Column: A Faulkner classic and Popeye enter the public domain while copyright only gets more confusing; Los Angeles Times, December 31, 2024

 Michael Hiltzik , Los Angeles Times; Column: A Faulkner classic and Popeye enter the public domain while copyright only gets more confusing

"The annual flow of copyrighted works into the public domain underscores how the progressive lengthening of copyright protection is counter to the public interest—indeed, to the interests of creative artists. The initial U.S. copyright act, passed in 1790, provided for a term of 28 years including a 14-year renewal. In 1909, that was extended to 56 years including a 28-year renewal.

In 1976, the term was changed to the creator’s life plus 50 years. In 1998, Congress passed the Copyright Term Extension Act, which is known as the Sonny Bono Act after its chief promoter on Capitol Hill. That law extended the basic term to life plus 70 years; works for hire (in which a third party owns the rights to a creative work), pseudonymous and anonymous works were protected for 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.

Along the way, Congress extended copyright protection from written works to movies, recordings, performances and ultimately to almost all works, both published and unpublished.

Once a work enters the public domain, Jenkins observes, “community theaters can screen the films. Youth orchestras can perform the music publicly, without paying licensing fees. Online repositories such as the Internet Archive, HathiTrust, Google Books and the New York Public Library can make works fully available online. This helps enable both access to and preservation of cultural materials that might otherwise be lost to history.”"

Disney loses famous Mickey Mouse copyright in 2024, along with many others; CBS News, December 30, 2023

 CBS News ; Disney loses famous Mickey Mouse copyright in 2024, along with many others

"Copyright protections on many well-known books, films and musical compositions are set to expire in 2024. Disney's Mickey Mouse is getting a lot of attention as one famous iteration of the classic mouse is set to enter the public domain. CBS News' Jo Ling Kent has the story."

Republicans took away Disney’s special status in Florida. Now they’re gunning for Mickey himself; Los Angeles Times, May 11, 2022

 HUGO MARTÍN, Los Angeles Times; Republicans took away Disney’s special status in Florida. Now they’re gunning for Mickey himself

"No legislation has been proposed to extend the copyright a third time, and copyright experts and lawmakers say it’s not likely that any legislators will want to lead that battle, given the opposition and fury it generated in the 1990s. Other companies’ copyrighted characters would also expire, sending more notable characters into the public domain. 

Disney critics say the company continues to have influence over copyright law, pointing to the recent naming of Suzanne Wilson as the general counsel and associate register of copyrights for the United States Copyright Office. She formerly oversaw intellectual property and interactive and media legal functions for Walt Disney Co.

Legal experts say the debate over copyright protection is moot because the only version of Mickey Mouse that is expiring is the 1928 black-and-white one depicted in “Steamboat Willie.” Copyright protections remain in place for later versions of Mickey Mouse, the more commercially recognized one that wears white gloves, has bigger ears, distinctive eyes and a pet dog named Pluto, according to experts.

Crucially, Disney also still holds trademark protection on Mickey Mouse, which does not expire. While a copyright keeps other companies from replicating the Mickey Mouse image, a trademark ensures that other companies can’t use the Mickey Mouse image in a way that might suggest their products are made by Disney."

The latest news on 'To Kill a Mockingbird' shows how big corporations control copyright law; Los Angeles Times, 3/14/16

Michael Hiltzik, Los Angeles Times; The latest news on 'To Kill a Mockingbird' shows how big corporations control copyright law:

"According to a March 4 notice issued by Hachette to booksellers and reported by the New Republic, permission for the mass-market edition has been withdrawn by the novel's publisher, HarperCollins. (HarperCollins also brought out "Go Set a Watchman.") Hachette can sell off its remaining copies, which it's doing at a further discount, but henceforth "Mockingbird" will be available chiefly in a HarperCollins trade paperback edition, which lists for $14.99.

The burden will fall on school districts that traditionally laid in a large volume of mass-market books for their pupils. Hachette says that more than two-thirds of the 30 million copies sold worldwide since publication have been its low-priced edition. Hachette told bookstores, according to the New Republic: "The disappearance of the iconic mass-market edition is very disappointing to us, especially as we understand this could force a difficult situation for schools and teachers with tight budgets who cannot afford the larger, higher priced paperback edition that will remain in the market."

The real problem this development points to is with copyright law, which has been getting consistently rewritten in the United States and other countries to extend the length of authors' rights to the point where their heirs, and heirs of heirs, are the chief beneficiaries of the copyright. But that's only superficially. The real beneficiaries are corporations, which continue to profit from successful works of art for decades after their creators have passed on. Corporations such as HarperCollins...

Yet as we can see from the extinction of the mass-market paperback of "Mockingbird," such extensions stifle the dissemination of creative works rather than encourage it. The squabble over the copyright to Anne Frank's diaries, which we reported on here, also illustrates how the grip of copyright law leaves the control of creative works in the hands of people who may not share the desires of the works' creators. Harper Lee has passed on, Anne Frank is long gone, and Walt Disney is represented in the marketplace by a corporation that is hopelessly far removed from his artistic and even his business creation."