Sunday, October 07, 2012
What Public Domain? Why A Letter Written In 1755 Is Still Covered By US Copyright Law
Techdirt: If you ever done any research about the public domain, you've probably come across this awesome chart from my alma mater, Cornell, that tries to explain how you can figure out if something is or is not in the public domain in the US. I've relied on the chart many times (and linked to it a bunch as well). Now, Peter Hirtle, one of the people behind that chart, has an equally fantastic and frustrating article detailing how difficult it is to determine if something is actually in the public domain (and the fact that so little enters the public domain in the US any more). Hirtle kicks it off by recognizing the importance of the public domain, including the fact (often ignored, it seems) that all copyrighted works must enter the public domain at some point. He then goes into a series of seven reasons why it's so incredibly, ridiculously difficult to ever figure out if something is in the public domain.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I think it is really important for theater designers and directors to be aware of copyright laws because it is VERY easy to put something (a line, song, design, etc...) in a show and assume that it would be legal to display. HOWEVER if a production is making money, while using anything that is not in the public domain, there could be some serious legal punishment. It is easy to think that all one has to do is not copy a script word for word or create a set that looks EXACTLY the same as a previous production is the only way one could tell if there was a copyright issue, but that really is not the case.
We've been talking about copyright in a few classes recently in regards to recordings, and the US copyright laws, as this article suggests, can be incredibly confusing and contradictory. It's extremely frustrating especially in theatre, when you attempt to do your due diligence to track down the rights for a song or for a recording, and it's impossible to tell whether there is still a valid copyright or not, even if it was recorded 70 or 80 years ago. What's most frustrating is that there are copyrights to the lyrics of a song, and to the music, BUT there can also be a copyright on the recording itself AND on the distribution of it. That's why I wasn't 100% surprised to hear about the letter from John Adams, even though it is 250 years old and so logically, should be in the public domain.
I am coming to the conclusion that apparently nothing is truly black and white. Please can we have clear definitions of who owns what? The fact that people can copyright things that were written years before they were born is disgusting. The law needs to look at each copyright and much like a majority of lawsuits clogging the courts right now we need to dismiss some of the copyrights on things like "happy birthday". There needs to be a much clearer line of what is in the public domain. There needs to be a limit on how long things have a copyright for that is not negotiable 50 years seems like it is excessive even. We have generic drugs and covers of songs. If someone can do something that you feel you own better than you can and the masses agree it should not matter who holds the copyright.
AAArgh, first that article about obtaining rights from last week and now this? Bureaucracy can be so frustrating sometimes. I honestly don't know much about how the legal system works beyond the basics for the three branches, but it seems like we need some sort of position to either sort out these laws or if thats giving someone to much power to get to make permanent decisions in such cases as the Happy Birthday one which seems kind of stupid. It seems from the article that their only claim to the song is that they were the first to publish after the required date for a copyright. Their other claim that the previous one was not authorized is dumb seeing as how they did not have a copyright at the time so they have no say in its authorization. Also he songs been around long enough that by singing it no-one is infringing on someones artistic rights. It seems to me that we should make this as Luke said more "black and white". It looks like the only people who would be hurt are people who have rights to things they probably shouldn't like Happy birthday.
I think copyright especially plays a role in theatre in regards to what plays/musicals can be produced without having to pay for the rights,royalties, etc. I think that a clearer system needs to be made so people aren't surprised when they are involved in a lawsuit over a copyright. There is not a black and white answer because the way things are officially published vs. available for sale. I think a more uniform system would drastically help.
I also think it is strange in regards to the music industry with many singers lyrics turning out to be written by a different artist. So if one artist sings a song but another wrote lyrics who truly owns the recording/performance?
I feel like I say this a lot on this blog and in conversations I have about copyright and IP law: The copyright, patent, and IP Law system is extremely broken. It was never meant to enter the digital age without being updated, and is currently prohibiting innovation. This article just continues to support that case. It points out that copyright just plain doesn't make sense! ("If you digitized books from 1912, you could infringe on a copyright from 1935. That is not a functional system.")
This article points out one example that I think it particularly relevant to theatrical artists: the sale of the first Star Trek episode. The copyright for that didn't kick in until the first sale, not the broadcasting. That can cause some potentially interesting problems or requirements for those of us working in TV, and I'm interested to find out what the current TV industry is doing about it.
I have been asking several people about copyright law over the past couple of weeks. Through those conversations I came to the conclusion that I am screwed. There really is very little that I can do to protect the public work that I would like to do. My wife is an editor for a magazine and an attorney and even she is confused by these laws. I think the answer here is...keep all your thoughts to yourself if you don't want them stolen. I mean come on how often are people paying for the use of Happy Birthday? What is next? Did Marry have a little lamb? Maybe, but don't you dare say so!
I'm not surprised by the amount of articles that turn up on this blog having to do with copyright. It's an extremely confusing system which no one seems to be able to navigate, even those who are maintaining it. In PPM we learned that even if something isn't registered with the copyright office, it is still covered under copyright the moment it is completed. I would be curious of the reaction to that argument in the context of the Happy Birthday issue of a song being copyrighted 20 years after it was created, even though it had been published.
This is a really interesting article. I know in sound, there is always the worry of copyright issues when music is put into a play. The author does make a good point, in our capitolist sociey, so much thought is put into making money, that the system has become very screwed up. There is no longer and easy way to tell if something is copyight or not and may things that should be public domain aren't. If somthing is hundereds of years old, how is it logical that someone could still own the rights to it. Also, it is completly insane that something published in 1912 could be a copyright infringment of something published in 1935! Where is the logic in that. Especially for somthing as universal as the Happy Birthday song, there is a point when it should just become public domain. Public domain is not meant to be the lame things that no one wants; eventually the good things should end up there as well.
Post a Comment