Hello!

If you would like to participate in discussions, please sign in or register.

Sign In with Facebook Sign In with Twitter

In this Discussion

Most Popular This Week

    Copyright - so you think you've got it all figured out.

    I wish to draw everyone's attention to a web site that, in my opinion, publishes the most up-to-date & no-nonsense information on copyright (mostly U.S. but some beyond as well). Every January 1st since 2010 they have published Public Domain Day. Today they released their 2015 article on what could have entered the public domain today uder the law that existed until 1978. Public Domain Day is associated with the Duke Law Center for the Study of the Public Domain. Every single person in science, arts and education needs to check out this site at least once a year as a refresher & to find out about any recent changes in the law -- and point your students to it as well. For those who haven't really bothered to keep up & depend on the advice of colleagues, this site is a wake-up call. E.g., for research involving published source material:

    If the pre-1978 laws were still in effect, we could have seen 85% of the works published in 1986 enter the public domain on January 1, 2015. Imagine what that would mean to our archives, our libraries, our schools and our culture. Such works could be digitized, preserved, and made available for education, for research, for future creators. Instead, they will remain under copyright for decades to come, perhaps even into the next century.

    ... and for access to previous research:

    A distressing number of scientific articles from 1958 remain behind paywalls, including those in major journals such as Science and JAMA. You can’t read these articles unless you pay or subscribe. And the institutional access that many top scientists enjoy is not guaranteed—even institutions such as Harvard have considered canceling their subscriptions because they could no longer afford the escalating prices of major journal subscriptions.

    It’s remarkable to find scientific research from 1958 hidden behind publisher paywalls. Thankfully, some publishers have made older articles available in full online, so that you can read them, even though it may still be illegal to copy and distribute them. In addition, some older articles have been made available on third party websites, but this is not a stable solution for providing reliable access to science. Third party postings can be difficult to find or taken down, links can get broken, and would-be posters may be deterred by the risk of a lawsuit. Under the pre-1978 copyright term, all of this history would be free to scholars, students, and enthusiasts.

     

    Sign In or Register to comment.

    Comments

    • 1 Comment sorted by Votes Date Added
    • One point that the webpages quoted do not enough stress is that today, what counts as public domain worldwide is that which is public domain in the least favorable legislation — that is, in practice, in the US. Otherwise, publications not only would need to be said "Not for sale in the US", but could also not be sold, nor even advertised, on Internet.

      The case of IMSLP is exemplary in this respect: created in Canada, were the legislation is among the most favorable, it had been threatened by a European copyright owner on the basis of US law, because the site was accessible from the US (see http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/arts/music/22music-imslp.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0). For the present situation of copyrights worldwide, see http://imslp.org/wiki/IMSLP:Copyright_Made_Simple.

      To take one example, all of Heinrich Schenker's writings are public domain worldwide, excepting the US where Tonwille 4-10 (1923-1924), the separate edition of the analysis of Beethoven's 5th Symphony (1925), Das Meisterwerk in der Musik (1925-1930), Fünf Urlinie-Tafeln (1932) and Der freie Satz (1st edition, 1935) remain protected until 95 years after publication — i.e. between 2019 and 2031. (The first edition of Der freie Satz might be "protected", i.e. forbidden, until even later, because it is posthumous; the published volume mentions no other name than Schenker's own. The original intention of Schenker's disciples certainly had been to make it as widely available as soon as possible...) This situation, so far as one can tell, benefits only to the owners and shareholders of the Viennese publisher.