Contracts. Using something like the CC0 License is a form of contract. You are offering to allow people to copy your work for no fee.
Amazon. Clicking on the Public Domain link at Amazon is for people who are uploading works already in the public domain! If you scan in Great Expectations, turn it into an ebook and upload it to Amazon, that’s the button you click.
The LoC has enough stuff to deal with. Don’t bother them with poorly thought out stuff. They have no interest or method in dealing with such a letter. In addition it’s the US Copyright Office, not the LoC that deals with this. And they don’t deal with such letters either. This borders on the nonsense like the “poor man’s copyright”.
If you want to really, officially, 100% put something into the public domain the only written-into-US-law method is to die and wait 70 years.
Renouncing citizenship is done per US statute. If you fail to follow the exact rules, you haven’t renounced your citizenship. Ditto with putting something the public domain. Problem is, there is no statute! Hence it apparently can’t be done.
Maybe someday a court will rule that something like the CC0 license works more-or-less like putting something into the public domain or US copyright law will be amended to allow a formal method, but until then … don’t get into not well thought out fantasy stuff.
I don’t know. The dangers of releasing a work into the PD anonymously is that later one anyone else could claim they were the owner and to get it back. At least if releasing it under an alias is that there are ways to find out what the legal name is.
Don’t be that way. Just because it isn’t the way the law works today doesn’t mean it’s “not well thought out.” It makes as much sense to be able to make your work public as it does to renounce your citizenship. The latter is currently possible, and the former seems not to be, but that doesn’t make it a bad idea.
Thank you for explaining the legal situation. I vigorously disagree with your editorial comment.
There’s a difference between an idea and an actual workable method and mechanism.
I have no problem with the idea of being able to put a piece of work into the public domain. The actual mechanism for doing so legally within the larger world of copyrights is a thornier issue. You’d essentially be charging the LoC or somebody to keep a perpetual searchable up-to-date database. That would be difficult and costly. Not insurmountably so, but the LoC can barely handle paid copyright registrations today. Adding on an additional system on top of that is a major undertaking. Discuss that plan and it would have some meaning. The idea is mere magical wishful thinking.
Project Gutenberg is managing a small version of this and doing it quite well. It isn’t as big a thing as you’re making it out to be…and, in any case, it already is happening, and has to happen. Otherwise, every dubious case would have to be litigated. Since the courts aren’t swamped by p.d. lawsuits, the l.o.c. wouldn’t have to be.
I see it as a nice thing, a way for creative people to give a gift to the world. It’s also likely to be rare, and thus not much of an issue at all.
(How many people actually do renounce their citizenship?)
Afterthought: it would be easy to settle in a (hypothetical) precedent-setting lawsuit.
A writes a novel, and declares in his will that it is public property.
B publishes it for profit.
A’s heirs sue B, saying that the work is not truly public.
I would like the court to rule against the heirs, upholding the intent of the clause in A’s will. A few cases of this nature would establish a de facto means of declaring one’s own property to be public property.
(Are there not ways of doing this with physical property? If I abandon my car, with a big sign on it that says, “You tow it, you own it,” do my heirs have any conceivable recourse against the guy who claims it?)
Almost everything on Gutenberg is from 1922 and earlier, a bright-line cutoff date that requires no lookup.
There are undoubtedly some later pieces on that site and others that people claim are in the public domain because they have not found evidence of timely renewals back when those were required. I assume that the legitimate ones take down items if someone can prove a renewal was in fact issued. The LoC does not have full records of renewals. It doesn’t really have good records of actual copyright registrations. If, like me, you have to do research into the yearly Catalog of Copyright Entries you’ll bizarrely frequently find missing items from established publishers whose other items, sometimes from the same series, can be found all around the missing one. Is it really possible that multiple publishers simply forgot to register some copyrights year after year? Or is it more likely that the records are simply inadequate? I lean toward the latter.
I’m not sure what you could be basing your claim that declarations of public domain would be rare. This article says that over 1 billion works have Creative Commons licenses. Surely a large fraction of those creators would opt to declare public domain status, although some would prefer to have the greater restrictions a CC license grants. The important thing to remember is that no central database of CC licensed works exists. But a public domain database would have to be an official part of copyright law and have all the apparatus thereto. There is no world in which simply saying it would be legally sufficient.
Properties that others created a really long time ago and which he can’t basically come up with a new version of without being accused of ripping of the original property.
I agree if he wanted to create a superhero called Ferrous Man who was billionaire industrialist Toby Mark by day and robot-suited justice-issuer by night, saying “Whoa there; go and develop your own IP” is a totally reasonable call.
But in Kadmos’ case, we’re talking about a character that’s more than 100 years old - and the children of the creator have all passed on decades ago, after living long lives.
I’m not seeing a compelling reason for keeping the Tarzan character out of the public domain, basically. I know that’s an unpopular view around here but it’s one I happen to agree with.
Reminder: The LoC has nothing to do with copyright registration and tracking. That’s the US Copyright Office. You have to deposit two copies of your work with the LoC after you file for a registered copyright but that is secondary to obtaining a registered copyright. (The copies allow you to prove in court that the item you registered existed, etc.)
If you you don’t want to register, giving up the right to sue for real $, the LoC doesn’t need to get anything. People wanting to not charge for their work à la public domain presumably won’t register their works and therefore the LoC is not involved in any way, shape, or form.
No, that’s worse, because now you can’t get a license to share/broadcast/republish the work at all, because you don’t know who owns it. Look up “orphaned works”.
It’s the great crime of copyrights that we have more 19th century literature to buy and read than we do 20th century literature, most of which is hopelessly bound up in millions of unknown estates, trusts, mergers, bankruptcies, etc, such that no one will touch them with a ten foot pole, no matter how much the public may clamor for them.
What makes “The Little Mermaid” any different than “Tarzan” in this regard? If you want to claim rights in an original expression of a new Tarzan novel, you cannot. This was no hurdle for that lazy moocher Walt Disney, however. It’s shitty that Disney made a billion dollar industry out of milking old creative works, but then bought Congress and promptly rolled up the carpet, denying anyone else the right to follow in his footsteps.
From Shakespeare to Walt Disney, there is a long tradition of revamping older creative works for modern times. Apparently, since 1922, that tradition has been prohibited by law. That’s a damn shame, whether you want to “find ways to milk properties that others have created” or not.
There are certain limitations on its use due to trademark issues, but that’s a totally different subject that Kadmos stubbornly insists upon conflating with copyright. You shouldn’t let his confusion cloud your thinking.
While not the same as public domain, one could assign copyright ownership to an entity that will not assert its rights. Something like Project Gutenberg.
How does the United States handle the copyrights it owns? Much of what it produces cannot be copyrighted. What happens if I assign copyright of my work to it?
You can declare that you will not prevent reuse right now without getting anyone else involved in your legal matters. There is also a CC license form that is essentially equivalent. The problem is making other people aware of your declaration.
I’m not sure what you mean by the copyrights the United States owns. Government documents are not copyright in the first place, except for a few special exemptions, so the U.S. does not own any. You are free to publish government documents, charge money for them, alter them, or anything else you please. A famous case is the illustrated edition of Nixon’s Commission on Pornography Report.
If I write a book and give complete ownership of the copyrights to the United States, what happens? Can it refuse? Does it auction it off as if you donated an automobile? Does it hold it and zealously sue anyone who violates the copyright? Does the copyright effectively disappear because there’s no mechanism for the United States to enforce its copyrights?
There is no legal person called “the United States” that encompasses or is embodied in all citizens, nationals and residents of the United States that is capable of owning intellectual property.
You simply cannot transfer your copyright interest to “the United States.”