Disney's legal dept walked into the office and went "oh, right, its 2023, time to start the process", instead of having everything ready to go, if not already working its way thru the courts/gov't agencies... Heck, they've done it so much they could probably just print the same documents and just change the dates.
Steamboat Willie will probably be slightly modified and released to theatres just in time to establish a new copyright so that Mickey remains under Disney control for another xx years.
If it hasn’t already been pointed out, it’s worth mentioning *why* copyright (and patents) exist. The purpose is to *encourage* the creation of works that will, after a reasonable time, fall into the public domain. The general benefit of Public Domain Day is the real reason, not the guarantee of exclusive ownership.
Yeah, the original copyright law of 1790 made a lot of sense. It was only 20 years long. That way, authors and artists could create things and get a tidy profit without worrying some big publisher took advantage of it, while simultaneously be short enough to encourage creative people to make more stuff, and encourage people who liked the original works to further it.
Film copyrights are a bit tricky because while the original film may have entered the public domain, digital restorations of it are copyrighted as independent works. This is particularly relevant for the silent era and early talkies because digital restorations are sometimes the only format of a film that is accessible to the public.
Of course, if anyone can get access to the original, they’d be free to restore it (or alter it in any other way they see fit) and sell it. Also, anyone could remake them without needing any kind of permission to do so.
@@Meshamu Disclaimer: IANAL. Presumably the argument is that a person or company doing a digital restoration isn't just performing a simple reproduction, but rather they make artistic choices for things like color balance, sound remixing, cropping, preserving/removing film defects, etc., and those choices make the restoration a copyrightable work. The restored work contains the original public domain art, but it also contains the new art that went into the restoration itself, and there's no way to separate those out when making a copy. If you print out the King James Bible using a fancy font that you designed, I can't make photocopies of your bible and distribute them. Even though the text is public domain, my copies would also contain your font, which is under copyright. What I could do is read your bible, take the text that is demonstrably public domain, type that text out myself without your fancy font, and distribute copies of it. Instead of copying, I'd be recreating. Similarly, I should be able to watch a restored public domain film, extract out the script, set design, camera techniques, etc. (all the things that went into making the film that absolutely 100% could not have been additions/changes made by the restoration process), recreate the sets, and re-film with new actors (new actors for practical reasons, not for copyright reasons). But I'd need to be very careful in doing so, because it might be difficult to tell what changes were introduced. Did the restoration cut out or rearrange some scenes or some dialog lines? I could copy those cuts without ever knowing they were made, since I don't even know that the cut material even existed.
@@Meshamu If any restoration or alteration is done, the restored or altered version can be copyrighted. An exact copy would be in the public domain. This was an issue with the Rider-Waite-Smith tarot deck until recent years, because the original design went into the public domain in the 60s while publisher US Games continues aggressively pursuing claims against anyone copying the minor coloration changes they made to their own version of that deck. On the same note, expect Diz to claim ownership of all their characters based on minor alterations to their animation models for the next hundred years.
It's a case by case basis as there had to be "significant changes" to the original material. Not all restorations fall under this category, so the best way is to find the status of the specific film.
I have a bunch of old film footage that is most likely public domain going back to the 1890s including a 1926 silent film called "Disposing of Mother"(lost film?). I've been wanting to start a channel where I upload my collection to TH-cam without any annoying watermarks or licensing fees that most stock footage channels do with public domain film, but I can't find an affordable 16mm film digitizer and it gets expensive to send it out to other companies. I've never started an online fundraiser before. Unfortunately, I've had to recently sell some of my collection off to pay bills.
Did a quick search. There's a 1926 film "Mother" from Russia and a 1923 film "Disposing of Mother". Neither look to be lost films, but a lot of those old films can end up spliced together and renamed. You might have a segment from some other completely unrelated lost film that's been spliced in there. Many early cartoons have been found as partials as part of spliced film. My advice would be to contact a university. They may either have the facilities to help you out themselves or could direct you to someone who can. Also a lot of a groups searching the world for old film stock looking for lost films. You can maybe try reaching out to some of them.
get a dark room the darker the better, black-out and a big pain sand blarted glass, just the one side, the bigger the glass the better, think big, line up you film projector like you would for a viewing screen area, the better it lined up the better the results will be, no hot spots, (turn light bulb power if it ajustable to much light in areas of the screen, and put a descent camera on the over side of the glass, and film what's being projected, it going to be mirrored image, and use what ever a valuable flip the in the right direction, (not checked (VideoLAN's VLC media player) should do for that) it free too, the most basic on trimming the start and ends, but youtude can do that too, if that was your plan depending on how many films your doing might be a idea to build the hole thing on a frame once you have right distances to watch dialed in make in more permanent, stop thing moving around, the films shutter speed miss matching, may be a problem?
The Doyle Estate should follow the example of other less annoying and litigious estates and just be the arbiter of the official Arthur Conan Doyle golden seal of approval. So they wouldn't try to sue people for writing Sherlock Holmes books or making Sherlock Holmes films but they would reserve their approval from projects they don't like or who don't seek their patronage. Essentially like the old Nintendo seal of authenticity, nothing stops you playing NES games that don't have that sticker but you know the ones that do have it are theoretically guaranteed to be a certain level of quality.
As soon as you said 1927 media was public domain, I freaked I out because I love Metropolis so much I remembered the year it was released. That movie is incredible and beautiful, and it totally stands the test of time. Other cool stuff, too, but Metropolis!
...Though thinking about it more, it may not make a huge amount of difference. The big story with "Metropolis" in recent years has been the recovery of all the original footage and the excellent restoration work that's become possible as a result, and the restorations we've got are presumably copyrighted by the people who did them. The licensing of the source material doesn't seem to have been much of an obstacle to people releasing versions of the movie. Still, nice to have one potential issue resolved, I guess.
Now I can publish that Poirot and Holmes crossover I've been working on since fourth grade! And the film version will have the dude from London After Midnight!
Go for it! That's what's great about the public domain. Not only do we all have access to all these classic works and characters, we can do whatever we want with them, even make new versions and adaptations of them and sell them to make money.
@@themostdevious-t1d I think the actual recordings might still be under copyright, so if he played old recordings of them instead of singing them, he might get a contentID claim maybe?
@@drdca8263 This is correct. Recordings of songs are their own copyrighted works, so even a recording of one of these songs from 1928 is still copyrighted. It's perfectly legal to perform or record your own versions of these songs, but you can't just play someone else's cover of a public domain song.
DO NOT start your Agatha Christie read with "The Big Four". It has been called the worst Christie novel by everyone, including Agatha Christie. It has the most executive interference of any of her works, a cliched "Yellow Peril" villain (who thankfully remains off stage), and a twist that is so terrible that I have no problem with spoiling it. (At one point, Poirot is apparently killed, and his heretofore unmentioned brother, Achille, shows up. The fact that the rest of the series is about Hercule Poirot and not Achille Poirot should tell you who he really is.)
@@Seal0626 I picture him wearing the tiniest of extra additions to his moustache, invisible to the viewer except that it's clearly blonde or something, and when he plucks that tiny bundle of fake hair out everyone gasps and someone faints.
As I understand it, it's not the actual Doyle estate being dicks about copyright, it's just Andrea Plunkett. Who isn't even vaguely related to them. She was just married to a director who briefly held the rights to the later stories, and has no legal claim to them herself whatsoever - it's been through the legal mill and decided - but she continues to badger people for money with threats of legal action, and enough of them pay up to avoid the hassle, that she's kept going. She's the one insisting - despite copious evidence to the contrary - that Sherlock Holmes was never emotional(uh, dude "glanced round and sprang to his feet with a cry of pleasure" the first time he appeared on the page in 1887) or respectful of women(Holmes called Mary Morstan "a model client" with "the correct intuition", and "might have been most useful in such work as we have been doing. She had a decided genius that way" in 1890 and that's without going into all the cases that basically consist of him getting justice for a wronged or exploited woman) before the stories she claims to own, and that therefore any adaptation in which he isn't a wooden misogynist owes her money. It remains to be seen if Sherlock Holmes will be allowed to accurately reflect the canon now, or if the humourless automaton characterisation that everyone is now used to will prevail simply out of habit.
Not that it would make it any less impressive, but he may be using a teleprompter. In which case he'd be able to focus on line delivery and performance, and not memory and recall.
I'm particularly interested in the fact that people can now fully use Sherlock Holmes without any risks or fear of being sued or taken to court by the Conan Doyle Estate anymore and that The Hardy Boys are now considered public domain characters! I hope someone takes advantage of this and does somehting new and fun with them. I would love to see the Hardy Boys go up against Dracula or have a crossover with Sherlock Holmes since both The Hardy Boys and Holmes both solve mysteries, so it would make sense!
He said himself that he doesn't know copyright laws in other countries, but Metropolis is still copyrighted in its native Germany & most of the EU. While the U.S. copyright term is 95 years from publication for virtually anything released prior to 1978, in Germany copyright is for the life of any of its "authors" (creators) plus 70 years (similar to the post-1978 U.S. rule for works not "for hire"); thus it will be protected there till 2046, 70 years after the 1976 death of its director Fritz Lang. Metropolis' U.S. copyright had already been restored from public domain once. It originally entered PD in the 1950's as its original U.S. copyright was not renewed. However, since no such formalities were required in Germany, the U.S. was compelled by the terms of its accession to the Berne Convention to restore its copyright in 1995 under the 1994 Uruguay Round Agreements Act -- but only until its U.S. copyright would have expired if it had been renewed. Thus, its U.S. copyright is now expired after 95 years & probably won't be restored again.
My Blue Heaven always makes me think of MASH. it mustve been the only song they licensed for the show, because the characters listened to it CONSTANTLY in the first season.
You didn't mention "Men Without Women", "Now We Are Six", "To the Lighthouse" or the first three Hardy Boys books. Anyone can now write and publish their own stories about the Hardy Boys, as long as they're based solely on the characters as depicted in those first three books. Also, if someone finds a copy of "London After Midnight" and sets themselves up as the sole distributor of copies, wouldn't other people be able to copy those copies and sell them too, and so on ad infinitum, since the film is in the public domain?
True, but at the very least, in that event, through some miracle, that someone has had a surviving copy of London After Midnight with them all along that MGM and the rest of the world doesn't know about whether it be in the hands of a private collector or someone else who doesn't know it's considered lost, then if they did come forward with it, despite it being in the public domain and everyone being able to legally copy, distribute, share and sell it, the original person or group who had it first would still be credited and be made famous for rediscovering, finding and unintentionally saving and preserving one of the biggest holy grails and most sought-after lost films in the world!
If the person did a digital "remaster of the work" and then kept the original hidden, then that remaster would have a copyright of 2023. People could do remakes still; but copying the remaster itself would not be permitted. But, that same person didn't really need to wait till 2023 to do that; so I suspect that will not happen.
You know, even if the MGM vault fire was 'accidental', I wouldn't be surprised if MGM would have disposed of any now public domain works, since they can't derive rent from them anymore...
MGM has been sold so many times that I doubt whoever the current owner is even knows the full list of what they own. It's doubtful that they'd care about what (almost) 100 year old movies that nobody would watch on TV anyway would go into the public domain.
I'd put it as unlikely; they likely wouldn't help bring the films to light, but how many century old movies are you (or most people) chomping at the bit to see?
@@thomasstevenhebert I'm thinking we going to see heat when 1937-1939 approaches the public domain. The first Disney films, Superman, the theatrical Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind (book & movie), etc. are going to get someone jumping up to demand a longer copyright.
Entertaining - I always make a point in the new year to watch and listen to something from 100 years ago. Just to remind myself how far we have come and how much has changed. But also how little has changed in some respects.
Next year will be where things really get exciting when Mickey Mouse finally enters the public domain through his debut and original appearance in Steamboat Willie! Sure, Disney is very protective of Mickey Mouse and they'll still have their trademarks, but it'll still be a huge deal nonetheless and I don't think Disney will be able to stop everyone from using him when that happens.
As a GIGANTIC nerd of 1920s music public domain day is one of my favourite days of the year because I get to be reminded of a BUNCH of my favourite tunes
The 95 year wait for public domain is much too long. Everyone involved in creating those works has been dead for decades, and long ago received any compensation they’ll get.
If you think that's bad, large parts of the world uses "Life plus 70 years". Even America has switched to life plus 70 years, but they did that sometime in the 70's so it hasn't been long enough yet for it to be relevant. First things coming out of copyright from that should be around 2046. Not so bad you might think? Wrong. You can publish something at 20 and die at age 100. Only then does the counter start. That work would be under copyright for 150 years, 70 of which would be after your death.
I hate that too and wish copyright terms could back to 56 years like before as due to their greed, Disney literally robbed us and generations of Americans of decades of classic and famous works that rightfully belong in the public domain for us all to use, enjoy and share. Plus, such long copyright terms are detrimental to preserving all these old works that are either lost or at risk of being lost to time because archivists and others can't legally do so.
Disagree. Copyrighted materials have value, just like a house. The value can go up or down. If someone said- “I am sorry your family had this homestead- since 1927, 60 acres of land, with a house etc, and after passing it down to your children and grandchildren- then after 70+ years ANYONE could use it, live in it, enjoy it, “you might think differently. It took work to create the brands we know today and more work to keep them relevant and of value.
So hooray, hooray, It's public domain day As January rolls around each year. Celebrate with me All the books that are now free While the lawyers sit and cry into their beer.
Sort of. Yes the shorts that was in production and or released in 1928 would enter public domain, but because he is also trademarked Mickey himself won't be in public domain If Disney decides to drop the trademark then that's different. So while you can post Steamboat Willie on TH-cam next year for example without worrying about an copyright strike by Disney they would still have the rights to Mickey himself due to the trademark.
seriously guys. everyone deserves to see Sunrise. I can't describe what it is about this movie, but I find something powerful in it, that even Metropolis doesn't give me.
I love your pop culture and toy videos. But this is actually helpful as well as entertaining. There are plenty of public domain songs people can now use for podcasts and videos. Thanks, Steve.
Keep in mind, though, that although the songs themselves are public domain, certain recordings thereof may still be protected. You could, of course, record your own version.
I think Putting On The Ritz might be my favorite of the songs that just entered the public domain because the lyrics and music are just so catchy and if I didn't know better, I actually might think it was created today.
I listen to a lot of the public domain. Hence why I'm assuming TH-cam felt the need to drop this lil gem of knowledge on my feed. Tysm for this was so much fun. Loved this. Subs Edit I'm proud to say ik most of these works. So excited
Wow, was not expecting this, and laughed so hard. Love the humor, you somehow made public domain conversation more interesting and fun. Well done, earned the Sub.
Unfortunately, I think Canada is adding 20 years to copyright. Also, I believe Agatha Christie’s short story ‘The Tuesday Night Club’ (first appearance of Miss Marple) is in the public domain as well.
Yes they are. It was done as part of a Trade agreement despite vocal opposition from local groups. New Zealand is doing the same for the same reason. It often comes in from trade deals due to parties in the country with the longer term fighting to have that added as part of the trade deal forcing the other country to extend there's. Canada simply can't afford upsetting America and disrupting trade between the countries.
Yeah. I feel bad for Canada now going to have to wait 20 years to see more works lose their copyrights. We can understand how they feel about it since we only just got our public domain here in America working again years ago back in 2019 when works from 1923 finally entered the public domain, thanks largely to the greedy Disney company.
Yes as of December 30th, 2022 Canada went from having copyright life+50 years (the minimum term under the Berne treaty, most rich countries do more than the minimum) to life +70 years in order to conform with the USMCA renegotiation of NAFTA. Keep in mind the US copyright is complicated by the fact that when they changed their copyright system in 1978 (so that instead of being like up to 56 years from publication it was life + 50 years when they decided to meet the minimum standard of the Berne treaty, they did not actually sign the treaty until 1989) they gave everything published between 1923- and 1977 a 75 year term (extended to 95 years in 1998 which was when the term was changed to life + 70 years also). This meant nothing in the US entered the public domain due to rights expiring between 1978 and 2018. It means that stuff written by Conan Doyle in the 1923-1927 window actually got longer protection then it would under a life + 70 years rule (as Steve pointed out under that kind of rule Doyle's work has been public domain in the UK since at least 2000 and longer in Canada etc.), whereas stuff by Agatha Christie before 1951 or so gets a shorter term of protection (Christie died in 1976 so were the life + 70 years to apply nothing by her would be public domain until 2046, even under the life + 50 years none of Christie's work will enter the public domain until 2026). While Disney no doubt greased the wheels on it, I think many European countries had life + 70 years long decades earlier (Germany changed to it in the mid 60s). So it was not just Disney but a worldwide (or at least Western European) move by interests in that whole sector most likely. Saying it was just Disney is almost certainly an oversimplification at best.
@@allanolley4874 As I pointed out in another comment, Germany's adoption of the life + 70 years rule is why Metropolis is still copyrighted there even though it's now (once again) PD here. For films they count 70 years from its last surviving "author" -- generally director, screenwriter & score composer. For Metropolis it's director Fritz Lang (died 1976, like Agatha Christie), so it's copyrighted there till 2046. Even for films released after 1978, the split between the U.S. (and the UK) & the EU will likely persist. In the U.S., post-1978 works made "for hire" -- including virtually all films -- still get a fixed 95-year copyright term. I understand this rule applies to virtually all films in the UK, though to be safe some version of this line appears below the copyright notice on many films (especially from Disney): "For purposes of copyright law in the United Kingdom, was the author of this work immediately after it was made." Better for movie studios to rely on a fixed 95-year copyright term in two of the world's biggest movie markets than take the crapshoot that one of the film's "authors" lives at least 20 years after it was made.
Don't hold your breath for LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT to emerge. MGM was very meticulous about retrieving their distributed prints, and LAM was noted by MGM bookkeepers in the early 1950s as being represented by a single archived print. That print is known to have been destroyed in a massive vault fire, so the only chance of LAM surviving rests with a remote possibility that it was bootlegged during distribution. The film was poorly received in '27, and would probably disappoint people if it did turn up today.
Yeah, as soon as he started talking about people being assholes about works entering public domain, I immediately assumed it was about Disney, and I didn't even know for sure when Disney stuff was copyrighted, I just know that Disney is practically a moustache twirling villain about it.
As I sit here thinking of asking my grandfather which of these songs he would remember, I realize that, by the time I'm his age, Margaritaville will have entered the public domain...
The Mickey Mouse Protection Act, made it 95 years, which delayed a lot of the copywrites from joining PD. In ten years, it will include Batman and Superman (released in 1937). So other than Doyle Estate running on fumes, with sending copywrite cease and desist letters to everyone, and most paying rather than going through suit (Except I think one who win in 7th Circuit), Steve's correct, this year is small in comparison to Disney trying harder in Congress next year.
95 years is too long. My whole channel is derivative works of material that wiggled its way into the public domain faster than that for various reasons, and it's a great creative outlet. No one watches but I enjoy making them and feel very fortunate that I have the material. I often wonder how much great stuff people would come up with if more was available. I really feel like it represses creativity and while I'm all for people retaining rights to their work, and keeping the money it generates, you could easily shorten it by 20-25 years and still provide ample protection for the original creators.
IDK I always felt like 125 years maximum and bar it from ever going higher would be fair. People live at max around 120 it'd be enough for a good amount of people and it could be released earlier is wanted or so. Would have to look more into it. Also nice channel, looks cool! :o
1:07 That was the whole scheme. Apart from Disney keeping the mouse. Make the copyright length so long that any creative works that enter will no long be culturally viable in any meaningful way. The length used to be 14 years.
Nice, hopefull this means we'll see more of the 'nice' side of Holmes, since it was only later that the character started to soften and become more fleshed out as a person that way, and the Doyle Estate insisted that this means that anything but a sociopathic Holmes was drawing on the (at the time) still copywrited works.
An animated version of "Wings" could be worth a watch. No CGI. BTW, please, keep singing. Please?!? Great start of the year. Important topic that needs more conversations between the many different invested groups.
While people are at it, a modern remake of The Jazz Singer could be in the cards and it would be great if they did it right and they got rid of the blackface stuff that made it controversial.
I absolutely love this video and videos like this. I had absolutely zero idea that Public Domain Day was a thing! That said, when I hear "baseball film", all I can think of is the classic "Who's on First" bit. XD
To be honest, I didn't know anything about the public domain and had only heard of the words public domain until when I was forced to quarantine and stay home because of the pandemic in 2020, I had lots of spare time on my hands, so with nothing better to do, I finally looked it up, it got me very interested right away and I've been paying attention to the public domain a lot ever since!
This is way funnier than any video about the public domain has any right to be. I've never watched this channel before, but now I definitely have to check out what else this guy does
Poirot is a wonderful character and David Suchet is, like Jeremy Brett as Holmes, absolutely the perfect embodiment of the Belgian detective with the razor sharp "little grey cells". That production did every single Poirot story, including "Curtains", which is his final novel. Poirot was so popular that when "Curtains" was first published, he received an obituary in the New York Times. Their adaptation of "Murder on the Orient Express" (first published as "Murder in the Calais Coach") was one of the best I have ever seen, there is a coda added to it that only Suchet could set up and deliver. -- all of which I am familiar with because many of us DO still read, voracious and copiously, but thank you for your informative announcement for this year's entries into the arena of Public Domain.
1 oil by Upton Sinclair 1:16 2 the big four Agatha Christie 1:57 , 3 the case-book of sherlock hoames acd all 56 shorts and books 2:33 ,4 music /songs my blue heven 1928 4:58, 5 puttting on the rits 6:09, 6 i screem you scream we all scram for ice cream by howard jonson and exc 7:09 7 the best thing's in life are free by Gorge Gard and exc 7:27 , 8 movies that have servived sence 1927, raped fire of movie titles 8:29 wings, the lodgers a store of the london fog, october,Metroplis, sunrise fw Murnau, the king of kings , college buster keaton, al jolson the jazz singer , 9 lost films 11:24 casey at the bat starting wallace beery, babe ruth " babe comes home" 1927, london after midnight tod browning , 10 14:18 outro 2024 aka 1928 look foward
Can you just imagine what would already be in the public domain if our copyright laws had stayed that way!? If it had, we would be free to do Toy Story, Star Wars, Marvel Batman and Superman, Pokemon, Legend Of Zelda, Scooby Doo, Looney Tunes, Spongebob, Rugrats, Invader Zim, Courage The Cowardly Dog, Ed, Edd N' Eddy and Shrek projects among many more other things right now!
I know "The Best Things in Life Are Free" because Robert Morse (RIP 😔) and Jon Hamm cemented it in my head as part of one of the most poignant farewells in modern prestige television.
Nothing to do with the main subject of the video, but just wanted to mention that the song “How Much is that Doggy in the Window”, which many consider a children’s song, was actually a mainstream song with additional verses. My grandmother was a big Patti Page fan, so I know many of her songs from childhood. The title of the movie “Throw Mama from the Train” is derived from a Patti Page song (second part of that lyric is “a kiss, a kiss”).
Looking forward to this video next year in a dystopian schadenfreude way for when the big mouse finds another way to throw money at the courts and make copyright even longer.
If you watch what they're doing, releasing an "Oswald the Lucky Rabbit" short in original 1920's style just last month (Oswald was first released in 1927) and using the "Steamboat Willie" clip as an intro for some of their stuff, it's easy to see what they're doing. They've accepted they're NOT getting an extension on Copyright and so are pivoting to rely on Trademark. Trademark law requires a design to be in active use, hence them using the old designs again after 90 years.
I don't see that happening in the near future with how divided congress is. Don't forget republicans aren't happy with Disney for opposing Don't Say Gay in Florida and their live-action Mulan film they made with working with the Chinese government.
Also, much more people know about the public domain and copyright laws thans to the internet and there would be much more people than back in the 90s, who would be against such legislation.
Not to mention, Disney and others have been much quieter about lobbying for copyright extensions now, so it seems like even they understand that this is the end of the line for further extensions and they and many others are going to instead rely more on their trademarks to try to protect their characters and IPs.
@@TheJayjayforce If literally everyone bands together to use the old design for literally everything we could theoretically force a genercide which will make disney lose their valuable Trademarks
As per usual, I quite enjoyed this video! I enjoy getting information with humor in the mix. I have to agree with your friend, adding songs never hurts either. Yet another brilliant video, thank you!
Same here. The way copyright is now is clearly not how the founders of The U.S. Constitution intended for it to last as copyright only is supposed to last so long, so authors, artists and creators can be encouraged and incentivized to make their works to make a living. But copyrights also must eventually expire, so the public can benefit from these newly public domain works, which in turn, will lead to them making their own works using these works, which is good for creativity and inspiration.
First video of yours I've seen - love it! Especially since I used to work in music publishing and know quite as bit about copyright law as well. But there's one big one you missed - Show Boat! Both the novel by Edna Ferber and the Kern/Hammerstein musical adaptation, featuring the songs "Old Man River" and "Make Believe". Personal note, the novel is very different from the play, and I think deserves another look. :)
And wait!! Since you seem to be a Star Trek fan also, like me, maybe you've realized that it's all coming together, and why they were able to reintroduce Moriarty in Picard season 3, beginning in February, after the copyright issues during The Next Generation's appearances of the character! Brilliant!
Steve, you're a smart guy. You are quite eloquent in getting your point across. I appreciate your brevity and your detailed explanations when necessary. One of the things I enjoy the most about your videos, though, is your fantastic cursing. You swear so good. Fuck.
Something you forgot to talk about is how the original Oswald the Luck Rabbit shorts, the ones that introduced the first actually successful Disney character that would later inspire Mickey Mouse, is also now part of the public domain. Tbf he may have already been public as there isn’t any recording of his copyright being renewed, but like you said, if it wasn’t before, it sure is now.
Europe uses "Death of the author plus 70 years". The author in this case would be Fritz Lang. America actually switched over to life plus 70 years as well, but they did that in the 70's so it won't be until around 2046 that the earliest of those copyright's will expire.
@@TheJayjayforce Note what happened in the US is that they implemented life + 50 years in 1978 and when they did this extended the fixed term of copyrights before things before 1978 to 75 years (from 56 years) in 1989 the US finally officially joined the Berne convention that requires a minimum protection of life + 50 years. Then in 1998 just before the first of those 75 year terms from 1923 would have come due another copyright bill was passed that changed it to the standard of life + 70 years for stuff after 1978 (70 years + life had become the standard in Europe by this point which was probably the main push for that) and extended the term of stuff from 1923-1977 to 95 years. Thus nothing entered the public domain in the US due to copyright expiry between 1978 and 2018. Since 2018 things copyrighted in the weird period have been trickling into the public domain. Also some stuff is in the public domain from that period because copyright was a 28 year term with the option of an extension for another 28 years and sometimes no one filed the extension. There is no Berne country where Metropolis is public domain (assuming Fritz Lang is considered the relevant author for the term), there are still a few places that do the minimum of life + 50 years, but even in those copyright would not expire on Lang's work until around 2026. Some places have longer than life + 70 years, for example Mexico's term is life + 100 years for some reason. So the US may well be the first country that has anything like a normal copyright regime where Metropolis enters the public domain. Also things like sound recordings and photographs have a different copyright term than works like books, movies etc. (at least in some jurisdictions). Also all signatories to the Berne convention and like recognizing each others copyrights but only to the extent and terms of local law, so the same things are public domain in one place and copyrighted in another.
How long is copyright? The life of Steamboat Willy plus a few years. Which means they'll be changing the law this year. Disney, by the way, does NOT need copyright law to protect Mickey at all. He is trademarked. They can lose Steamboat Willy and people can watch that, make direct adaptations of it, and derivative work from it, but they can't use the Mickey logo or anything based on later versions of Mickey. It wouldn't impact them at all. But they'll still try to change the law again.
It won't work this time. Congress is really divided and republicans are mad at Disney for working with China to make their live-action Mulan film and opposing Don't Say Gay in Florida.
This year is a real treasure trove of public domain goodies! I'm looking forward to next year when The Passion of Joan of Arc enters the public domain if it hasn't already!
It never ceases to amaze me that Walt Disney made his fortune from animating works in the public domain, and he and his estate are responsible for extending the copyright date more than anyone else.
Disney died in 1966, when the copyright period was still 56 years maximum (if you remembered to renew during year 28). I don't think he ever had anything personally to do with efforts to extend the terms of copyright protection.
@@oliverbrownlow5615 The Disney Company’s efforts were decades after Disney’s death.
It stood out to me in that film in which Tom Hanks played him. He sympathized with the Mary Poppins author because he'd been in her position before. Is it just not practical for him, as head of studio, to adapt her intellectual property without forcing her to forfeit all rights?
@@alm2187 I assume your question is at least partly rhetorical, and I'm at a disadvantage in answering it, because I haven't yet seen *Saving Mr. Banks* (2013), but I'll take a stab at it anyway. The author of *Mary Poppins* (P.L. Travers) did not forfeit all rights. She *sold* the movie rights for $100,000 (which doesn't sound like much today, but was probably over a million in today's money), plus 5% of the gross. In addition, the sales of her books presumably skyrocketed. She could have held out for script approval, but I don't think she did. She could also have held out for final cut approval, but I know she didn't. In either case, she would most likely have received less money, or the movie never would have been made at all. In general, the more control an author demands over how his or her work is adapted, the less money he or she will receive. The reason for this is simple. It costs much, much more money to make a movie than it does to publish a book, and in general, book authors know how to write successful books, and filmmakers and movie studios know how to make successful films (not that they always do, but these are their areas of expertise). For better or for worse, filmmakers typically don't want the original author around trying to micro-manage every aspect of the movie, and most authors would rather have more cash than more creative control (which, after all, typically involves a lot of extra labor). But no one can force an author to forfeit all rights. The author chooses which rights to sell, and when, and to whom, and if at all.
It may not technically have been his hand which pushed the copyright law in that direction, but Walt was indeed a shrewd businessman, and the nature of the Disney corporation today is not completely disconnected from how he ran his business when he was alive. He once lost the rights to an early creation, Oswald the Lucky Rabbit, and he was certainly ready to overcorrect in an attempt to favor of creators.
If you don't want to pin anything on him that happened after his death, there are still plenty of stories of socialism phobia, anti-either policies, and antisemitism to draw on. But that's another topic.
Fun fact about the Holmes estate, they wouldn't allow Capcom to use the names "Sherlock Holmes" and "John H. Watson" in the English version Great Ace Attorney video games (which I love), but the characters had been used with their original names in the Japanese version. The workaround? Name the characters "Herlock Sholmes" and "John H. Wilson." Honestly it suits the humor of the games very well and the doofy representation of Holmes is one of my favorites.
Or how about Daffy Duck and Porky Pig as Doorlock Homes and Dr. Watkins.
"Herlock Sholmes" was how many publishers got around copyright claims when Maurice Leblanc wrote and published "Lupin vs Holmes".
Were they whimsical aliases in the game? 🤗
Crossover potential crosses my mind: Sholmes & Wilson meet Nosferatu (the cinematic vampire trying to not exactly be Dracula).
Funnily enough, there is actual historical basis for those name changes. The author of the original Arsene Lupin books, Maurice Leblanc, used the name Herlock Sholmes and Wilson when he wrote a cross-over book between Lupin and Sherlock. This was due to the fact that Leblanc wrote a short-story featuring the two, and Conan Doyle's lawyers protested the use, so when he wrote the full cross-over book, he had to change the name.
@@alm2187 Unfortunately no, but I love that idea. In Japan all names are correct so the changed names aren’t factored in the story. Although they did do something really smart with Watson’s name. In the game, Watson’s place is taken by a little girl with pink hair named Iris Watson. She’s basically Sherlock’s adoptive daughter, and there is some connection to OG Watson, but I won’t spoil it. The cool thing is in the localization her name (and any other mention of Watson) was changed to Wilson. If you don’t know, Wilson is the name of the man from the Red-Headed-League in the original story. Considering that there is a reference to the Red-Headed-League in the game and Iris’s pink hair, I feel like the reference was intentional by the localization team.
I teach a course on the Public Domain. Please do this every year.
That's the plan. I did one a few years ago, too, but forgot last year and the year before. I'd like to make it a yearly thing, though. I'm definitely doing one next year, what with Steamboat Willie scheduled to enter the public domain in 2024.
@@SteveShives We'll be using your video in our class. You're homework!
"I teach a course of the Public Domain. Please do this every year (so that I don't have to)"
Could still do a video for the last couple years 👍
A sad reality of copyright: no piece of software has ever entered the public domain other than through the generosity of its author. It won't be until the 2040s that the first pieces of software start entering the public domain due to their age.
That's why the preservation of this software is extremely important...
Don't do this it's not even the end of the world for real, there's no world war 3!!!!!!!!
I’m a writer, and 100% I’m putting it in my will that all my work enters the public domain when I die.
You should probably consult a lawyer. You might have to execute a general release.
That's assuming you have the rights to all of your work when you die rather than a publisher.
Just like being an organ donor, your family has override if you let it be in your will... you want to have the works released under an open license while you are still alive so they are limited to simply complaining about how people are disrespecting your genius.
So did the Sherlock Holmes writer... But look what happened with that, only now it's in the public domain.
Also a writer here, and as much as I want to I have a huge fear that my works will be misinterpreted
Honestly it’s just a reminder of how thoroughly captured by industry our copyright laws are to reflect that *the first talkie* is only now entering the public domain.
It turns out Sonny Bono had a hand in that. It's like "I Got You, Babe... for Another 50 years"
@@auldthymer I know there was a copyright act named after the then-late Sonny Bono, but I don't know what his actual role was in its passage.
@@auldthymer Groundhog Day is next month.
So far as the US, Disney's lawyers are slowly to blame because they kept lobbying for the lifespan of a copyright to be extended everytime a moment they were at risk for a large chunk of their catalog doing Public Domain came up.
So now we have this absurd situation where a properly filed and notified copyright lasts for 70 years after the copyright holders death essentially freezing the rate at which works lapse into public domain to a slow crawl
And how little IP copyright laws protect the little guy
It's going to be interesting to watch Disney try to extend the timeline for copyright this year.
Thankfully, a single year's time is way too short for a single company (even Disney) to put forth the motions for a legal battle to extend copyright again. Besides, they still have 90-odd years of Mickey that will still be under their control. Only Mickey, how he appears and acts in Steamboat Willie, will become public domain. Much like how Winnie the Pooh as he appeared in the original novels is public domain, but red-shirt wearing Pooh is specifically Disney's legal variant that won't be in the public domain until 2062.
Unfortunately, they will probably succeed. Copyright extensions are esoteric enough for the general public's eyes to glaze over and politicians love handing out corporate welfare.
More live action remakes? 🙄🤣
@@redmage87 You're assumption is that Disney's legal dept walked into the office and went "oh, right, its 2023, time to start the process", instead of having everything ready to go, if not already working its way thru the courts/gov't agencies... Heck, they've done it so much they could probably just print the same documents and just change the dates.
Steamboat Willie will probably be slightly modified and released to theatres just in time to establish a new copyright so that Mickey remains under Disney control for another xx years.
If it hasn’t already been pointed out, it’s worth mentioning *why* copyright (and patents) exist. The purpose is to *encourage* the creation of works that will, after a reasonable time, fall into the public domain. The general benefit of Public Domain Day is the real reason, not the guarantee of exclusive ownership.
Yeah, the original copyright law of 1790 made a lot of sense. It was only 20 years long. That way, authors and artists could create things and get a tidy profit without worrying some big publisher took advantage of it, while simultaneously be short enough to encourage creative people to make more stuff, and encourage people who liked the original works to further it.
Film copyrights are a bit tricky because while the original film may have entered the public domain, digital restorations of it are copyrighted as independent works. This is particularly relevant for the silent era and early talkies because digital restorations are sometimes the only format of a film that is accessible to the public.
Of course, if anyone can get access to the original, they’d be free to restore it (or alter it in any other way they see fit) and sell it.
Also, anyone could remake them without needing any kind of permission to do so.
Aren't faithful reproductions of works in the public domain, themselves public domain?
@@Meshamu Disclaimer: IANAL. Presumably the argument is that a person or company doing a digital restoration isn't just performing a simple reproduction, but rather they make artistic choices for things like color balance, sound remixing, cropping, preserving/removing film defects, etc., and those choices make the restoration a copyrightable work. The restored work contains the original public domain art, but it also contains the new art that went into the restoration itself, and there's no way to separate those out when making a copy.
If you print out the King James Bible using a fancy font that you designed, I can't make photocopies of your bible and distribute them. Even though the text is public domain, my copies would also contain your font, which is under copyright.
What I could do is read your bible, take the text that is demonstrably public domain, type that text out myself without your fancy font, and distribute copies of it. Instead of copying, I'd be recreating. Similarly, I should be able to watch a restored public domain film, extract out the script, set design, camera techniques, etc. (all the things that went into making the film that absolutely 100% could not have been additions/changes made by the restoration process), recreate the sets, and re-film with new actors (new actors for practical reasons, not for copyright reasons). But I'd need to be very careful in doing so, because it might be difficult to tell what changes were introduced. Did the restoration cut out or rearrange some scenes or some dialog lines? I could copy those cuts without ever knowing they were made, since I don't even know that the cut material even existed.
@@Meshamu If any restoration or alteration is done, the restored or altered version can be copyrighted. An exact copy would be in the public domain.
This was an issue with the Rider-Waite-Smith tarot deck until recent years, because the original design went into the public domain in the 60s while publisher US Games continues aggressively pursuing claims against anyone copying the minor coloration changes they made to their own version of that deck.
On the same note, expect Diz to claim ownership of all their characters based on minor alterations to their animation models for the next hundred years.
It's a case by case basis as there had to be "significant changes" to the original material. Not all restorations fall under this category, so the best way is to find the status of the specific film.
I have a bunch of old film footage that is most likely public domain going back to the 1890s including a 1926 silent film called "Disposing of Mother"(lost film?). I've been wanting to start a channel where I upload my collection to TH-cam without any annoying watermarks or licensing fees that most stock footage channels do with public domain film, but I can't find an affordable 16mm film digitizer and it gets expensive to send it out to other companies. I've never started an online fundraiser before. Unfortunately, I've had to recently sell some of my collection off to pay bills.
That’s really a shame. Is it possible to do something like Kickstarter?
I hope you get to someday, that would be wonderful for preservation and I bet your collection is a joy to go through
Did a quick search. There's a 1926 film "Mother" from Russia and a 1923 film "Disposing of Mother". Neither look to be lost films, but a lot of those old films can end up spliced together and renamed. You might have a segment from some other completely unrelated lost film that's been spliced in there. Many early cartoons have been found as partials as part of spliced film.
My advice would be to contact a university. They may either have the facilities to help you out themselves or could direct you to someone who can. Also a lot of a groups searching the world for old film stock looking for lost films. You can maybe try reaching out to some of them.
You could send them to the Internet Archive (it's a digital library)
get a dark room the darker the better, black-out and a big pain sand blarted glass, just the one side, the bigger the glass the better, think big, line up you film projector like you would for a viewing screen area, the better it lined up the better the results will be, no hot spots, (turn light bulb power if it ajustable to much light in areas of the screen, and put a descent camera on the over side of the glass, and film what's being projected, it going to be mirrored image, and use what ever a valuable flip the in the right direction, (not checked (VideoLAN's VLC media player) should do for that) it free too, the most basic on trimming the start and ends, but youtude can do that too, if that was your plan depending on how many films your doing might be a idea to build the hole thing on a frame once you have right distances to watch dialed in make in more permanent, stop thing moving around, the films shutter speed miss matching, may be a problem?
The sheer amount of fuckery caused by the house of mouse to the public domain literally filled a class lecture of my media law class in college
The Doyle Estate should follow the example of other less annoying and litigious estates and just be the arbiter of the official Arthur Conan Doyle golden seal of approval. So they wouldn't try to sue people for writing Sherlock Holmes books or making Sherlock Holmes films but they would reserve their approval from projects they don't like or who don't seek their patronage.
Essentially like the old Nintendo seal of authenticity, nothing stops you playing NES games that don't have that sticker but you know the ones that do have it are theoretically guaranteed to be a certain level of quality.
Do the Tolkiens approve Rings of Power?
tbf the ones with the Seal of Approval are the only legit ones- they actually undertook actions to prevent such games from being made for the SNES
Considering what a notorious crank he was, I think anyone saying "ACD would approve of this" is full of it. He didn't even approve of his own works 🤣
As soon as you said 1927 media was public domain, I freaked I out because I love Metropolis so much I remembered the year it was released. That movie is incredible and beautiful, and it totally stands the test of time. Other cool stuff, too, but Metropolis!
Exactly! It and many other classic works are in the public domain now where they belong and we have to celebrate as a result!
Oh nice! I've been meaning to watch that
THAT is the thing I'm most thrilled by. Metropolis is such a giant milestone in film.
...Though thinking about it more, it may not make a huge amount of difference. The big story with "Metropolis" in recent years has been the recovery of all the original footage and the excellent restoration work that's become possible as a result, and the restorations we've got are presumably copyrighted by the people who did them. The licensing of the source material doesn't seem to have been much of an obstacle to people releasing versions of the movie. Still, nice to have one potential issue resolved, I guess.
It was in public domain for a while, then was taken out. I'm not clear on the reasons, but I recall something about finding lost reels of the movie.
"you're watching TH-cam, so I assume you don't read" that hit too close to home!
Now I can publish that Poirot and Holmes crossover I've been working on since fourth grade!
And the film version will have the dude from London After Midnight!
Go for it! That's what's great about the public domain. Not only do we all have access to all these classic works and characters, we can do whatever we want with them, even make new versions and adaptations of them and sell them to make money.
Hercule and Achille meet Sherlock and Mycroft.
i like that you sang all these public domain songs so the algorithm doesn't automatically strike your channel.
@@themostdevious-t1d I think the actual recordings might still be under copyright, so if he played old recordings of them instead of singing them, he might get a contentID claim maybe?
@@drdca8263 This is correct. Recordings of songs are their own copyrighted works, so even a recording of one of these songs from 1928 is still copyrighted. It's perfectly legal to perform or record your own versions of these songs, but you can't just play someone else's cover of a public domain song.
DO NOT start your Agatha Christie read with "The Big Four". It has been called the worst Christie novel by everyone, including Agatha Christie. It has the most executive interference of any of her works, a cliched "Yellow Peril" villain (who thankfully remains off stage), and a twist that is so terrible that I have no problem with spoiling it. (At one point, Poirot is apparently killed, and his heretofore unmentioned brother, Achille, shows up. The fact that the rest of the series is about Hercule Poirot and not Achille Poirot should tell you who he really is.)
Which novel would you start with in your opinion?
I think this twist would be greatly improved if Poirot wore an obviously fake moustache over his regular moustache the entire as his "brother".
@@shinyagumon7015 Perhaps some sideburns that he could dramatically peel off to reveal his true identity.
@@Avrysatos Though I've just recently picked up Agatha Christie. I started with Murder on the Orient Express and it was a delight.
@@Seal0626 I picture him wearing the tiniest of extra additions to his moustache, invisible to the viewer except that it's clearly blonde or something, and when he plucks that tiny bundle of fake hair out everyone gasps and someone faints.
As I understand it, it's not the actual Doyle estate being dicks about copyright, it's just Andrea Plunkett. Who isn't even vaguely related to them. She was just married to a director who briefly held the rights to the later stories, and has no legal claim to them herself whatsoever - it's been through the legal mill and decided - but she continues to badger people for money with threats of legal action, and enough of them pay up to avoid the hassle, that she's kept going. She's the one insisting - despite copious evidence to the contrary - that Sherlock Holmes was never emotional(uh, dude "glanced round and sprang to his feet with a cry of pleasure" the first time he appeared on the page in 1887) or respectful of women(Holmes called Mary Morstan "a model client" with "the correct intuition", and "might have been most useful in such work as we have been doing. She had a decided genius that way" in 1890 and that's without going into all the cases that basically consist of him getting justice for a wronged or exploited woman) before the stories she claims to own, and that therefore any adaptation in which he isn't a wooden misogynist owes her money.
It remains to be seen if Sherlock Holmes will be allowed to accurately reflect the canon now, or if the humourless automaton characterisation that everyone is now used to will prevail simply out of habit.
I hope we get real Holmes adaptations now
We have gotten some generally full of humor Holmes for awhile.
I am SO impressed by your ability to deliver your lines so well in such long unbroken takes. Speaking in front of a camera is a difficult skill.
I was thinking the same thing.
It's really quite hypnotic
@@disky01 But at least not long, incredibly unbroken sentences moving from topic to topic 🤪
Not that it would make it any less impressive, but he may be using a teleprompter. In which case he'd be able to focus on line delivery and performance, and not memory and recall.
Perhaps there’s a whole wealth of unseen outtakes… 😅
I was aware of Holmes, but I didn't realize "Metropolis" was now going public. I'm now quite excited!
I'm particularly interested in the fact that people can now fully use Sherlock Holmes without any risks or fear of being sued or taken to court by the Conan Doyle Estate anymore and that The Hardy Boys are now considered public domain characters! I hope someone takes advantage of this and does somehting new and fun with them. I would love to see the Hardy Boys go up against Dracula or have a crossover with Sherlock Holmes since both The Hardy Boys and Holmes both solve mysteries, so it would make sense!
@@nicolasburbano1705 "Mr. Holmes!" Joe shouted. "What is this white stuff? It smells delicious. Do you have any more? Do ya?"
@@nicolasburbano1705 They already were suing people in the UK where it had been in public domain for years. This won't stop them at all.
He said himself that he doesn't know copyright laws in other countries, but Metropolis is still copyrighted in its native Germany & most of the EU. While the U.S. copyright term is 95 years from publication for virtually anything released prior to 1978, in Germany copyright is for the life of any of its "authors" (creators) plus 70 years (similar to the post-1978 U.S. rule for works not "for hire"); thus it will be protected there till 2046, 70 years after the 1976 death of its director Fritz Lang.
Metropolis' U.S. copyright had already been restored from public domain once. It originally entered PD in the 1950's as its original U.S. copyright was not renewed. However, since no such formalities were required in Germany, the U.S. was compelled by the terms of its accession to the Berne Convention to restore its copyright in 1995 under the 1994 Uruguay Round Agreements Act -- but only until its U.S. copyright would have expired if it had been renewed. Thus, its U.S. copyright is now expired after 95 years & probably won't be restored again.
Steve, thank you for having the courage to sing these songs to us. I think that's pretty cool.
My Blue Heaven always makes me think of MASH. it mustve been the only song they licensed for the show, because the characters listened to it CONSTANTLY in the first season.
I get the distinct impression you made this video specifically so you could sing things and not get flagged. Fair play sir. 🖖🏻 6:00
I love the way you sing!
You didn't mention "Men Without Women", "Now We Are Six", "To the Lighthouse" or the first three Hardy Boys books. Anyone can now write and publish their own stories about the Hardy Boys, as long as they're based solely on the characters as depicted in those first three books.
Also, if someone finds a copy of "London After Midnight" and sets themselves up as the sole distributor of copies, wouldn't other people be able to copy those copies and sell them too, and so on ad infinitum, since the film is in the public domain?
True, but at the very least, in that event, through some miracle, that someone has had a surviving copy of London After Midnight with them all along that MGM and the rest of the world doesn't know about whether it be in the hands of a private collector or someone else who doesn't know it's considered lost, then if they did come forward with it, despite it being in the public domain and everyone being able to legally copy, distribute, share and sell it, the original person or group who had it first would still be credited and be made famous for rediscovering, finding and unintentionally saving and preserving one of the biggest holy grails and most sought-after lost films in the world!
If the person did a digital "remaster of the work" and then kept the original hidden, then that remaster would have a copyright of 2023. People could do remakes still; but copying the remaster itself would not be permitted. But, that same person didn't really need to wait till 2023 to do that; so I suspect that will not happen.
The first three Hardy Boys books you say? Sweet! That means I can include the Sleuth!
You know, even if the MGM vault fire was 'accidental', I wouldn't be surprised if MGM would have disposed of any now public domain works, since they can't derive rent from them anymore...
MGM has been sold so many times that I doubt whoever the current owner is even knows the full list of what they own. It's doubtful that they'd care about what (almost) 100 year old movies that nobody would watch on TV anyway would go into the public domain.
I'd put it as unlikely; they likely wouldn't help bring the films to light, but how many century old movies are you (or most people) chomping at the bit to see?
@@Sephiroth144 yeah I think this won’t really heat up until we get into the 40s and 50s.
That wouldn't be surprising. Think about how many old tv shows are "lost", most famously Doctor Who, but TONS of other early shows.
@@thomasstevenhebert I'm thinking we going to see heat when 1937-1939 approaches the public domain. The first Disney films, Superman, the theatrical Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind (book & movie), etc. are going to get someone jumping up to demand a longer copyright.
Entertaining - I always make a point in the new year to watch and listen to something from 100 years ago. Just to remind myself how far we have come and how much has changed. But also how little has changed in some respects.
that's a neat idea for a tradition!
As a Doyle fan, as a There Will Be Blood fan, as a Meropolis fan and as a Steve fan, this pleases me.
Next year will be where things really get exciting when Mickey Mouse finally enters the public domain through his debut and original appearance in Steamboat Willie! Sure, Disney is very protective of Mickey Mouse and they'll still have their trademarks, but it'll still be a huge deal nonetheless and I don't think Disney will be able to stop everyone from using him when that happens.
As a GIGANTIC nerd of 1920s music public domain day is one of my favourite days of the year because I get to be reminded of a BUNCH of my favourite tunes
For me, "My Blue Heaven" is a song that was often played over the PA at the 4077th.
Came here to say that. Some of the time it was sung in Japanese.
Steve Shives Sings the Public Domain Hits!
Could be its own channel.
I like his singing voice!
out of tune.
I love the singing. Sounds like it's time for a Steve and Jason musical episode.
The 95 year wait for public domain is much too long. Everyone involved in creating those works has been dead for decades, and long ago received any compensation they’ll get.
Blame Disney. It's all about keeping a grip on the Mouse.
If you think that's bad, large parts of the world uses "Life plus 70 years". Even America has switched to life plus 70 years, but they did that sometime in the 70's so it hasn't been long enough yet for it to be relevant. First things coming out of copyright from that should be around 2046.
Not so bad you might think? Wrong. You can publish something at 20 and die at age 100. Only then does the counter start. That work would be under copyright for 150 years, 70 of which would be after your death.
I hate that too and wish copyright terms could back to 56 years like before as due to their greed, Disney literally robbed us and generations of Americans of decades of classic and famous works that rightfully belong in the public domain for us all to use, enjoy and share. Plus, such long copyright terms are detrimental to preserving all these old works that are either lost or at risk of being lost to time because archivists and others can't legally do so.
Yaarr, tis indeed a shame matey. Back to the high seas with ye land lubbers.
Disagree. Copyrighted materials have value, just like a house. The value can go up or down. If someone said- “I am sorry your family had this homestead- since 1927, 60 acres of land, with a house etc, and after passing it down to your children and grandchildren- then after 70+ years ANYONE could use it, live in it, enjoy it, “you might think differently. It took work to create the brands we know today and more work to keep them relevant and of value.
Metropolis inspired not only Superman's town,. but Star Wars C3PO. The robot is basically C3PO.
10/10 did not expect a Taking Back Sunday name check in a video that is on the periphery of Star Trek.
Always love your unique content and research! Thanks Steve
So hooray, hooray,
It's public domain day
As January rolls around each year.
Celebrate with me
All the books that are now free
While the lawyers sit and cry into their beer.
And next year, Disney will no longer have their way,
because in 2024's public domain day, Mickey Mouse will join the public domain fray!
Sort of. Yes the shorts that was in production and or released in 1928 would enter public domain, but because he is also trademarked Mickey himself won't be in public domain If Disney decides to drop the trademark then that's different. So while you can post Steamboat Willie on TH-cam next year for example without worrying about an copyright strike by Disney they would still have the rights to Mickey himself due to the trademark.
@@nicolasburbano1705 Give them time
End of the world
seriously guys. everyone deserves to see Sunrise. I can't describe what it is about this movie, but I find something powerful in it, that even Metropolis doesn't give me.
Indeed, these are great reasons to celebrate. Thank you for bringing these to our attention, Mr. Shives.
I love your pop culture and toy videos. But this is actually helpful as well as entertaining. There are plenty of public domain songs people can now use for podcasts and videos.
Thanks, Steve.
Keep in mind, though, that although the songs themselves are public domain, certain recordings thereof may still be protected. You could, of course, record your own version.
I think Putting On The Ritz might be my favorite of the songs that just entered the public domain because the lyrics and music are just so catchy and if I didn't know better, I actually might think it was created today.
Just be aware that you may still end up with automatic "Content ID" claims from TH-cam. It's a nuisance having to dispute them.
Now this guy is the kind of unhinged I can get behind, definitely enjoyed the video
The musical Show Boat the first dramatic musical is public domain so you can perform it without a license.
I listen to a lot of the public domain. Hence why I'm assuming TH-cam felt the need to drop this lil gem of knowledge on my feed. Tysm for this was so much fun. Loved this. Subs
Edit I'm proud to say ik most of these works. So excited
Wow, was not expecting this, and laughed so hard. Love the humor, you somehow made public domain conversation more interesting and fun. Well done, earned the Sub.
He was so focused on whether he *could* sing those songs, he didn't stop to think if he *should*. :-)
Unfortunately, I think Canada is adding 20 years to copyright. Also, I believe Agatha Christie’s short story ‘The Tuesday Night Club’ (first appearance of Miss Marple) is in the public domain as well.
Yes they are. It was done as part of a Trade agreement despite vocal opposition from local groups. New Zealand is doing the same for the same reason. It often comes in from trade deals due to parties in the country with the longer term fighting to have that added as part of the trade deal forcing the other country to extend there's. Canada simply can't afford upsetting America and disrupting trade between the countries.
Yeah. I feel bad for Canada now going to have to wait 20 years to see more works lose their copyrights. We can understand how they feel about it since we only just got our public domain here in America working again years ago back in 2019 when works from 1923 finally entered the public domain, thanks largely to the greedy Disney company.
Yes as of December 30th, 2022 Canada went from having copyright life+50 years (the minimum term under the Berne treaty, most rich countries do more than the minimum) to life +70 years in order to conform with the USMCA renegotiation of NAFTA.
Keep in mind the US copyright is complicated by the fact that when they changed their copyright system in 1978 (so that instead of being like up to 56 years from publication it was life + 50 years when they decided to meet the minimum standard of the Berne treaty, they did not actually sign the treaty until 1989) they gave everything published between 1923- and 1977 a 75 year term (extended to 95 years in 1998 which was when the term was changed to life + 70 years also). This meant nothing in the US entered the public domain due to rights expiring between 1978 and 2018. It means that stuff written by Conan Doyle in the 1923-1927 window actually got longer protection then it would under a life + 70 years rule (as Steve pointed out under that kind of rule Doyle's work has been public domain in the UK since at least 2000 and longer in Canada etc.), whereas stuff by Agatha Christie before 1951 or so gets a shorter term of protection (Christie died in 1976 so were the life + 70 years to apply nothing by her would be public domain until 2046, even under the life + 50 years none of Christie's work will enter the public domain until 2026).
While Disney no doubt greased the wheels on it, I think many European countries had life + 70 years long decades earlier (Germany changed to it in the mid 60s). So it was not just Disney but a worldwide (or at least Western European) move by interests in that whole sector most likely. Saying it was just Disney is almost certainly an oversimplification at best.
@@allanolley4874 As I pointed out in another comment, Germany's adoption of the life + 70 years rule is why Metropolis is still copyrighted there even though it's now (once again) PD here. For films they count 70 years from its last surviving "author" -- generally director, screenwriter & score composer. For Metropolis it's director Fritz Lang (died 1976, like Agatha Christie), so it's copyrighted there till 2046.
Even for films released after 1978, the split between the U.S. (and the UK) & the EU will likely persist. In the U.S., post-1978 works made "for hire" -- including virtually all films -- still get a fixed 95-year copyright term. I understand this rule applies to virtually all films in the UK, though to be safe some version of this line appears below the copyright notice on many films (especially from Disney): "For purposes of copyright law in the United Kingdom, was the author of this work immediately after it was made." Better for movie studios to rely on a fixed 95-year copyright term in two of the world's biggest movie markets than take the crapshoot that one of the film's "authors" lives at least 20 years after it was made.
Request: Steve makes a series of one-man film adaptations of all his favorite Public Domain movies... turning them into _musicals._
Don't hold your breath for LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT to emerge. MGM was very meticulous about retrieving their distributed prints, and LAM was noted by MGM bookkeepers in the early 1950s as being represented by a single archived print. That print is known to have been destroyed in a massive vault fire, so the only chance of LAM surviving rests with a remote possibility that it was bootlegged during distribution.
The film was poorly received in '27, and would probably disappoint people if it did turn up today.
Yeah, as soon as he started talking about people being assholes about works entering public domain, I immediately assumed it was about Disney, and I didn't even know for sure when Disney stuff was copyrighted, I just know that Disney is practically a moustache twirling villain about it.
As I sit here thinking of asking my grandfather which of these songs he would remember, I realize that, by the time I'm his age, Margaritaville will have entered the public domain...
Love you, host with the most.
You're handsome and sardonic and keep the ball rolling. Thanks a million!
Oh, sure. Thanks, Steve. Now I've got Gene Wilder and Peter Boyle puttin' on the ritz in my head. 'Ooper Dooper!
"SEDAGIVE?!"
The Mickey Mouse Protection Act, made it 95 years, which delayed a lot of the copywrites from joining PD. In ten years, it will include Batman and Superman (released in 1937). So other than Doyle Estate running on fumes, with sending copywrite cease and desist letters to everyone, and most paying rather than going through suit (Except I think one who win in 7th Circuit), Steve's correct, this year is small in comparison to Disney trying harder in Congress next year.
Superman debuted in 1938 and Batman in 1939.
95 years is too long. My whole channel is derivative works of material that wiggled its way into the public domain faster than that for various reasons, and it's a great creative outlet. No one watches but I enjoy making them and feel very fortunate that I have the material. I often wonder how much great stuff people would come up with if more was available. I really feel like it represses creativity and while I'm all for people retaining rights to their work, and keeping the money it generates, you could easily shorten it by 20-25 years and still provide ample protection for the original creators.
IDK I always felt like 125 years maximum and bar it from ever going higher would be fair. People live at max around 120 it'd be enough for a good amount of people and it could be released earlier is wanted or so. Would have to look more into it.
Also nice channel, looks cool! :o
They should've kept it 56 years. Freaking Disney!
1:07 That was the whole scheme. Apart from Disney keeping the mouse. Make the copyright length so long that any creative works that enter will no long be culturally viable in any meaningful way. The length used to be 14 years.
The recovered Metropolis from about a decade ago is amazing.
4:49 "You're watching a TH-cam video, so I assume you don't read anyway."
I just went through the seven stages of grief in response to this statement.
Fun, informative video. Thanks. And your sing is a nice touch.
Happy New Year Steve! Growing up watching your videos, and listening to you, and Jason (Late Seating) has helped me become a better person.
This is my first video I've seen of you. You sure have some high energy, at times.
Nice, hopefull this means we'll see more of the 'nice' side of Holmes, since it was only later that the character started to soften and become more fleshed out as a person that way, and the Doyle Estate insisted that this means that anything but a sociopathic Holmes was drawing on the (at the time) still copywrited works.
A Sherlock Holmes crossover with The Hardy Boys or Sherlock Holmes taking on Dracula would be cool to see.
Props to you for singing the songs well enough to be recognizable.
An animated version of "Wings" could be worth a watch. No CGI.
BTW, please, keep singing. Please?!?
Great start of the year. Important topic that needs more conversations between the many different invested groups.
While people are at it, a modern remake of The Jazz Singer could be in the cards and it would be great if they did it right and they got rid of the blackface stuff that made it controversial.
@@nicolasburbano1705 *Neil Diamond silently weeps.
Thanks for the heads and all the awesome historical tidbits! Love it!
Its absolutely delightful to hear you sing. Nice vibrato. Happy new year!
The Doyle estate even went after Trek for making that Holmes-inspired holodeck episode
I absolutely love this video and videos like this. I had absolutely zero idea that Public Domain Day was a thing!
That said, when I hear "baseball film", all I can think of is the classic "Who's on First" bit. XD
To be honest, I didn't know anything about the public domain and had only heard of the words public domain until when I was forced to quarantine and stay home because of the pandemic in 2020, I had lots of spare time on my hands, so with nothing better to do, I finally looked it up, it got me very interested right away and I've been paying attention to the public domain a lot ever since!
David Suchet's portrayal of Hercule Poirot is simply wonderful
I'm thankful to be here to enjoy the Shives family pipes before the inevitable errant copyright strikes.
This is way funnier than any video about the public domain has any right to be.
I've never watched this channel before, but now I definitely have to check out what else this guy does
Poirot is a wonderful character and David Suchet is, like Jeremy Brett as Holmes, absolutely the perfect embodiment of the Belgian detective with the razor sharp "little grey cells". That production did every single Poirot story, including "Curtains", which is his final novel. Poirot was so popular that when "Curtains" was first published, he received an obituary in the New York Times. Their adaptation of "Murder on the Orient Express" (first published as "Murder in the Calais Coach") was one of the best I have ever seen, there is a coda added to it that only Suchet could set up and deliver. -- all of which I am familiar with because many of us DO still read, voracious and copiously, but thank you for your informative announcement for this year's entries into the arena of Public Domain.
Another thing I never realized was that any book in the public domain can get a movie adaptation and any movie in the public domain can get remade.
1 oil by Upton Sinclair 1:16 2 the big four Agatha Christie 1:57 , 3 the case-book of sherlock hoames acd all 56 shorts and books 2:33 ,4 music /songs my blue heven 1928 4:58, 5 puttting on the rits 6:09, 6 i screem you scream we all scram for ice cream by howard jonson and exc 7:09 7 the best thing's in life are free by Gorge Gard and exc 7:27 , 8 movies that have servived sence 1927, raped fire of movie titles 8:29 wings, the lodgers a store of the london fog, october,Metroplis, sunrise fw Murnau, the king of kings , college buster keaton, al jolson the jazz singer , 9 lost films 11:24 casey at the bat starting wallace beery, babe ruth " babe comes home" 1927, london after midnight tod browning , 10 14:18 outro 2024 aka 1928 look foward
The original Copyright law for The United States was 14 years, no renewal. President Jefferson opposed it because he thought the length was too long.
Can you just imagine what would already be in the public domain if our copyright laws had stayed that way!? If it had, we would be free to do Toy Story, Star Wars, Marvel Batman and Superman, Pokemon, Legend Of Zelda, Scooby Doo, Looney Tunes, Spongebob, Rugrats, Invader Zim, Courage The Cowardly Dog, Ed, Edd N' Eddy and Shrek projects among many more other things right now!
95 years is too long but 14 too short
"You're watching TH-cam, so I assume you don't read anyway" is a great line. :-)
I know "The Best Things in Life Are Free" because Robert Morse (RIP 😔) and Jon Hamm cemented it in my head as part of one of the most poignant farewells in modern prestige television.
YES! Don tripping about Bert 💕
If scripts for the lost movies exist, we're at least free to remake them, now.
Hopefully a modern London After Midnight remake can be as good as what little of the original there is left we can see.
@@nicolasburbano1705 I nominate Doug Jones; he's the closest the modern age has to Lon Chaney.
*London After Midnight* was remade as a talkie, *Mark of the Vampire* (1935), featuring Bela Lugosi.
I love that you’re all over the map with your opinions.
Nothing to do with the main subject of the video, but just wanted to mention that the song “How Much is that Doggy in the Window”, which many consider a children’s song, was actually a mainstream song with additional verses. My grandmother was a big Patti Page fan, so I know many of her songs from childhood. The title of the movie “Throw Mama from the Train” is derived from a Patti Page song (second part of that lyric is “a kiss, a kiss”).
This video is a reason I'm alive in this timeliness. Thanks Steve!
The trick with silent film is that the movie may be in the domain, but the music on restorations is not.
That rendition of "My Blue Heaven"... be still my beating heart
Looking forward to this video next year in a dystopian schadenfreude way for when the big mouse finds another way to throw money at the courts and make copyright even longer.
If you watch what they're doing, releasing an "Oswald the Lucky Rabbit" short in original 1920's style just last month (Oswald was first released in 1927) and using the "Steamboat Willie" clip as an intro for some of their stuff, it's easy to see what they're doing. They've accepted they're NOT getting an extension on Copyright and so are pivoting to rely on Trademark. Trademark law requires a design to be in active use, hence them using the old designs again after 90 years.
I don't see that happening in the near future with how divided congress is. Don't forget republicans aren't happy with Disney for opposing Don't Say Gay in Florida and their live-action Mulan film they made with working with the Chinese government.
Also, much more people know about the public domain and copyright laws thans to the internet and there would be much more people than back in the 90s, who would be against such legislation.
Not to mention, Disney and others have been much quieter about lobbying for copyright extensions now, so it seems like even they understand that this is the end of the line for further extensions and they and many others are going to instead rely more on their trademarks to try to protect their characters and IPs.
@@TheJayjayforce If literally everyone bands together to use the old design for literally everything we could theoretically force a genercide which will make disney lose their valuable Trademarks
You rule a crowded nation,
Inside your mind
And we love you for it
Insulted by the accusation that I don't read! Then mollified by Steve's soothing, melodious singing voice! Total books read? 0.
If you're a fan of the TV show, M*A*S*H you may recall that Margaret did a cover of "My Blue Heaven" during a talent show in an early episode.
As per usual, I quite enjoyed this video! I enjoy getting information with humor in the mix. I have to agree with your friend, adding songs never hurts either. Yet another brilliant video, thank you!
OMG the singing 😂 coming soon on the album "accidental torture of '23"
I like branding as much as the next franchise fan (see: Batman, Star Wars, etc etc), but I certainly dislike how corporations abuse copyright
Same here. The way copyright is now is clearly not how the founders of The U.S. Constitution intended for it to last as copyright only is supposed to last so long, so authors, artists and creators can be encouraged and incentivized to make their works to make a living. But copyrights also must eventually expire, so the public can benefit from these newly public domain works, which in turn, will lead to them making their own works using these works, which is good for creativity and inspiration.
First video of yours I've seen - love it! Especially since I used to work in music publishing and know quite as bit about copyright law as well. But there's one big one you missed - Show Boat! Both the novel by Edna Ferber and the Kern/Hammerstein musical adaptation, featuring the songs "Old Man River" and "Make Believe". Personal note, the novel is very different from the play, and I think deserves another look. :)
And wait!! Since you seem to be a Star Trek fan also, like me, maybe you've realized that it's all coming together, and why they were able to reintroduce Moriarty in Picard season 3, beginning in February, after the copyright issues during The Next Generation's appearances of the character! Brilliant!
@@mocknburd23 Steve has an entire series of Star Trek-related videos called "Trek, Actually." Buckle up, son...you're in for a wild ride!
Steve, you're a smart guy. You are quite eloquent in getting your point across. I appreciate your brevity and your detailed explanations when necessary. One of the things I enjoy the most about your videos, though, is your fantastic cursing. You swear so good. Fuck.
Something you forgot to talk about is how the original Oswald the Luck Rabbit shorts, the ones that introduced the first actually successful Disney character that would later inspire Mickey Mouse, is also now part of the public domain. Tbf he may have already been public as there isn’t any recording of his copyright being renewed, but like you said, if it wasn’t before, it sure is now.
Alas Metropolis isnt public domain in Europe til the 2040s for some reason.
Europe uses "Death of the author plus 70 years". The author in this case would be Fritz Lang. America actually switched over to life plus 70 years as well, but they did that in the 70's so it won't be until around 2046 that the earliest of those copyright's will expire.
@@TheJayjayforce Note what happened in the US is that they implemented life + 50 years in 1978 and when they did this extended the fixed term of copyrights before things before 1978 to 75 years (from 56 years) in 1989 the US finally officially joined the Berne convention that requires a minimum protection of life + 50 years. Then in 1998 just before the first of those 75 year terms from 1923 would have come due another copyright bill was passed that changed it to the standard of life + 70 years for stuff after 1978 (70 years + life had become the standard in Europe by this point which was probably the main push for that) and extended the term of stuff from 1923-1977 to 95 years. Thus nothing entered the public domain in the US due to copyright expiry between 1978 and 2018. Since 2018 things copyrighted in the weird period have been trickling into the public domain.
Also some stuff is in the public domain from that period because copyright was a 28 year term with the option of an extension for another 28 years and sometimes no one filed the extension.
There is no Berne country where Metropolis is public domain (assuming Fritz Lang is considered the relevant author for the term), there are still a few places that do the minimum of life + 50 years, but even in those copyright would not expire on Lang's work until around 2026. Some places have longer than life + 70 years, for example Mexico's term is life + 100 years for some reason. So the US may well be the first country that has anything like a normal copyright regime where Metropolis enters the public domain.
Also things like sound recordings and photographs have a different copyright term than works like books, movies etc. (at least in some jurisdictions). Also all signatories to the Berne convention and like recognizing each others copyrights but only to the extent and terms of local law, so the same things are public domain in one place and copyrighted in another.
Mad Men revitalised the public knowledge of ‘The best things in life are free’
Thanks for dropping the taking back Sunday reference that's all I needed to subscribe
How long is copyright? The life of Steamboat Willy plus a few years. Which means they'll be changing the law this year.
Disney, by the way, does NOT need copyright law to protect Mickey at all. He is trademarked. They can lose Steamboat Willy and people can watch that, make direct adaptations of it, and derivative work from it, but they can't use the Mickey logo or anything based on later versions of Mickey. It wouldn't impact them at all.
But they'll still try to change the law again.
It won't work this time. Congress is really divided and republicans are mad at Disney for working with China to make their live-action Mulan film and opposing Don't Say Gay in Florida.
Thank you for the information.. I enjoyed how you presented it
Dude, your singing voice is _good._
Thanks for the Taking Back Sunday reference. I was thinking it, you said it.
This year is a real treasure trove of public domain goodies! I'm looking forward to next year when The Passion of Joan of Arc enters the public domain if it hasn't already!