Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Sucks)   Here's a notable list of what enters into the public domain on 1/1/21   (web.law.duke.edu) divider line
    More: Cool, Public domain, Copyright, Public Domain Day, copyright term, public domain, silent films, Catalogue of Copyright Entries, copyright system  
•       •       •

3151 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 29 Dec 2020 at 9:08 PM (18 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



109 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-12-29 8:41:21 PM  
Thanks for sharing! Also fark disney!
 
2020-12-29 8:47:55 PM  
In a sane world, it'd be everything from 2006 entering the Public Domain.
 
2020-12-29 8:54:50 PM  
So we beat on, boats against the current, bourne back ceaselessly into the past.
 
2020-12-29 9:00:35 PM  
Mary Poppins "The Book" is a diffrent thing from Mary Poppins the movie.

Just like Jules Verne's 20,000 leagues under the seas..is different from the movie PERFORMANCE.
Disney doesn't OWN Alice in Wonderland...or even Mary Poppins. They own their vision and performance of those works. They don't own Pinchoonie, Peter Pan, or Snow White. Just the performance they created of those works.

I can get copyright free performances of Stravinsky's the 'FireBird Suite" from various eastern European sources. But the Performance of the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra is still under Copyright. (which is one of the best IMHO)

Artists and performers need to be PAID for their work...not working for 'publicity'...that won't pay any bills or buy any bread. A person that works their entire life to learn to play in a symphony needs to get paid, as does the conductor and the producer and sound guys.
 
2020-12-29 9:02:09 PM  

Purple_Urkle: In a sane world, it'd be everything from 2006 entering the Public Domain.


I think 20-25 years is reasonable, but I get your point.
 
2020-12-29 9:15:15 PM  
But what will Ma Rainey and Harold Lloyd do for money?
 
2020-12-29 9:18:59 PM  
Lovers in Quarantine is one of the films listed. It stars Harrison Ford! How old is that guy?
 
2020-12-29 9:24:53 PM  

MizzouGuy: Lovers in Quarantine is one of the films listed. It stars Harrison Ford! How old is that guy?


Well...
Fark user imageView Full Size


Let's just agree she wasn't born yet.
 
2020-12-29 9:25:41 PM  

optikeye: Mary Poppins "The Book" is a diffrent thing from Mary Poppins the movie.

Just like Jules Verne's 20,000 leagues under the seas..is different from the movie PERFORMANCE.
Disney doesn't OWN Alice in Wonderland...or even Mary Poppins. They own their vision and performance of those works. They don't own Pinchoonie, Peter Pan, or Snow White. Just the performance they created of those works.

I can get copyright free performances of Stravinsky's the 'FireBird Suite" from various eastern European sources. But the Performance of the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra is still under Copyright. (which is one of the best IMHO)

Artists and performers need to be PAID for their work...not working for 'publicity'...that won't pay any bills or buy any bread. A person that works their entire life to learn to play in a symphony needs to get paid, as does the conductor and the producer and sound guys.


True but should I be required to get permission from Sin-leqe-unnini to publish a translation of the Epic of Gilgamesh?

I would say that 95/120 year copyrights are harmful to musicians, since you still gotta pay to use the music of Aaron Copland or Leonard Bernstein and those guys died many years ago.
 
2020-12-29 9:28:29 PM  

Rev.K: Purple_Urkle: In a sane world, it'd be everything from 2006 entering the Public Domain.

I think 20-25 years is reasonable, but I get your point.


I think it should be creators lifetime plus 20 years to cover dependents.
 
2020-12-29 9:30:47 PM  
Finally I can download The Secret Of Chimneys from pdfdrive.com The others will have to wait.
 
2020-12-29 9:32:15 PM  
Yay! I can finally publish my literary mashup The Trial of the Great Gatsby.
 
2020-12-29 9:34:22 PM  

optikeye: Artists and performers need to be PAID for their work...not working for 'publicity'...that won't pay any bills or buy any bread. A person that works their entire life to learn to play in a symphony needs to get paid, as does the conductor and the producer and sound guys.


Artists still get paid with the original 14 years (+14 extension if still alive) copyright term.

Copyright is an agreement between society and the creators. In exchange for a limited time copyright where society enforces ownership, society receives that work at the end. The current, absurdly long copyright terms have effectively broken this agreement. The law may say one thing, but society no longer has any reason to respect copyrights.
 
2020-12-29 9:34:29 PM  
Oh winter is looking a lot better now!
 
2020-12-29 9:35:43 PM  
It's about time. Buster Keaton's had it too good for too long.
 
2020-12-29 9:36:33 PM  
Duke sucks
 
2020-12-29 9:40:09 PM  

iron_city_ap: Duke sucks


Maybe, but most of John Wayne's work is still under copyright.
 
2020-12-29 9:40:15 PM  

Telephone Sanitizer Second Class: Yay! I can finally publish my literary mashup The Trial of the Great Gatsby.


I can't wait for the Great Gatsby cinematic universe.
 
2020-12-29 9:42:10 PM  
Creator's lifetime, period. You don't get to crap all over someone's work while they're still alive.
 
2020-12-29 9:42:33 PM  

Tom_Slick: Rev.K: Purple_Urkle: In a sane world, it'd be everything from 2006 entering the Public Domain.

I think 20-25 years is reasonable, but I get your point.

I think it should be creators lifetime plus 20 years to cover dependents.


Copyright is supposed to "promote the progress of science and useful arts" by offering a limited incentive to help build the public domain.

It was never intended to be extra fat welfare checks for entertainers.

Copyrights should expire after 14 years. That's the original term length and it's plenty of time.

I'm hoping "Constitutional Originalist" Amy Barrett will agree.

The public domain used to be a vibrant rainforest of knowledge for everyone, now it's a desert.

It would juice the rate of science and help fight things like climate change and pandemics if copyrights were significantly shorter.
 
2020-12-29 9:43:02 PM  

ThatBillmanGuy: Telephone Sanitizer Second Class: Yay! I can finally publish my literary mashup The Trial of the Great Gatsby.

I can't wait for the Great Gatsby cinematic universe.


Tom Hanks stars in the Dr. TJ Eckleburg Origin Story?
 
2020-12-29 9:43:11 PM  

Purple_Urkle: In a sane world, it'd be everything from 2006 entering the Public Domain.


Well, it used to be every 28 years material would go into the public domain unless the copyright owners renewed it. (and 85% did not.)

It would be a fantastic benefit if unrenewed stuff from up to 1992 was freely available.
 
2020-12-29 9:43:31 PM  

optikeye: Mary Poppins "The Book" is a diffrent thing from Mary Poppins the movie.

Just like Jules Verne's 20,000 leagues under the seas..is different from the movie PERFORMANCE.
Disney doesn't OWN Alice in Wonderland...or even Mary Poppins. They own their vision and performance of those works. They don't own Pinchoonie, Peter Pan, or Snow White. Just the performance they created of those works.

I can get copyright free performances of Stravinsky's the 'FireBird Suite" from various eastern European sources. But the Performance of the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra is still under Copyright. (which is one of the best IMHO)

Artists and performers need to be PAID for their work...not working for 'publicity'...that won't pay any bills or buy any bread. A person that works their entire life to learn to play in a symphony needs to get paid, as does the conductor and the producer and sound guys.



Absolutely no argument that the artists need to be compensated monitarily, and certainly for the lifetime of the artists.

I think the question becomes at what point does it become reasonable for a performance to enter the public domain? Sticking with Stravinsky, because he's awesome, let's take the Disney film Fantasia.

Today, everyone who was part of the 1940 film is long dead. The vast majority of the people who are making money off the copyright of Fantasia today were not even born when it was created, and had no part of its creation. Should Fantasia continue to be copyrighted, or should it now belong in the public domain?


Quick aside: Like most things Disney, they actually changed the order of the pieces within the Rite of Spring to fit the dinosaur storyline. Additionally, because of Soviet copyright funkiness, while Walt Disney did give Stravinsky a compensation for the use of his music, Disney told him that they would use it with or without his permission. Stravinsky was not happy with that or the reordering, although he did apparently like the dinosaurs.

Another aside: the Telarc recording of the Atlanta Symphony's performance of The Firebird is an excellent technical recording of a very good performance, although I do like Stravinsky conducting the Columbia Symphony as well - it is interesting to have recordings of the composer himself.

Links, because Fark is throwing them away (copy and paste):

https://www.amazon.com/Stravinsky-Fire​bird-Borodin-Prince-Telarc/dp/B019GRTJ​N6
https://www.amazon.com/Stravinsky-Cond​ucts-Original-Jacket-Collection/dp/B00​0031X11
 
2020-12-29 9:46:36 PM  

Ginnungagap42: Today, everyone who was part of the 1940 film is long dead. The vast majority of the people who are making money off the copyright of Fantasia today were not even born when it was created, and had no part of its creation. Should Fantasia continue to be copyrighted, or should it now belong in the public domain?


To prevent every stoner moron from putting it over their shiatty jam band song, leave the copyright to Fantasia where it is.
 
2020-12-29 9:46:53 PM  

ThatBillmanGuy: Telephone Sanitizer Second Class: Yay! I can finally publish my literary mashup The Trial of the Great Gatsby.

I can't wait for the Great Gatsby cinematic universe.


Oh...he can be a kick boxer crime fighter with a underwater lare. His superpower will be drinking, rape, and running over the poor in his car...PROUD BOY STYLE. Oh yeah...and he can fly and change laws with his mind.
 
2020-12-29 9:49:22 PM  

ClicheRinpoche: Creator's lifetime, period. You don't get to crap all over someone's work while they're still alive.


That fails to promote science.

The progress clause specifies that the purpose of copyright is to promote science and that the term should be limited.

If the term isn't universally percieved as limited because it's effectively percieved as forever by an author, scientists are robbed of the joy of seeing their efforts proliferate.
 
2020-12-29 9:50:06 PM  

Unright: Purple_Urkle: In a sane world, it'd be everything from 2006 entering the Public Domain.

Well, it used to be every 28 years material would go into the public domain unless the copyright owners renewed it. (and 85% did not.)

It would be a fantastic benefit if unrenewed stuff from up to 1992 was freely available.


Higher education would be significantly cheaper.
 
2020-12-29 9:52:29 PM  

Ginnungagap42: optikeye: Mary Poppins "The Book" is a diffrent thing from Mary Poppins the movie.

Just like Jules Verne's 20,000 leagues under the seas..is different from the movie PERFORMANCE.
Disney doesn't OWN Alice in Wonderland...or even Mary Poppins. They own their vision and performance of those works. They don't own Pinchoonie, Peter Pan, or Snow White. Just the performance they created of those works.

I can get copyright free performances of Stravinsky's the 'FireBird Suite" from various eastern European sources. But the Performance of the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra is still under Copyright. (which is one of the best IMHO)

Artists and performers need to be PAID for their work...not working for 'publicity'...that won't pay any bills or buy any bread. A person that works their entire life to learn to play in a symphony needs to get paid, as does the conductor and the producer and sound guys.


Absolutely no argument that the artists need to be compensated monitarily, and certainly for the lifetime of the artists.

I think the question becomes at what point does it become reasonable for a performance to enter the public domain? Sticking with Stravinsky, because he's awesome, let's take the Disney film Fantasia.

Today, everyone who was part of the 1940 film is long dead. The vast majority of the people who are making money off the copyright of Fantasia today were not even born when it was created, and had no part of its creation. Should Fantasia continue to be copyrighted, or should it now belong in the public domain?


Quick aside: Like most things Disney, they actually changed the order of the pieces within the Rite of Spring to fit the dinosaur storyline. Additionally, because of Soviet copyright funkiness, while Walt Disney did give Stravinsky a compensation for the use of his music, Disney told him that they would use it with or without his permission. Stravinsky was not happy with that or the reordering, although he did apparently like the dinosaurs.

Another aside: the Telarc recording of the Atlanta Symphony's performance of The Firebird is an excellent technical recording of a very good performance, although I do like Stravinsky conducting the Columbia Symphony as well - it is interesting to have recordings of the composer himself.

Links, because Fark is throwing them away (copy and paste):

https://www.amazon.com/Stravinsky-Fire​bird-Borodin-Prince-Telarc/dp/B019GRTJ​N6
https://www.amazon.com/Stravinsky-Cond​ucts-Original-Jacket-Collection/dp/B00​0031X11


Fantasia has racist content and it's distasteful for Disney to continue profit from racism.
 
2020-12-29 9:52:58 PM  

Purple_Urkle: Copyright is supposed to "promote the progress of science and useful arts" by offering a limited incentive to help build the public domain.

It was never intended to be extra fat welfare checks for entertainers.


Okay. POOOOF.

The magic copyright fairy gives you your wish.
Now tell me why would a kid want to learn Violin, or get short stories published...and devote their entire life to that...going to school, learning their art...crafting their art and then FINALLY getting a major work published at age 25...and then 25 years latter. When they have atheritize in their hands...back pain from lugging a cello up the subways...etc. And just have that album, or book to get those checks from when they use a snippet of their stuff on a commercial.
THEY GET NOTHING.
Yep...I no problem with copyright being a WELFARE check for entertainers and authors and dancers etc. They're more useful than you seem to be.
 
2020-12-29 9:53:44 PM  

Purple_Urkle: ClicheRinpoche: Creator's lifetime, period. You don't get to crap all over someone's work while they're still alive.

That fails to promote science.

The progress clause specifies that the purpose of copyright is to promote science and that the term should be limited.

If the term isn't universally percieved as limited because it's effectively percieved as forever by an author, scientists are robbed of the joy of seeing their efforts proliferate.


Well clearly there should be an option to release to public domain, yes?

And also a good idea to separate scientific works from artistic works.
 
2020-12-29 9:55:20 PM  

Purple_Urkle: scientists are robbed of the joy of seeing their efforts proliferate.


Oh my...Do you get paid in JOY too? Well, Try buying some hot dogs with those JOY coupons.
 
2020-12-29 9:58:00 PM  

Rev.K: Purple_Urkle: In a sane world, it'd be everything from 2006 entering the Public Domain.

I think 20-25 years is reasonable, but I get your point.


I'd say life of author (or primary creators... I realize some details would need to be ironed out there) plus 5 years (for the estate) or 25 years, whichever comes later.

/ The 25 years would apply to works owned by a corporation.
 
2020-12-29 9:59:06 PM  
Hope I live long enough to make a catcher in the rye movie.
 
2020-12-29 9:59:49 PM  

optikeye: Purple_Urkle: Copyright is supposed to "promote the progress of science and useful arts" by offering a limited incentive to help build the public domain.

It was never intended to be extra fat welfare checks for entertainers.

Okay. POOOOF.

The magic copyright fairy gives you your wish.
Now tell me why would a kid want to learn Violin, or get short stories published...and devote their entire life to that...going to school, learning their art...crafting their art and then FINALLY getting a major work published at age 25...and then 25 years latter. When they have atheritize in their hands...back pain from lugging a cello up the subways...etc. And just have that album, or book to get those checks from when they use a snippet of their stuff on a commercial.
THEY GET NOTHING.
Yep...I no problem with copyright being a WELFARE check for entertainers and authors and dancers etc. They're more useful than you seem to be.


Fark user imageView Full Size

https://constitution.congress.gov/bro​w​se/article-1/section-8/clause-8/

Limited times.
Copyrights should be brief.
It's in everyone's common interest.
 
2020-12-29 10:00:29 PM  
Also...When a scientist publishes. Like in Scientific American, or most other trade publication.
That's basically "Public domain"...other scientists can use their work as a basis for their own work.

Now...specifics about what shape that dongle should be, the lab equipment etc. That's left as an exercise for the class.
 
2020-12-29 10:01:25 PM  

ThatBillmanGuy: Telephone Sanitizer Second Class: Yay! I can finally publish my literary mashup The Trial of the Great Gatsby.

I can't wait for the Great Gatsby cinematic universe.


I know you're joking. And it's funny. But wouldn't it be cool to have something like that with Faulkner's Yoknapatawpha works? Okay, I mean, I know most people hate Faulkner, but an anthology series on HBO that covers various stories in the county in variable lengthy seasons and movies could be great.
 
2020-12-29 10:01:39 PM  

Rev.K: Purple_Urkle: In a sane world, it'd be everything from 2006 entering the Public Domain.

I think 20-25 years is reasonable, but I get your point.


Life of the artist + some (smaller but significant) residual for the immediate estate.
 
2020-12-29 10:02:10 PM  

Purple_Urkle: Limited times.
Copyrights should be brief.


Define LIMITED TIMES.
 
2020-12-29 10:02:54 PM  

optikeye: Purple_Urkle: Copyright is supposed to "promote the progress of science and useful arts" by offering a limited incentive to help build the public domain.

It was never intended to be extra fat welfare checks for entertainers.

Okay. POOOOF.

The magic copyright fairy gives you your wish.
Now tell me why would a kid want to learn Violin, or get short stories published...and devote their entire life to that...going to school, learning their art...crafting their art and then FINALLY getting a major work published at age 25...and then 25 years latter. When they have atheritize in their hands...back pain from lugging a cello up the subways...etc. And just have that album, or book to get those checks from when they use a snippet of their stuff on a commercial.
THEY GET NOTHING.
Yep...I no problem with copyright being a WELFARE check for entertainers and authors and dancers etc. They're more useful than you seem to be.


They can't save? Like everyone else?

Anyway, very few musicians are going to live a decent retirement based on residuals from copyrighted material. And they rarely own the copyright for their work, particularly work that has received commercial distribution. Of course retired musicians should have a decent retirement; but the copyright law really doesn't do anything to help. Plus, whenever they perform, say, Copland, musicians lose money because you gotta pay the current copyright holder. Who is not Aaron Copland.
 
2020-12-29 10:04:32 PM  

ClicheRinpoche: Purple_Urkle: ClicheRinpoche: Creator's lifetime, period. You don't get to crap all over someone's work while they're still alive.

That fails to promote science.

The progress clause specifies that the purpose of copyright is to promote science and that the term should be limited.

If the term isn't universally percieved as limited because it's effectively percieved as forever by an author, scientists are robbed of the joy of seeing their efforts proliferate.

Well clearly there should be an option to release to public domain, yes?

And also a good idea to separate scientific works from artistic works.


Lawrence Lessig invented the Creative Commons spectrum of copyright licenses for granting creators more control to freely release their works for collaborative purposes.

He's written books on the subject of copyright, such as Free Culture, which is available to download as a pdf or audiobook files. He's a Harvard law professor. His areas of focus are copyright and corruption in government.
 
2020-12-29 10:05:35 PM  

optikeye: Purple_Urkle: scientists are robbed of the joy of seeing their efforts proliferate.

Oh my...Do you get paid in JOY too? Well, Try buying some hot dogs with those JOY coupons.


An informed populace and representative governance don't bring you joy?

Ok Osama bin Laden.
 
2020-12-29 10:10:33 PM  

phlegmjay: ThatBillmanGuy: Telephone Sanitizer Second Class: Yay! I can finally publish my literary mashup The Trial of the Great Gatsby.

I can't wait for the Great Gatsby cinematic universe.

I know you're joking. And it's funny. But wouldn't it be cool to have something like that with Faulkner's Yoknapatawpha works? Okay, I mean, I know most people hate Faulkner, but an anthology series on HBO that covers various stories in the county in variable lengthy seasons and movies could be great.


If copyrights were 14 years, I wouldn't be posting politics, I'd be dedicating all of my free time to recutting Stargate SG-1 and the X-Files into one giant show and bothering no one.

But the DMCA was passed with a voice vote in 2002 before I was out of high school. So I went to college to study political science and here we are today, I'm howling into the void until section 230 is scrapped for a few pennies and I'm forced to start screen printing a newsletter.
 
2020-12-29 10:11:44 PM  

optikeye: Purple_Urkle: Limited times.
Copyrights should be brief.

Define LIMITED TIMES.


Jack Valenti says forever minus a day.

I say 14 years and I hope Amy Barrett agrees.
 
2020-12-29 10:13:25 PM  

optikeye: Define LIMITED TIMES.


This has already been defined. 14 years, renewable for another 14 if the author is still alive at time of renewal.
 
2020-12-29 10:15:35 PM  
My manuscript "The Great Gatsby 2: The Gatsby-ing" is almost ready.  In it, we discover that Gatsby faked his own death so that he could dedicate himself to his real duty: protecting Earth from alien invasion.  He approaches Tom Buchanan about helping him.   Plus, Jordan Baker is a Ninja.

"
 
2020-12-29 10:18:04 PM  
Hemingway's In Our Time (from 1925... I swear this isn't a thread Jack) is a work that isn't given its due, or rather is merely seen as a short story collection and thus no different from or even inferior to larger collections of his work. Though several of the stories in it are famous, it is rarely discussed on the whole as a brilliant work. It is arguably an experimental novel, and one of the better ones of the modernist period. You've probably read some of it elsewhere, either in an anthology or in other Hemingway short story collections. However, I think it should be read in this form. It's short, and while the stories don't all connect, many do, and the ones that don't contribute to the tone and themes of the collection.

/ The common narrative thread is that roughly half the stories follow Nick Adams as he grows from a child to a young man and is injured in WWI.
// In between stories there are a number of "chapters," brief (very brief... like one or two paragraph) vignettes, almost like imagist prose poems that are some of the earliest examples of Hemingway creating his "iceberg theory" of storytelling. And some of them are riveting in their use of understatement.
/// well... threes and all... but also, those vignettes were originally published as an earlier work called "in our time" which he then fleshed out with other stories to form what we usually see titles In Our Timenow.
 
2020-12-29 10:21:05 PM  

Exluddite: So we beat on, boats against the current, bourne back ceaselessly into the past.


Especially on Fark.
 
2020-12-29 10:25:00 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: But what will Ma Rainey and Harold Lloyd do for money?


Man, you just know Harold Lloyd IV ain't never worked a day in his life, just gliding on those "Safety Last" royalties.
 
2020-12-29 10:27:34 PM  
I strongly support the effort to use AI to generate and copyright all possible sound combinations in order to destroy the music industry with the copyright laws they fight so hard to expand.

The current copyright system promotes economic and informational disparities.

I listen to music my friends make to avoid financing Hilary Rosen.
 
2020-12-29 10:28:28 PM  

Tom_Slick: Rev.K: Purple_Urkle: In a sane world, it'd be everything from 2006 entering the Public Domain.
I think 20-25 years is reasonable, but I get your point.
I think it should be creators lifetime plus 20 years to cover dependents.

ClicheRinpoche: Creator's lifetime, period. You don't get to crap all over someone's work while they're still alive.

yakmans_dad: Rev.K: Purple_Urkle: In a sane world, it'd be everything from 2006 entering the Public Domain.
I think 20-25 years is reasonable, but I get your point.
Life of the artist + some (smaller but significant) residual for the immediate estate.



BUT ... The creators rarely own their own works. A music company or Art studio or movie studio usually do. These extended rights are not helping the creators or their estates much. They are mostly helping corporations and executives.
 
Displayed 50 of 109 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.