Connect with us

Business

Column: A Faulkner classic and Popeye enter the public domain while copyright only gets more confusing

Published

on

Column: A Faulkner classic and Popeye enter the public domain while copyright only gets more confusing

Last year, it was Mickey Mouse. This year, Popeye the Sailor joins Mickey as a new entrant to the public domain — that is, shedding his core copyright protections on Jan. 1.

He’s merely the most familiar cultural artifact to enter the public domain on Wednesday. But as Jennifer Jenkins, co-director of Duke University’s Center for the Study of the Public Domain notes in her indispensable annual roster of newly public works (posted this year with co-director James Boyle), Popeye’s initial appearance in print is among thousands of culturally and artistically significant works to become copyright-free. That means they become available for anyone to copy, share and expand upon without paying their creators for rights.

This year’s treasure trove includes literary works originally published in 1929, meaning their 95-year copyrights expire on New Year’s Day. They include William Faulkner’s novel “The Sound and the Fury,” in which he began to perfect his literary style and his gloss on racial and social stratification in his native Mississippi; Ernest Hemingway’s “A Farewell to Arms”; and Virginia Woolf’s essay “A Room of One’s Own.”

Community theaters can screen the films. Youth orchestras can perform the music publicly, without paying licensing fees. Online repositories … can make works fully available online. This helps enable both access to and preservation of cultural materials that might otherwise be lost to history.

— Jennifer Jenkins, Duke University, on the value of the public domain

Advertisement

There are also Dashiell Hammett’s “The Maltese Falcon,” originally published as a serial in Black Mask magazine, and John Steinbeck’s first novel, “Cup of Gold.”

Among films, the haul includes the Marx Brothers’ first movie, “The Cocoanuts,” which was based on a George S. Kaufman Broadway musical and betrays its stagebound genesis in almost every scene; Alfred Hitchcock’s first sound film, “Blackmail,” and an early film adaptation of Edna Ferber’s “Show Boat” — a 1929 version of Ferber’s novel, not the musical version, which was filmed in 1936 and, more familiarly, in 1951.

Interpretations of copyright law haven’t been as divergent as they’ve become over the last year or two. The reason is AI, or at least the development of AI bots “trained” on copyrighted written, musical and artistic works. Numerous lawsuits brought by creators are making their way through the federal courts.

AI developers generally claim that their feeding copyrighted works into their bots’ databases falls within the “fair use” exception to copyright protection. The fair use doctrine, as the U.S. Copyright Office puts is, allows the use of “limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports.”

Advertisement

Whether a particular use qualifies “is notoriously fact-specific,” Jenkins told me. “So it’s hard to shoot a straight arrow through all the cases,” in part because the judgment of whether a use is exempt from copyright depends on whether creators can show that the use caused harm to the market for their works.

“It’s a wild patchwork of cases,” Jenkins says, “but the central issue to all is the same, namely is it fair use to train your AI model on copyrighted content, but the specifics vary. Often I have something resembling a prediction of how fair use cases are going to come out, but really cannot predict which way these cases are going to go. It’s a moving target in copyright land.”

This isn’t the first time that technological change has roiled the copyright landscape. One precedent is the Google Books case, in which authors and publishers sued Google to block its effort to create a searchable database of written works by digitizing copyrighted works along with works in the public domain.

The ultimate settlement allows Google to digitize books for the database, but to display only limited “snippets” of copyright-protected works to users — enough to enable users to search for specific words or phrases, but not to access significant portions of the works.

Also entering the public domain this week, as Jenkins observes, are about a dozen Mickey Mouse films, including one in which he speaks his first words (“Hot dogs! Hot dogs!”) and wears his iconic white gloves. That depiction of Mickey is now copyright-free; the ur-Mickey depicted in the Walt Disney short “Steamboat Willie” entered the public domain on Jan. 1, 2024, but later depictions such as the white gloves were still subject to copyright restrictions based on when they first appeared on film.

Advertisement

Popeye first appeared as a peripheral character in January 1929 in E.C. Segar’s “Thimble Theatre” comic strip. He garnered such instant popularity that Segar eventually refashioned the strip around him. Some story elements, such as the role of spinach as a source of his superhuman strength, became part of his persona over subsequent years.

Popeye also gives us a window into how a character’s entry into the public domain doesn’t require subsequent exploitations to adhere to his or her original conception.

Los Angeles copyright attorney Aaron Moss observes in his own curtain-raising post about public domain day 2025 that several Popeye-inspired horror films, “including ‘Popeye the Slayer Man,’ set in an abandoned spinach cannery, and ‘Shiver Me Timbers,’ featuring a meteor that ‘transforms Popeye into an unstoppable killing machine,’” have already been announced.

Similarly, er, disrespectful treatments of Mickey Mouse and Winnie-the-Pooh (a member of the public domain class of 2022) have been produced or announced.

The copyright rules for music are particularly convoluted. “Fats” Waller songs including “Ain’t Misbehavin’” and “(What Did I Do to Be So) Black and Blue” are entering the public domain, which should help to augment Waller’s reputation as a jazz and Broadway innovator. So too are George Gershwin’s “An American in Paris” and the popular standards “Tiptoe Through the Tulips” (lyrics by Alfred Dubin, music by Joseph Burke), “Happy Days Are Here Again” (lyrics by Jack Yellen, music by Milton Ager) and “What Is This Thing Called Love?” by Cole Porter.

Advertisement

But as Jenkins notes, only the compositions — what appears on the sheet music — and not any particular recordings are entering the public domain. So the version of “Tiptoe” recorded by Tiny Tim, which made that artist a popular star in 1968, is still under copyright.

“Singin’ in the Rain,” which most people associate with the 1952 film musical of that name, is entering the public domain.

Fans of the Gene Kelly/Debbie Reynolds film may be unaware that it was conceived by Arthur Freed, then the head of MGM’s musical feature unit, as a vehicle to exploit the back catalog of songs he and composer Nacio Herb Brown had written in the 1920s and 1930s; of the 16 full-length and excerpted songs in the movie, all but two were original products of their collaboration or had words by Freed or music by Brown. “Moses Supposes” was written by others for the movie and “Make ‘Em Laugh,” by Freed and Brown, was acknowledged by Stanley Donen, who co-directed the firm with Kelly, to be a transparent rip-off of Cole Porter’s “Be a Clown.”

(My favorite backstage nugget about the movie’s production involves the physical torment that Reynolds, not a trained dancer, suffered at the hands of the perfectionist Kelly, which left her with bloodied feet after filming the “Good Morning” number. A close scrutiny of the scene reveals Reynolds continually glancing at the ground to make sure she was hitting her marks as she tried to keep in step with Kelly and co-star Donald O’Connor; anyway, no one can claim it doesn’t work perfectly.)

Sound recordings from 1924 are entering the public domain thanks to the 2018 Music Modernization Act. They include Gershwin’s recording of “Rhapsody in Blue” and Al Jolson’s recording of “California Here I Come.” But regular sound recordings made in 1929 are granted 100-year copyrights, so they won’t be available until 2030.

Advertisement

Another exception covers music made to accompany movies, which receive the same copyright terms as the films. Accordingly, Jenkins notes, the recorded version of “Singin’ in the Rain” heard in the film “The Hollywood Revue of 1929” goes royalty-free on Jan.1, but not the version sung by Kelly in the 1952 movie.

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.”

Advertisement

Indeed, as Jenkins and others have documented, overly long copyright terms often keep older works out of the mainstream. “Films have disintegrated because preservationists can’t digitize them,” Jenkins has written. “The works of historians and journalists are incomplete. Artists find their cultural heritage off-limits.”

The countervailing benefits are minimal. The artistic lobby — specifically corporate owners of copyrighted content — maintain that longer terms protect the income streams of content creators, producing an incentive to create. But the truth is that after the first few years of publication the commercial value of the vast majority of copyrighted works declines precipitously to almost nothing. The value that might arise from follow-on creations of public domain works remains locked away and the copyrighted works become forgotten.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Business

With New Amazon Prime Show ‘On Call,’ Dick Wolf Enters Streaming

Published

on

With New Amazon Prime Show ‘On Call,’ Dick Wolf Enters Streaming

Around 2010, Dick Wolf’s vast television empire was suddenly coming undone.

First, NBC abruptly canceled his network mainstay, “Law & Order,” which had been on the air for two decades, a move that stunned Mr. Wolf’s small production company. A year later, two “Law & Order” spinoffs were unceremoniously shown the door. All that was left was “Law & Order: SVU,” a relatively slim slate for a company that prized multiple lines of revenue and that had made Mr. Wolf a very rich man. After all, Mr. Wolf has repeated a mantra for decades: “No show, no business.”

“It was a little tight there for a minute,” said Peter Jankowski, Mr. Wolf’s longtime No. 2.

The TV industry was migrating away from a decades-old staple that had made Mr. Wolf a dominant figure in prime-time viewing: the close-ended “procedural.” That popular genre of programming presented a conflict and a tidy resolution — generally in a courtroom, hospital or police precinct — all within an hour’s time (including commercials).

Instead, streaming outlets like Netflix, Amazon and Hulu were beginning to take flight, prestige TV (“It’s not TV, it’s HBO”) was ascendant, and complex, quirky, serialized programming was all the rage. Farewell, “CSI” and “Law & Order”; hello, “The Crown” and “Big Little Lies.”

Advertisement

Well, that was then.

In recent years, as Hollywood studios have slashed budgets and bid adieu to the Peak TV era, Mr. Wolf’s style of programming is coming back into vogue. The evidence is everywhere: Year after year, repeats of years-old network standbys like “Criminal Minds,” “NCIS” or “Grey’s Anatomy” populate Nielsen’s most-watched streaming shows, even as the studios spend tens of millions on grittier, more cinematic fare. Older series like “Suits,” “Prison Break” or “Young Sheldon” became unexpected hits over the last year when they began streaming on Netflix. Vulture recently declared “Network TV Is Officially Back.”

Continue Reading

Business

Liberty Mutual declined to renew this Southern California homeowner's policy. Now she's suing

Published

on

Liberty Mutual declined to renew this Southern California homeowner's policy. Now she's suing

A Southern California homeowner is suing Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. for declining to renew her longstanding insurance policy, accusing the company of dropping her for bogus reasons.

In the proposed class-action lawsuit, Maria Badin said she had been a Liberty Mutual customer since 1993, when she bought her home in Poway. She alleged that in late August, the insurance giant sent her a letter saying it would not be renewing her policy because an underwriting review involving an aerial inspection of her property had determined that there was “algae/mildew/mold/moss” on her roof.

Badin said she was not aware of any contamination issues. Soon after, she hired an independent, licensed roofing company to inspect her roof, which she said found no evidence of algae, mildew, mold or moss.

“Driven by a desire to maximize profits, property casualty insurance companies, including Defendants, have engaged in a troubling trend of dropping California homeowners’ insurance policies like flies,” said the complaint, filed Dec. 19 in San Diego County Superior Court.

Advertisement

“Homeowners, who have dutifully paid their premiums for years, have been, and are, being blindsided by Defendants’ nonrenewal notices informing them their policy will not continue — for stated reasons that are demonstratively false.”

If a judge grants Badin’s request to make the case a class action, it would be broadened to include some number of Liberty Mutual customers who were also denied renewal “based on a condition of their property that was misrepresented by Defendants,” according to the suit.

The lawsuit comes as insurers have been pulling back from California’s home insurance market en masse, often citing the risk of catastrophic events brought on by climate change. State Farm General, Farmers, Allstate and other companies have all declined to write or limited new policies, or tightened their underwriting standards.

The firms are blaming wildfires, inflation that raised reconstruction costs, higher prices for reinsurance they buy to boost their balance sheets and protect themselves from catastrophes, as well as outdated state regulations — claims disputed by some consumer advocates.

That has led to a flurry of activity in Sacramento aimed at making coverage available and affordable. On Monday, the state released another regulation aimed at easing California’s home insurance crisis, allowing insurers to charge homeowners higher premiums to protect themselves from catastrophic wildfire claims.

Advertisement

In her lawsuit, Badin said she emailed a copy of the roofing company’s findings to Liberty Mutual with a request for the insurance provider to rescind its nonrenewal. Liberty Mutual responded in early October, saying the issues “appear to still be present at your property” and reiterating that the decision remained valid, according to the complaint.

Badin, who said she now pays more money for “a reduced quality of coverage” with another provider, is asking the court for punitive damages.

A spokesperson for Boston-based Liberty Mutual said Friday that the company does not publicly comment on litigation.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

TikTok and Government Clash in Last Round of Supreme Court Briefs

Published

on

TikTok and Government Clash in Last Round of Supreme Court Briefs

The two sides in the momentous clash at the Supreme Court over a measure that could shut down TikTok made their closing written arguments on Friday, sharply disputing China’s influence over the site and the role the First Amendment should play in evaluating the law.

Their briefs, filed on an exceptionally abbreviated schedule set last month by the justices, were part of a high-stakes showdown over the government’s insistence that ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company, sell the app’s operations in the United States or shut it down. The Supreme Court, in an effort to resolve the case before the law’s Jan. 19 deadline, will hear arguments at a special session next Friday.

The court’s ruling, which could come this month, will decide the fate of a powerful and pervasive cultural phenomenon that uses a sophisticated algorithm to feed a personalized array of short videos to users. TikTok has become, particularly for younger generations, a leading source of information and entertainment.

“Rarely if ever has the court confronted a free-speech case that matters to so many people,” a brief filed Friday on behalf of a group of TikTok users said. “170 million Americans use TikTok on a regular basis to communicate, entertain themselves, and follow news and current events. If the government prevails here, users in America will lose access to the platform’s billions of videos.”

The briefs made only glancing or indirect references to President-elect Donald J. Trump’s unusual request last week that the Supreme Court temporarily block the law so that he can address the matter once he takes office.

Advertisement

The deadline set by the law for TikTok to be sold or shut down is Jan. 19, the day before Mr. Trump’s inauguration.

“This unfortunate timing,” his brief said, “interferes with President Trump’s ability to manage the United States’ foreign policy and to pursue a resolution to both protect national security and save a social-media platform that provides a popular vehicle for 170 million Americans to exercise their core First Amendment rights.”

The law allows the president to extend the deadline for 90 days in limited circumstances. But that provision does not appear to apply, as it requires the president to certify to Congress that there has been significant progress toward a sale backed by “relevant binding legal agreements.”

TikTok’s brief stressed that the First Amendment protects Americans’ access to the speech of foreign adversaries even if it is propaganda. The alternative to outright censorship, they wrote, is a legal requirement that the source of the speech be disclosed.

“Disclosure is the time-tested, least-restrictive alternative to address a concern the public is being misled about the source or nature of speech received — including in the foreign-affairs and national-security contexts,” TikTok’s brief said.

Advertisement

The users’ brief echoed the point. “The most our customs and case law permit,” it said, “is a requirement to disclose foreign influence, so the people have full information to decide what to believe.”

The government said that approach would not work. “Such a generic, standing disclosure would be patently ineffective,” Elizabeth B. Prelogar, the U.S. solicitor general, wrote on Friday.

In a brief filed last week in the case, TikTok v. Garland, No. 24-656, the government said foreign propaganda may be addressed without violating the Constitution.

“The First Amendment would not have required our nation to tolerate Soviet ownership and control of American radio stations (or other channels of communication and critical infrastructure) during the Cold War,” the brief said, “and it likewise does not require us to tolerate ownership and control of TikTok by a foreign adversary today.”

The users’ brief disputed that statement. “In fact,” the brief said, “the United States tolerated the publication of Pravda — the prototypical tool of Soviet propaganda — in this country at the height of the Cold War.”

Advertisement

TikTok itself said the government was wrong to fault it for its failure to “squarely deny” an assertion that “ByteDance has engaged in censorship or manipulated content on its platforms at the direction of” the Chinese government.

Censorship is “a loaded term,” TikTok’s brief said. In any event, the brief added, “petitioners do squarely deny that TikTok has ever removed or restricted content in other countries at China’s request.”

Continue Reading

Trending