Who enters the public domain in 2018?


Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2017/12/20/who-enters-the-public-domain-i.html


Alright. Can’t wait to see the live action Disney version of Alice B. Toklas starring Johnny Depp and Natalie Portman.


Of course none of these authors are entering the public domain in the US*. I actually prefer the old US regime of fixed (well fixed with a renewal if you ask for it) over a life+ regime because all you need to do is look at the publication data to determine whether something is within the public domain. For that matter I see no reason why Owen’s Dulche et Decorum Est should receive ~50 years less copyright protection than Sasoon’s Attack simply because Sasoon was fortunate enough to survive the war and live a long life.

But I also believe that there is NO justification under the US Constitution to extend the copyright of existing works. beyond the term available when they were created.

*at least for works that were first published before 1976



Elvis Spock


And Scientology.


An excellent use of the word “servicing,” which is regularly abused by low-level management when they mean to say “service” or “serving” but have it sound more vague and therefore official. “Servicing” means something quite different, something involving mares and studs, (or by analogy, Congress and Disney,) and I find it hard to keep a straight face when it is misused.


In that context, I think it was the public who got serviced.


What no Alistair Crowley copyright extension act?


I smirk when asked to pay a cover charge in a restaurant.


Wait… we still have public domain? I guess I had assumed Disney killed that already. /s


Cover charge? You’re going to the wrong restaurants.


More like the public was duped into servicing Disney, and no towel.


I object in principle to a cover charge unless there’s live music. Or more broadly, live entertainment.


Surely Crowley gave everyone implicit permission to copy his works years ago? “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”


Miiiister Crowley…dun…dun dun dah…


Came here for this.


Good point. I wonder if it would hold up in court :sunglasses:
I don’t think you can waive your “natural” rights in Europe. That’s why CC0 and DWYFW ( http://www.wtfpl.net) licences are problematic


I think that being “serviced” was really Crowley’s whole deal.


I believe they’re called “moral rights”. The thought of Crowley asserting those seems even more problematic.


This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.