# What was the last piece of work to enter the public domain naturally? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 24, 2012, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-last-piece-of-work-to-enter-the-public-domain-naturally/644986 "2012-12-24T05:23:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Implicit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Implicit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Implicit)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2012, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-last-piece-of-work-to-enter-the-public-domain-naturally/644986/21 "2012-12-24T19:06:49Z")
> [@SpoilerVirgin](#): > > One author impacted by the 1923 public domain date is Agatha Christie. She wrote her first book (_The Mysterious Affair at Styles_, which introduced Poirot) in 1920, _The Secret Adversary_, which introduced Tommy and Tuppence) in 1922, and \*Murder on the Links \*in 1923. These books can be found in numerous editions and free in electronic form. All of Christie’s other works were published after 1923 and are therefore still under copyright. So given Christie’s continuing popularity, _Murder on the Links_, another Poirot story, is probably one of the most popular and widely read books among those that were last to enter the public domain. Murder on the Links is not in the public domain in the US, only the two earlier books are, since the cutoff is _prior_ to 1923. Works published in 1923 will enter the public domain in 2019. ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2012, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-last-piece-of-work-to-enter-the-public-domain-naturally/644986/22 "2012-12-24T19:58:32Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > What was the story on the (typically cutesy name) “copyleft” magic word for online copy? I used it for stuff I wrote basically to show I was hip. Copyleft is a general term for any licensing scheme, like the GNU GPL or Creative Commons, which freely grants the right to copy, distribute, and/or modify legitimately obtained created works (often requiring that the license accompany the work). The intent is to encourage derivative works using existing copyright law. The term and symbol have no legal meaning, of course, unless a license is specified. Case law could change that, though. ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2012, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-last-piece-of-work-to-enter-the-public-domain-naturally/644986/23 "2012-12-24T20:34:35Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > So when does Mickey Mouse enter public domain? If I read the above correctly it might be 1928 + 95 years = 2023? Isn’t that when all the C programmers say the world is going to end? ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2012, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-last-piece-of-work-to-enter-the-public-domain-naturally/644986/24 "2012-12-24T20:37:04Z")
The entire first season and part of the second season of TV’s _[The Beverly Hillbillies](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beverly_Hillbillies#Media)_ are in the public domain, as the copyright wasn’t renewed. These episodes were produced in 1962-1963, so they fell within the “renew it or lose it” window. They aren’t the last thing to pass into the public domain, but I would guess they are among the most widely-known of the recent works that have become public domain. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2012, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-last-piece-of-work-to-enter-the-public-domain-naturally/644986/25 "2012-12-24T20:56:18Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > robert\_columbia, unpublished works are treated differently in copyright law. A newly found unpublished work, published for the first time today, takes on today’s copyright protection. However, anything that was published in those days is in the public domain. > > You’re total ignorance of the law does not make the law wrong or stupid, or mean that “anyone can do whatever they want”. It means only that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Plus Salinger sued Random House over unpublished letters. The court used the Copyright Act of 1976 ruled that even if unpublished work was not protected by copyright/publication\* the author’s work and expression was still protected. \*A non-issue for anything written today ---
**Author:** ![SpoilerVirgin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@SpoilerVirgin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SpoilerVirgin)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2012, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-last-piece-of-work-to-enter-the-public-domain-naturally/644986/26 "2012-12-24T21:20:05Z")
> [@Implicit](#): > > Murder on the Links is not in the public domain in the US, only the two earlier books are, since the cutoff is _prior_ to 1923. Works published in 1923 will enter the public domain in 2019. I’d always seen it on lists of works in the public domain, but you’re right, it is 1923 and therefore not yet out of copyright. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2012, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-last-piece-of-work-to-enter-the-public-domain-naturally/644986/27 "2012-12-24T23:16:14Z")
Any creative work made [by someone who died in 1942](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1942_deaths) would have become public domain this year as per the life + 70 standard. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2012, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-last-piece-of-work-to-enter-the-public-domain-naturally/644986/28 "2012-12-24T23:27:36Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Any creative work made [by someone who died in 1942](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1942_deaths) would have become public domain this year as per the life + 70 standard. It doesn’t work that way. Copyright law is not retroactive. Just the reverse. Anything written in 1942 is normally considered to be still under copyright unless proven otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2012, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-last-piece-of-work-to-enter-the-public-domain-naturally/644986/29 "2012-12-25T00:00:55Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > It doesn’t work that way. Copyright law is not retroactive. Just the reverse. Anything written in 1942 is normally considered to be still under copyright unless proven otherwise. Which isn’t what I said. Copyright lasts 70 years after the death of the author. Thus, if you died in 1942, the copyright on your works expires in 2012. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2012, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-last-piece-of-work-to-enter-the-public-domain-naturally/644986/30 "2012-12-25T01:13:06Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Which isn’t what I said. Copyright lasts 70 years after the death of the author. Thus, if you died in 1942, the copyright on your works expires in 2012. No, it doesn’t. That wasn’t the law in 1942. As the link posted by Mr Downtown all the way back in post #2 shows, that didn’t become law until 1978. That chart shows the three possibilities. For authors who died in 1942, any works written and published before their death were under copyright and renewed properly, in which case they are still under copyright and will be until 95 years after the publication date, or they were once copyright but not renewed properly, in which case they are already in the public domain and have been for years. The third case is the one in which the works were not published during their lifetime, and are so subject to the laws at the time they were published. There is no case in which the copyright can expire in 2012. ---
**Author:** ![Slackhaus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@Slackhaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slackhaus)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2015, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-last-piece-of-work-to-enter-the-public-domain-naturally/644986/31 "2015-10-27T19:26:29Z")
> [@ftg](#): > > Mickey Mouse is a trademarked character of Disney, it will never enter the public domain as long as Disney wants to keep it. Specific media involving MM might enter the public domain. E.g. _Steamboat Willie_. But each time the copyright is close to expiring on that, Congress extends the length of copyright protection. So what will happen by 2023 is that another law will be passed like the Sonny Bono Act. That doesn’t work, You cannot use trademarks to get around copyright, This was a unanimous decision by SCOTUS in Dastar v 20th Century Fox ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2015, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-last-piece-of-work-to-enter-the-public-domain-naturally/644986/32 "2015-10-27T20:58:50Z")
> [@Slackhaus](#): > > That doesn’t work, You cannot use trademarks to get around copyright, This was a unanimous decision by SCOTUS in Dastar v 20th Century Fox You’re arguing the same thing. As ftg said, some Disney works may enter the public domain (and so people can do what they want with them) but the trademark will still stand. So, using Steamboat Willy as an example, when it enters public domain… People can put Steamboat Willy on their own media and distribute it without Disney claiming it violates their trademark on Mickey Mouse. (As the SCOTUS decided in the case you cite.) People cannot, however, use Mickey Mouse in original works just because he was in Steamboat Willy which is now public domain. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2015, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-last-piece-of-work-to-enter-the-public-domain-naturally/644986/33 "2015-10-27T21:08:38Z")
> [@Slackhaus](#): > > That doesn’t work, You cannot use trademarks to get around copyright, This was a unanimous decision by SCOTUS in Dastar v 20th Century Fox The way I saw it explained in another discussion - Mickey is a trademark. So, you cannot use the likeness of Mickey for commercial purposes unless licensed by Walt & Co. …except, if/when/should Steamboat Willie become public domain, for example, then you _can_ use stills from the movie (since the stills are also public domain) as cover art and to legally advertise the public domain product you are selling, specifically the movie Steamboat Willie. Considering how much Mickey has changed over the years, probably not useful for general advertising. However, you could not pose Steamboat Willie (secret identity - Mickey) to advertise Crunchy Granola or Uncle Ted’s Head Cryogeny Services or any other business, because that would infringe an existing trademark. (“likelihood of confusion”) Although, based on the whole Sherlock Holmes brouhaha, I assume when silent movie Mickey is substantially in the public domain you could make new movies featuring him. But if the squeaky voice would be only in copyright movies, you can’t use that aspect of Mickey. Basically, get a good lawyer whatever you plan to do in 2023. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-last-piece-of-work-to-enter-the-public-domain-naturally/644986.md?page=1)