How long should copyrights last?

[DesertBerean]

Fair use is that in certain circumstances, you can infringe on copyright without having to be accountable whatsoever to the copyright owner. So if I write a book review, I can use some quotes from the book to help make my point. I don't see how it relates at all to things like how showing a statue in a movie might cost money. Are you thinking about something else?

there was a documentary about fair use. They discussed the case of several landmarks - including a statue of a mounted man - and about how many seconds of exposure was considered fair use, and how permission had to be got, etc. I failed and still fail to understand how anything intended to be seen by the public would fall under the fair use doctrine.

[Terraceth]

there was a documentary about fair use. They discussed the case of several landmarks - including a statue of a mounted man - and about how many seconds of exposure was considered fair use, and how permission had to be got, etc. I failed and still fail to understand how anything intended to be seen by the public would fall under the fair use doctrine.

Then your problem isn't with fair use. Fair use is just what allows you to, under some circumstances, violate copyright without having to be liable. In other words, the fact you would be able to use a few seconds at all is thanks to fair use. If fair use was gone, that would mean you couldn't use any video footage of the statue without getting permission. Your complaint is that video footage of a public statue could be considered copyright infringement to begin with, which is a separate issue from fair use.

What was the name of this documentary, by the way?

[Roy]

Pay up suckers!!

I'm claiming "fair use" on the grounds that I've quoted less than 5% of what you've posted.

[DesertBerean]

Then your problem isn't with fair use. Fair use is just what allows you to, under some circumstances, violate copyright without having to be liable. In other words, the fact you would be able to use a few seconds at all is thanks to fair use. If fair use was gone, that would mean you couldn't use any video footage of the statue without getting permission. Your complaint is that video footage of a public statue could be considered copyright infringement to begin with, which is a separate issue from fair use.

What was the name of this documentary, by the way?

The way you put it makes me think that may be the correct intent of the film I saw. I look for it occasionally because it did interest me, but since I can't recall the correct name, I'm not able to refresh my memory.

[stfoskey15]

AFAIK they haven't extended the copyright law yet. So does anyone know when stuff will start falling into the public domain again?

[One Bad Pig]

AFAIK they haven't extended the copyright law yet. So does anyone know when stuff will start falling into the public domain again?

Is the current law unclear? The answer to your question seems fairly straightforward.

Despite Jaecp's protestations above, this is all about free stuff.

[KingsGambit]

There are benefits to certain works of historical value being in the public domain. I find it unfortunate that the King James Bible remains under a crown copyright, and would find it just as unfortunate if Shakespeare's works remained under copyright.

[Mountain Man]

AFAIK they haven't extended the copyright law yet. So does anyone know when stuff will start falling into the public domain again?

It depends on how deep the pockets are of the current copyright holders. In the case of Disney, several of their iconic cartoons and characters should have entered public domain years ago, but they keep giving lots of money to politicians in order to keep that from happening.

[KingsGambit]

The copyright to "Happy birthday to you" ended in 2016, which is why most restaurants would not sing it when somebody tipped off the waitresses there was a birthday person there, and why the song could not appear in movies. I think it's difficult to argue that song hadn't entered the realm of folk music, so I respectfully disagree with OBP's claim that reforming copyright law is just all about "free stuff".

[stfoskey15]

Is the current law unclear? The answer to your question seems fairly straightforward.

Despite Jaecp's protestations above, this is all about free stuff.

Well AFAIK it should (according to law) expire in 95 years at the latest, but Wikipedia says it still goes back to January 1, 1923 (not June 4, 1923). And why shouldn't it be free, if the owner is long since dead?

There are benefits to certain works of historical value being in the public domain. I find it unfortunate that the King James Bible remains under a crown copyright, and would find it just as unfortunate if Shakespeare's works remained under copyright.

Wait it is? I always just assumed stuff that old was all under public domain.

[One Bad Pig]

Well AFAIK it should (according to law) expire in 95 years at the latest, but Wikipedia says it still goes back to January 1, 1923 (not June 4, 1923).

Why would you trust Wikipedia as an authoritative source?

And why shouldn't it be free, if the owner is long since dead?

Owners have heirs.

The copyright to "Happy birthday to you" ended in 2016, which is why most restaurants would not sing it when somebody tipped off the waitresses there was a birthday person there, and why the song could not appear in movies. I think it's difficult to argue that song hadn't entered the realm of folk music, so I respectfully disagree with OBP's claim that reforming copyright law is just all about "free stuff".

You think it should have been able to be used for free before the copyright ended. How is that not about free stuff?

[KingsGambit]

Why would you trust Wikipedia as an authoritative source?

Owners have heirs.

You think it should have been able to be used for free before the copyright ended. How is that not about free stuff?

Either you see it as patently ridiculous or you don't. In this case, the copyright didn't even belong to heirs. At some point, extending copyrights indefinitely begins to resemble patent trolling.

[rogue06]

Either you see it as patently ridiculous or you don't.

00000000000sprkdr.gif

[One Bad Pig]

Either you see it as patently ridiculous or you don't. In this case, the copyright didn't even belong to heirs. At some point, extending copyrights indefinitely begins to resemble patent trolling.

They're not extended indefinitely. There are tons of books in the public domain which I can download and read for free on my kindle.

[Terraceth]

Well AFAIK it should (according to law) expire in 95 years at the latest, but Wikipedia says it still goes back to January 1, 1923 (not June 4, 1923).

Well, it can be more than 95 years. Copyrights created starting with 1978 last for the life of the author plus 70 years. So if the author lived for more than 25 years after copyrighting it, then that would be more than 95 years. That said, because 1978 and onward copyrights won't enter public domain until 2048 at the earliest, those aren't really what's being discussed. The 95 years thing refers to copyrights granted before that. Anyway, at the passing of the copyright extensions (back in 1998, I think) that set it to 95 years, the "start" of public domain was 1923. So starting next year, works from 1923, then 1924 the year after that, and 1925 the year after that.

Assuming, of course, that there's no last-minute extension to copyrights, which is of course always possible. Still, if there is, there's less than a year to do it, unless they want to try to retroactively remove works from public domain (which, while very rare, isn't fully without precedent).

And why shouldn't it be free, if the owner is long since dead?

It's to provide for their heirs, if it's a popular work.

Wait it is? I always just assumed stuff that old was all under public domain.

Depends on the country. For example, KingsGambit mentioned the King James Bible being under perpetual copyright by the British Crown. However, that's limited to the UK. In most other countries, including the United States, it's public domain.