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.
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.
Isn’t that when all the C programmers say the world is going to end?
The entire first season and part of the second season of TV’s The Beverly Hillbillies 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.
Plus Salinger sued Random House over unpublished letters. The court used the Copyright Act of 1976 ruled that even if unpublished work was not protected by copyright/publication* the author’s work and expression was still protected.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
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.
Any creative work made by someone who died in 1942 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.
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.
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.
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.