Thursday, March 07, 2019
It's Been Years Since Works Entered The Public Domain, But The Wait Is Over
90.5 WESA: Thousands of films, novels and songs entered the public domain at the start of the new year. It’s the first time in decades that titles like Charlie Chaplin’s silent movie “The Pilgrim” and Virginia Woolf’s “Jacob’s Room,” were made available for anyone to reproduce or use for their own creative purposes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I have never really understood how copyright works, and this article and radio clip were really useful to understanding it a little bit more. I am sort of surprised at how much importance this article seems to put on copyright laws, because in this technological time, it is pretty easy to get your hands on a copy of just about anything for little or no cost, but on the other hand, this just gives more people access to the material, not the permission to legally produce or alter that work. I did not realize that works not in the public domain could not be openly annotated and have those annotations published. I always find it ridiculous when there are regulations in place that prevent larger access to learning. However, I am not surprised that Disney has been working hard to extend copyright laws to keep their work out of the public domain. They seem to always put a wrench into everyone’s business if it means they continue to profit ff their own business.
I have never given copyrights much thought, but this is actually an interesting subject. I never knew that there was a posthumous expiration date on them. I think 75 years is longer than I had imagined it would be, but it kind of makes sense to me that this would grow over time. As technology progresses, it allows for people’s works to survive much longer after their death. Works made today have no conceivable date that they will no longer be available, whereas when things were on hard copies only, it was much easier for them to be lost to history. I am excited about Charlie Chaplin’s works coming into the public domain. He is an artist who I have often admired and it is nice to know that his work is becoming more readily available to people all around the world. I do not think it is a good idea to keep art and literature like this from people for too long.
I was expecting copyright to get extended on everything again since Disney’s early work will go public domain in 2024, but we still have some time for Disney to get that extended, so we will see what happens. I think copyright is important to protect people’s work, but there is also a need for people to build on other people’s work. That being said, I understand why Disney feels the need to protect their movies and characters since those are more than content they have produced, those define their brand. That being said, I don’t think they should run from public domain forever, especially given that many of their movies are based on stories that Disney could only use because they were public domain. It doesn’t seem fair for them to benefit from being able to build on the work of others but then perpetually prevent people from building on the work they produce.
Truthfully, copyright law in this country is an absolute joke that needs wide scale reform. These laws were practically made only in order to protect Disney’s rights to their mascot character, Mickey Mouse. Now, he is supposed to enter the public domain in another seven years, and I imagine that even then we will see another extension on copyright law, as we have seen in the past. This is very unfortunate, as the history of art is that of a history of not only appropriation, but evolution. When new works enter the public domain, it is a new source of inspiration and evolution for current and future artists. This was the first year in twenty years that our government allowed new works of art to enter the public domain. Odds are that any work from our lifetime will not enter the public domain, during our lifetime, which is an absolute shame.
Copyright law seems so logical in theory. In practice it seems like just the opposite. And we all know whose fault that is. Who can blame them? What’s Disney without Mickey Mouse, besides ya know, Marvel, Freeform, ABC, Star Wars, princesses, a few theme parks and like, you know, everything else owned by Disney. Disney will still make plenty of money. I have no sympathy for a company more interested on keeping everything to themselves, especially when it limit access to literature and the arts. For less wealthy educational facilities being able to access work on the internet for free takes a burden off not only the educator but the student. Students are always overjoyed to not have to spend money on a book for school. I can understand Disney’s point, that they have created a brand, but brands change and evolve as the company does. Even in Disney’s past, look at song of the south, I’m sure disney wouldn’t mind if the public domain had that.
Copyright law is a really complicated issue that I think this article addresses in a really good way. When it comes to creative works, copyright is meant to protect creators from having their original work being stolen for profit. In the olden days that might have meant books or art being copied and reprinted, and now it also applies to things like movies being posted on youtube. In this way, the Disney copyright extension helped protect creators from their work being used unlawfully. But I do think this article also addresses a really good point about how the Mickey Mouse protective extension affects other work. Copyright is inherently meant to expire at some point, because especially in the creative field art is very evolutional and expired copyrights help make works more accessible after their original creators no longer stand to lose anything. But I understand that it’s a complex issue- large franchises, Disney especially, have created enormous lasting legacies founded on their characters and reputation, and I understand their reluctance to allow their work into the public domain.
Post a Comment