Copyright extension?

[lpetrich]

Something that we may not be seeing is yet another copyright extension.

What's that? Copyrights are a form of intellectual property, like patents and trademarks, and intellectual property is a grant of proprietary rights by a government. In particular, patents are grants of proprietary rights to encourage publication of inventions, so that they do not remain trade secrets. Copyrights are proprietary rights over publications in general, and trademarks are identifying labels for businesses.

The US Constitution, Article I Section 8, states that the US Congress has the power to issue such grants: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

Patents expire after 20 years in the US and the European Union, but copyrights are another story.

 History of copyright law of the United States - since the US seems to be the main driving force behind copyright extension

The first copyright law ever was the  Statute of Anne of 1710, passed by the Parliament of Great Britain. It granted copyrights for 14 years, and if the author is still alive and wants it renewed, another 14 years.

 Copyright Act of 1790 - identical to the Statute of Anne: 14 years, with an option for another 14 years.

 Copyright Act of 1831 - 28 years, with an option for another 14 years.

 Copyright Act of 1909 - 28 years, with an option for another 28 years.

 Copyright Act of 1976 - 75 years after publication or 100 years after creation, whichever is shorter, or else the author's life and then 50 years.

 Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 - 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation, whichever is shorter, or else the author's life and then 70 years.

Also known as the Sonny Bono Act or the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, after the well-known intellectual property of a big lobbyist for this act, the Walt Disney Company.

But there is no evidence of a recent big lobbying push to extend copyright yet again.

How far back does copyright go at each change of the law on copyrights?

• 1790: 1776 rnwd 1762
• 1831: was 1817 rnwd 1803, is 1803 rnwd 1789
• 1909: was 1881 rnwd 1867, is 1881 rnwd 1853
• 1976: was 1948 rnwd 1920, is 1901
• 1998: was 1923, is 1903

rnwd = if the copyright was renewed

The Disney company lobbied hard for copyright extension in 1976 and 1998, because as the years went by, its first appearance of Mickey Mouse, "Steamboat Willie" in 1928, came closer and closer to entering the public domain. But the company has become remarkably quiet on this issue.

So "Steamboat Willie" should enter the public domain by the end of this year.

 

[SLD]

The last time it was extended, it was challenged to the court as unconstitutional. While the court ruled against the challengers, they did indicate that their argument was a valid one. Copyrights cannot be indefinitely extended. That’s probably why Disney is not going to push for further extension. They’d lose.

 

[lpetrich]

What makes recent years different from 1998 and 1976?

In 1976, Disney got MM protected 8 years before he went out of copyright, and in 1998, 5 years. So Disney would have to have lobbied well in advance of this year to get MM protected even further.

Why Mickey Mouse’s 1998 copyright extension probably won’t happen again | Ars Technica - 1/8/2018, 5:00 AM

Will Congress do the same thing again this year? To find out, we talked to groups on both sides of the nation's copyright debate—to digital rights advocates at the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Knowledge and to industry groups like the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America. To our surprise, there seemed to be universal agreement that another copyright extension was unlikely to be on the agenda this year.

"We are not aware of any such efforts, and it's not something we are pursuing," an RIAA spokesman told us when we asked about legislation to retroactively extend copyright terms.

"While copyright term has been a longstanding topic of conversation in policy circles, we are not aware of any legislative proposals to address the issue," the MPAA told us.

15 years ago, Congress kept Mickey Mouse out of the public domain. Will they do it again? - The Washington Post - October 25, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. EDT
Describing the battle over the 1998 copyright extension.

"There was not a single argument that actually can stand up to any kind of reasonable analysis," Karjala told me. But that didn't matter very much because the lobbying muscle was entirely on one side. Major movie studios joined forces with the estates of famous authors and musicians to push for a copyright extension.

Most of the public considered copyright to be a boring subject with little relevance to their daily lives, so there was little grassroots interest in the issue. Karjala hoped that professional associations of librarians and historians—which had traditionally been important advocates for the public interest on copyright issues—would help stop the bill. But the legislation had so much momentum that these groups decided to settle for minor changes to the legislation. So the bill wound up passing without a significant fight.

The rise of the Internet has totally changed the political landscape on copyright issues. The Electronic Frontier Foundation is much larger than it was in 1998. Other groups, including Public Knowledge, didn't even exist 20 years ago. Internet companies—especially Google—have become powerful opponents of expanding copyright protections.

Law professor Dennis Karjala was a rather lonely opponent of copyright extension back then.

A more recent activist, Daniel Nazer of the Electronic Freedom Foundation, said "I suspect that Big Content knows it would lose the battle and is smart enough not to fight." -- I like that label, "Big Content"

"I haven't seen any evidence that Big Content companies plan to push for another term extension. This is an election year, so if they wanted to get a big ticket like that through Congress, you would expect to see them laying the groundwork with lobbying and op-eds."

Meredith Rose, a lawyer at Public Knowledge:

Not only are there many more copyright reform advocates in Washington now than there were 20 years ago, but they're also well-networked with other public interest groups, she told Ars in a phone interview. As a result, there are "a lot of different eyes on different bills."

"The likelihood of it slipping by unnoticed" is low, Rose said.

And even some content creators aren't keen on ever-longer copyright terms. The Authors Guild, for example, "does not support extending the copyright term, especially since many of our members benefit from having access to a thriving and substantial public domain of older works," a Guild spokeswoman told Ars in an email. "If anything, we would likely support a rollback to a term of life-plus-50 if it were politically feasible."

 

[lpetrich]

Copyright Term Extensions and the Public Domain by the Electronic Frontier Foundation

Examples: How Excessive Copyright Terms Affect the Public

• Locked down culture:
  • Millions of audio recordings, music compositions, works of art, etc., remain inaccessible or lost due to copyright terms that extend beyond the lifespan of creators.
  • Countless copyrighted books that are out of print are hard to find, but if found, it would be illegal for unauthorized publishers to reprint them to make them available to the public once again.
• Orphan works: One of the most troubling effects of the exceptionally long copyright term has been the increasing number of “orphan works,” also known as “hostage works.” These are works that are presumably still protected by copyright but the copyright owner cannot be found. The copyright owner may have died, and it may be unclear who inherited the copyright. In some cases the copyright owner may not even realize he or she has rights.
  • Down stream users—such as libraries that wish to make their collections available online, or documentary filmmakers who wish to use photographs and letters found in an attic—will hesitate to do so for fear the copyright owner will emerge and sue them for damages. As a result, millions of books, films, songs, and even scientific and medical research papers are rendered effectively inaccessible and unusable.

FOREVER MINUS A DAY? SOME THEORY AND EMPIRICS OF OPTIMAL COPYRIGHT

RUFUS POLLOCK
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY
V1.1.2 AUGUST 7, 2007

The second part of the paper focuses on the specific case of copyright term. Using a simple model we characterise optimal term as a function of a few key parameters. We estimate this function using a combination of new and existing data on recordings and books and find an optimal term of around fifteen years. This is substantially shorter than any current copyright term and implies that existing copyright terms are too long,

Fifteen years? That's close to the original length of protection.

Forever minus a day? Back in 1998, some people proposed extending copyrights that long as a way to get around "limited" times in the US Constitution. But that does not make much mathematical sense, because that is still an infinite time.

 

[repoman]

So on 1/1/2024 anyone can upload, make and sell a copy of Steamboat Willie. But making merchandise with images from this cartoon will land someone in legal trouble, right?

 

[lpetrich]

Will the Disney Copyright for Mickey Mouse Ever End? - art journal
A short history, noting
Walt Disney Animation Studios' Steamboat Willie - YouTube
Yes, Steamboat Willie itself -- Mickey Mouse comes across as very mischievous in this slapstick-humor production.

It was put online in 2009 by Disney itself: Walt Disney Animation Studios - YouTube - that account joined in 2008.

About the 1998 law,

Some widely criticized the act as a giveaway to corporations and a threat to the public domain, but it has had a lasting impact on copyright law in the United States. One author noted that we are “the first generation to deny our own culture to ourselves” since “no work created during your lifetime will, without conscious action by its creator, become available for you to build upon.”

After noting that Disney is not what it used to be,

The rise of the Internet has changed the political landscape on copyright issues and allowed new media companies like Netflix and Amazon to build out streaming services that rival Disney.

Major lobbying organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation or Creative Commons are much larger than in 1998. Internet companies like Google didn’t even exist 20 years ago but have become a powerful force against copyright because their business model requires providing content to the public, such as thumbnails on Google images. Copyright significantly impacts their ability to deliver content, so they have become powerful opponents of expanding copyright protections.

As a result of such protests, there was no significant action on copyright since 2012.

Additionally, conservatives today see Disney aligning heavily with liberal social causes, and with the current polarization in Congress, Republicans are likely to vote against anything Disney lobbyists propose. There would be minimal appetite by Republicans in Congress to reward Disney with a copyright extension.

After noting Steamboat Willie entering the public domain in 2024,

However, the current version of Mickey Mouse, as seen in Fantasia (1940), is still protected for another twelve years. The 1940 version of Mickey Mouse is also protected under trademark law, so it is unlikely that we will see the Mickey Mouse that we know and love today enter the public domain any time soon.

Good alternative to trying to extend copyrights yet again.

 

[lpetrich]

Disney World's special status dealt another blow by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis : NPR

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill on Monday to take control of municipal services and development for the special zone encompassing Walt Disney World. The move deals a major blow to the company's ability to operate with autonomy.

DeSantis says that the special district surrounding Disney World has enabled the park to unfairly skirt local rules and building codes.

But DeSantis' critics say the bill looks like retaliation for a growing feud between Disney and the governor, which hit a tipping point last year. DeSantis said Disney "crossed the line" by opposing an education bill that restricts classroom discussion around gender identity and sexual orientation.

‘Steamboat Willie,’ Josh Hawley, and Copyright Terms: Explained -- May 18, 2022, 1:45 AM
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-MO:

The “Copyright Clause Restoration Act” (S. 4178) would reset copyright terms to a maximum of 56 years, with retroactive effect for copyright owners that meet certain conditions, including The Walt Disney Co.

...
“Thanks to special copyright protections from Congress, woke corporations like Disney have earned billions while increasingly pandering to woke activists,” Hawley said in a press release. “It’s time to take away Disney’s special privileges and open up a new era of creativity and innovation.”

His proposal would apply retroactively to copyright owners with a market capitalization of more than $150 billion in the motion pictures and videos or arts, entertainment, and recreation industries.

The bill: S.4178 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Copyright Clause Restoration Act of 2022 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Introduced by Sen. Hawley, Josh [R-MO] (Introduced 05/10/2022), it had no cosponsors and no actions were taken on it after its introduction.

The text is short, and I could easily read it. It proposes a 1909-like copyright length: 28 years with optional extra 28 years, for:

1. New works
2. All works copyrighted by corporations with market capitalization > $150 million

Curious selectivity.

 

[excreationist]

Apparently in January 2024 Disney's copyrights will finally start to expire..... (ignoring Winnie the Pooh?)

Mickey Mouse's Impending Copyright Expiration Explained

So, is Mickey Mouse entering the public domain?

screenrant.com

BTW from:

Copyright Term Extension Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Mary Bono, speaking on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, said:

Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. ... As you know, there is also [then-MPAA president] Jack Valenti's proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress.

I've been looking towards this day for a long time.... (however you say that grammatically correctly)

Around that time I wrote an "essay" against copyright.... it was kind of based on this something like this about "intellectual property"..... (from a guy who wrote lyrics for the Grateful Dead, John Perry Barlow)

Selling Wine Without Bottles: The Economy of Mind on the Global Net

by John Perry Barlow If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into...

www.eff.org

In regard to my own soft product, rock and roll songs, there is no question that the band I write them for, the Grateful Dead, has increased its popularity enormously by giving them away. We have been letting people tape our concerts since the early seventies, but instead of reducing the demand for our product, we are now the largest concert draw in America, a fact which is at least in part attributable to the popularity generated by those tapes.

True, I don't get any royalties on the millions of copies of my songs which have been extracted from concerts, but I see no reason to complain. The fact is, no one but the Grateful Dead can perform a Grateful Dead song, so if you want the experience and not its thin projection, you have to buy a ticket from us. In other words, our intellectual property protection derives from our being the only real-time source of it.

(Also it seems upcoming Taylor Swift tour(s) will make $1b+ in revenue)

It seems that due to our culture these days they won't be able to have another retroactive copyright extension....

Currently I think copyright is ok if it is short - similar to how patents are usually short. Long copyrights just reward their descendants or whoever they sold the rights to.... and since the works were already created it doesn't make any difference to the original creator if you retroactively extend it....

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

With the absurd amount of money being spent on music rights to people like Dylan, Beatles, Springsteen, etc... I have a hard time believing copyright extensions will not happen.

 

[Gospel]

If this means we can officially get Steamboat Willie in the Five Nights at Freddy's videogame its great news.

 

[Politesse]

A vulture can hardly be expected to see the value of creativity on the part of their roadkill.

 

[excreationist]

With the absurd amount of money being spent on music rights to people like Dylan, Beatles, Springsteen, etc... I have a hard time believing copyright extensions will not happen.

Well by January 2024 it is too late for Disney..... and expiring copyrights benefits more people than it hurts which is important in a democracy though money from lobbyists can give them a greater say.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yeah that's nice and all but companies aren't spending hundreds of millions in music rights to watch them disappear soon. For a mere fraction of that, they can buy Congress's support.

 

[excreationist]

Yeah that's nice and all but companies aren't spending hundreds of millions in music rights to watch them disappear soon. For a mere fraction of that, they can buy Congress's support.

In the 1998 copyright extension act it happened nearly six years before Steamboat Willie would expire.... now there's only a couple of months....

BTW the music copyrights that would be expiring soon would be from the 1950s.

 

[repoman]

Maybe it will be in the upcoming Hawaiian aid package

Yeah, we all know about this, but other countries limiting riders is part of why we are not a first rate nation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rider_(legislation)