Fun fact: until a judge declared it to be in public domain in 2016, "Happy Birthday To You" was a copyrighted song. Warner Music Group owned the copyright up to that point. I can remember seeing TV shows and commercials where they sung "For He's A Jolly Good Fellow" to celebrate a character's birthday because the producers apparently couldn't get clearance from WMG to use "Happy Birthday To You".
Fun Fact. Someone was doing a documentary on "Happy Birthday" and dug up a copyright before the one that Warner Brothers owned. Once presented to a judge, he declared Warner Brother's link to Happy Birthday null and void....and they had to pay some of the royalties back
@@jojopuppyfishyeah, I always thought that copyright claim was bull. It’s the same melody as Good Morning To You. Changing two words doesn’t grant you supreme ownership of it. And the very idea that they seriously believed they could get $700 per use up till 2030 is even more asinine.
This little documentary explains everything about Public Domain and Copyrighted works very well. And since Gershwin’s piece “Rhapsody in Blue” is now public domain, I’ve gotten a chance to make my own 2024 orchestra arrangement of it.
@@D.S.handle I know right? Thanks! The sheet music is available for purchase on Sheet Music Plus and Sheet Music Direct, just in case if you have a community orchestra that can play it. And if they get the chance, could you please send me a video link to their performance of it?
Public Domain: It's beautiful! **Suddenly, spirits of the Disney company, including Walt Disney himself, Roy O. Disney, Ub Iwerks, and past Disney Legends emerge and snarl the public domain along with the derivative versions of their created characters** Mickey's Mouse Trap: **Screams like a girl** Blood and Honey: **State of pure utter shock** Minnie Mouse (Disney): Mickey?! Oswald (Disney): What’s happening?! Mickey Mouse (Disney): Don’t look, you two! Keep your eyes SHUT! **Now see the public domain and derivative versions suffer the same fate as the villains in Raiders of the Lost Ark (Heads imploding, melting, and exploding). After that climax, Mickey, Oswald, and all other Disney created works go back under copyright at the company… forever!**
One fun thing they forgot is that, due to quirks in US copyright, a lot of stuff after 1928 is public domain due to failures to re-register it or put proper copyright notice on it when it was required. Like, the biggest treasure trove of them I'd say is probably comics, as there's a lot of surprising ones there like Captain Marvel (The Shazam one) and Plastic Man, but another great one is Rankin-Bass' Rudolph special (Tho weirdly not Rudolph himself)
@@ericstelzman5190 And Alfred Hitchcocks Charade (Cary Grant, Audrey Hepburn) ! I probably remember this wrong, but it was something about the roman numeral year not appearing in the credits made it near instantly in the public domain!
@@ericstelzman5190correct, in fact, falling into the public domain is the very reason so many generations keep seeing it. It wasn’t a very profitable film, so it was never renewed. When TV stations were looking to fill air time during the holidays, they discovered they could broadcast it for free. I grew up watching several parodies. My moms favorite was It Happened One Christmas, a gender reversal where Mary Bailey is the star, and everything that happened to George happens to her. Back then, most people did not have VCRs, so owning movies wasn’t a thing. You survived off tv specials, unto you could afford to record it yourself.
For more than 50 years, I have waited to see the 1932 pre-code film Letty Lynton starring Joan Crawford and Robert Montgomery. When will this film ever be remastered and released for the public to see before I die?
It will fall into.public domain in 2028 (only four years away at this writing, in 2024). However, just because something is in public domain doesn't mean you can get a copy, and the expiration of copyright may mean that there is less incentive for anyone to restore or remaster a film.
@@oliverbrownlow5615 _Letty Lynton_ has been unavailable since a federal District Court ruled on January 17, 1936 that the script used by MGM followed too closely the play _Dishonored Lady_ (1930) by Edward Sheldon and Margaret Ayer Barnes without acquiring the rights to the play or giving credit. So it is the 1930 play that will become public domain first.
There are copies of Letty Lynton floating around, but the one I saw was, shall we say, in rough shape. I’ll be honest, it wasn’t that great of a movie, that lovely gown aside.
@@RaymondHng It seems likely to me that when *Dishonored Lady* becomes public domain (two years from now, in 2026), *Letty Lynton* will also become public domain at the same time, because it's very unlikely that MGM bothered to renew the copyright in 1964 (as they would had to have done to retain the copyright), or that they would even have been legally able to do so on a work that was itself judged to be infringing on the copyright of another work.
@@phoebevolz2291 Most pre-code films I have viewed are fascinating to watch. Yes, the story is important, but I also enjoy hearing the early 30s musical backgrounds, the dances, the beautiful cars (think Packards) the styles, especially the women's gorgeous dresses, hats, hair styles and, of course, the outstanding actresses of the late 1920s and early 1930s (Joan Crawford, Norma Shearer, Barbara Stanwyck, Claudette Colbert, Myrna Loy, and many more too numerous to mention.
I wish the actual authors/creators could have a say in when their works hit the public domain. Not longer, mind you! I write and would hope my works would be public domain right after I die.
They can! That's why Creative Commons licenses exist, to give authors control over that, all you'd need to do is declare in your will that all your works are placed under a CC0 license after your passing!
There's so much to feel fine about😢😢😢 Disney was a peace activist as well, beyond any war affairs, having a world made for kids is...our biggest struggle above all 😢😢😢
Interestingly, Peter Pan, cited here, isn't in the public domain in the UK. The author gave its copyright to the Great Ormond Street Hospital, a children's hospital. Due to an act of parliament, it perpetually has the right to collect royalties.
95 years is WAY too long for a work to be copyrighted. Realistically as they said, most works aren’t economically viable for 95 years and in my personal opinion, it shouldn’t extend past a humans lifetime (around 80 years) . These works are better when they can be worked and adapted on to make something new and to push the medium forward, that’s what I believe the founding fathers also intended by noting that in the constitution.
For a long time it was 28 years from the date of publication after which it could be renewed. Then it was extended to 95 years by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998.
@@Meridian83West yup, all done through Disney lobbyists who have continually extended the date to where it’s become 95 years. All in an effort to keep the public from having some of the most recognizable characters in the world in the public domain, pretty darn scummy honestly
A hundred years is long enough; if your brand can last that long, heirs would've been able to milk it to make plenty of $$$. If that's your only source of income, do like the rest of us -- get a job.
They've been doing that for a while, lobbying to get new extensions to copyright terms. But when Disney broached the subject to do it again in 2019 Google, Amazon, and the Wikimedia Foundation made clear they would lobby against it and Congress at the time (this being about 2017) indicated zero interest in extending the freeze so the law was allowed to expire.
If a new artist uses the old artist's name and reference but changes it in a negative way, families/companies still have the right to file suet for defamation.
Be creative , those are old creatives under old law you have automatic protection now record all your work and etc in case of any legal issues I don’t why creators or creatives would use or want to use characters that’s not theirs I think it takes away from the user, they could have created their own character and benefit creativity, why make an entire thing of something I don’t know it’s not easy doing something new but I Just rather take that route Imagine doing Superman Batman and Mickey over again Other creatives see things different but for me it’s always good to bring in new creation Blessings and respect
As scummy the copyright laws are I dont think theres any excuse or difficulty for people to work within its framework. Public domain is a big help, it made Disney billions upon billions of dollars, that doesnt mean its detrimental to the creative process.
@@Magdalena8008s i eagerly await hearing your arguments against it. Twenty years is more than enough time for someone to profit off something and it would force corporations from being so creatively stagnant. Copyright should never be seen as generational wealth.
...Even as a copyright minimalist, I don't think that's viable at the moment. Both because the Berne convention sets a cap at how low it can be at 50 years, and because of how art is extremely unstable with a lack of "safety net" for creators that isn't copyright. Like, these things are worth changing, but it's going to be a far longer systemic project, and in the meantime there's a lot that can be done even as-is to fix it, IE reducing copyright duration back to 56 years (While getting around the @#$% Takings Clause), expanding fair use to explicitly protect fanworks and archival, and especially expanding fair use for "abandonware" in all mediums.
