Speaker 1: I guess what will what's that? So this week I
Speaker 1: started looking up Harry Potter knockoffs and they are so terrible.
Speaker 1: I love them so much. So there's this one book
Speaker 1: in Spanish called Harry perez Uh and he's got his
Speaker 1: friends Ron and Harmonia and they take on this evil
Speaker 1: character named Condomort. I love how they change everyone's name
Speaker 1: except Ron's, like there's no alternative name for Ron. There's
Speaker 1: also one from Russia where he's kind of more a
Speaker 1: rock star and he rides a double bass instead of
Speaker 1: a broom. But my favorite one is from China where
Speaker 1: Harry has to chase down Baltimore's protege Dmort, who apparently
Speaker 1: used to work for the circus under the name Naughty Bubble.
Speaker 1: And there's also kind of into this check this out
Speaker 1: for some reason. There's also a character named Big Spinach
Speaker 1: in it, but none of it makes any sense. And
Speaker 1: can you imagine, like how bummed you'd be if you
Speaker 1: ask for a Harry Potter book from your parents and
Speaker 1: instead they brought you one of these knock on I'm
Speaker 1: kind of these, but you know, seeing all these crazy titles,
Speaker 1: maybe wonder how does copyright work? Like why can you
Speaker 1: remix of Sherlock Home Story, but not use Felix the
Speaker 1: Cat to advertise your work, Like, why are people so
Speaker 1: excited about two thou nineteens public domain day? We're gonna
Speaker 1: get into all of this. Let's dig in either podcast listeners,
Speaker 1: Welcome to Part Time Genius. I'm Will Pearson and as
Speaker 1: always I'm joined by my good friend Man Guesh how
Speaker 1: Ticketer and on the other side of the soundproof class
Speaker 1: celebrating the demise of copyright by eating or those those
Speaker 1: Charleston June they are and dancing the Charleston that's our
Speaker 1: friend and producer Tristan McNeil. All right, so just explain
Speaker 1: a little bit. I have to point out that part
Speaker 1: of the reason Tristan is doing this is because he's
Speaker 1: laring the Charleston song. It took me a minute to
Speaker 1: uh figure this out. You could probably hear this in
Speaker 1: the background now. The song itself was written to accompany
Speaker 1: the dance back when it debuted back in nineteen three,
Speaker 1: and it kicked off this national craze. What's notable about
Speaker 1: this is that two thousand nineteen actually marks the end
Speaker 1: of the Charleston's Songs copyright protection. I don't know if
Speaker 1: you knew this, if you've been following this, but that
Speaker 1: is the case. So now anyone can make a new
Speaker 1: recording of the song or play a nineteen twenty three
Speaker 1: performance of it on a podcast, all without having to
Speaker 1: pay a dime or worry about getting sued, at least
Speaker 1: I hope that, which is obviously great news for any
Speaker 1: listeners who are into the Charleston or at least as
Speaker 1: into it as Tristan is. Apparently I guess so. But
Speaker 1: you know, it turns out there's a lot of reasons
Speaker 1: the party like it's nineteen twenty three this month, even
Speaker 1: if you're not a Charleston fan, and that's because the
Speaker 1: slew of works from this year have just entered the
Speaker 1: public domain for the very first time, I believe it
Speaker 1: or not. This is actually the first mass influx of
Speaker 1: public domain material in the US in twenty years, I think.
Speaker 1: So we'll get exactly why this is and how it
Speaker 1: involves Mickey Mouse a little bit later, but the main
Speaker 1: takeaway is that thousands of classic books and movies and
Speaker 1: songs and other works of art they are now free
Speaker 1: to use, remix, sell all without any legal restriction around them,
Speaker 1: which is why we're marking the occasion with an episode
Speaker 1: all about the ins and outs of copyright. So we'll
Speaker 1: talk a little bit about the history of copyright law,
Speaker 1: including why the terms have been extended in the US,
Speaker 1: and also what makes this year so different from others.
Speaker 1: Plus we'll take a closer look at the public domain
Speaker 1: class of two nineteen to see exactly what sort of
Speaker 1: hidden treasures just fell into our laps. But you know, well,
Speaker 1: where do you want to start off here? Alright? Well,
Speaker 1: I thought we should give our listeners a little bit
Speaker 1: of context to all of this. So for starters, January
Speaker 1: one is recognized all around the world is Public Domain Day,
Speaker 1: and actually didn't know that until we were doing our
Speaker 1: research for this episode. But the way that it works
Speaker 1: is that at the stroke of midnight on New Year's Eve,
Speaker 1: older works automatically enter the public domain as they age
Speaker 1: out of their copyright terms. But this is where things
Speaker 1: get a little bit tricky. So different countries have their
Speaker 1: own rules for how long a work can remain under copyright,
Speaker 1: So most countries will provide copyright protection for the life
Speaker 1: of their author, plus a certain set number of years
Speaker 1: beyond that, like the author's life plus fifty or seventy
Speaker 1: or whatever it may be. But in the US things
Speaker 1: have traditionally worked a little bit differently. So here copyrights
Speaker 1: made prior to night have nothing to do with the
Speaker 1: lifespan of the works author. Instead, these copyright materials are
Speaker 1: protected for a flat ninety five years after their first publication.
Speaker 1: It always makes you wonder, like where they come up
Speaker 1: with the number. But so, just as an example, the
Speaker 1: Grapes of Wrath won't enter the U S public domain
Speaker 1: until January of two thousand thirty five, because that will
Speaker 1: be ninety five years after it was first published. Now,
Speaker 1: on the other hand, readers in places like Canada and
Speaker 1: New Zealand can ead and rework the text for free
Speaker 1: starting this year, and that's because two thousand nineteen is
Speaker 1: fifty years after the death of the book's author, John Steinbeck.
Speaker 1: Isn't that weird? Like something about that like feels so
Speaker 1: off to me. I mean, it's this like quintessential American
Speaker 1: novel and people in other countries actually get to do
Speaker 1: whatever they want with it first, I know, three decades
Speaker 1: before Americans get to It's super weird that it actually
Speaker 1: reminds you. I was reading about the rights to the
Speaker 1: song this Land Is Your Land, which, of course you
Speaker 1: know what he got through wrote the lyrics too, and
Speaker 1: that's a piece of music that just feels inseparable from
Speaker 1: the American identity, and it's kind of become this great
Speaker 1: American almost like an anthem. Ever since it was published
Speaker 1: back in but again for Canada and other countries with
Speaker 1: copyright terms of life plus fifty years, that song ended
Speaker 1: in the public domain last year, whereas in the US
Speaker 1: you'll actually have to wait till one to be able
Speaker 1: to use it. And that's when you're planning to put
Speaker 1: out a dub step reminder. That's right, absolutely, But before
Speaker 1: we move on, I do want to mention that this
Speaker 1: Land is Your Land is kind of a fun a
Speaker 1: case to look at. So the lyrics plain that the
Speaker 1: land belongs to you and me, and that was actually
Speaker 1: got Three's intention for the song to in He published
Speaker 1: the song with a copyright notice that read quote, this
Speaker 1: song is copyrighted in the US for a period of
Speaker 1: twenty eight years, and anybody caught singing it without our
Speaker 1: permission will be mighty good friends of our because we
Speaker 1: don't give it, durn publish it, write it, sing it,
Speaker 1: swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that's all
Speaker 1: we wanted to do. That's hilarious. I'm curious that, like,
Speaker 1: why didn't the song under the public domain in the seventies,
Speaker 1: you know, like what he wanted it to. Well, apparently
Speaker 1: the publisher renewed the copyright at some point without gut
Speaker 1: Thrie's input, So the song's copyright status wound up being
Speaker 1: extended and now it's covered by the current ninety five
Speaker 1: year term we have in the U. S Alright, well
Speaker 1: in that case, I mean, now seems like a good
Speaker 1: time to break down the key changes to the copyright
Speaker 1: law that have taken place here in the US over
Speaker 1: you know, over several decades. But don't worry about your
Speaker 1: eyes glazing over because I'm going to try to keep
Speaker 1: this short and sweet good. So they basically American copyright
Speaker 1: law began with the Constitution with grants Congress the power
Speaker 1: to bestow exclusive rights to the author of a work
Speaker 1: for quote limited times. So at first that limited time
Speaker 1: meant fourteen years, with the option to renew for another
Speaker 1: fourteen years, making the max possible twenty eight years. Those
Speaker 1: rules were mended over time that went by nineteen o nine,
Speaker 1: both copyright terms had doubled to twenty eight years or
Speaker 1: fifty six total, I guess, got it. So that's where
Speaker 1: would you would have gotten that twenty eight year term
Speaker 1: he claimed, you know, for the copyright he was talking about.
Speaker 1: But you know, I'm sure he never intended to renew
Speaker 1: the song for that second twenty eight year period, that's right.
Speaker 1: So then you fast forward to nineteen seventy six and
Speaker 1: the extension started getting kind of out of hand. So
Speaker 1: the fifty six year period was bumped up to a
Speaker 1: full seventy five years, meaning that any work produced through
Speaker 1: nineteen twenty two would be copyright protected until nineteen. Then,
Speaker 1: in just as the nineteen twenty three copyrights were about
Speaker 1: to expire for the next year, a new piece of
Speaker 1: legislation was passed. It makes you wonder why people were
Speaker 1: so interested in changing the legislation, But the new law
Speaker 1: attacked on another twenty years for the copyright of any
Speaker 1: work made between nineteen twenty three and nineteen seventy seven.
Speaker 1: And that's actually why there's this big twenty year gap
Speaker 1: that we're just coming out of right now. That is
Speaker 1: exactly right. So those extra two decades added in, you know,
Speaker 1: was when this happened, it basically put a freeze on
Speaker 1: the public domain editions. So the works that were scheduled
Speaker 1: inner the public domain were suddenly off the table for
Speaker 1: another twenty years. And so that's what made New Years
Speaker 1: of nineteen such a big deal. I mean, the drought
Speaker 1: is finally and I'm guessing that's for the foreseevil future
Speaker 1: to right, like, like like a whole year's worth of work
Speaker 1: should end of the public domain every year now, ongoing, right, right,
Speaker 1: And this really just the beginning of like four decades
Speaker 1: worth of annual time capsules, you know, so you know,
Speaker 1: long as corporations don't succeed in extending the copyright terms
Speaker 1: even further. Although if we're being fair, it's not like
Speaker 1: the last twenty years haven't brought any new additions to
Speaker 1: the public domain from this era, because plenty of works
Speaker 1: from the nineteen twenties through the nineteen seventies have already
Speaker 1: entered the public domain because their copyrights were never renewed
Speaker 1: for one reason or another. And in fact, one study
Speaker 1: from two thousand eleven suggested that as many as nine
Speaker 1: of works published in the nineteen twenties were never renewed
Speaker 1: at all, and the same is true for roughly sixty
Speaker 1: of the works from the nineteen forties, so there were
Speaker 1: a ton of them that were out there. So basically
Speaker 1: that extension in nine only applied to the works whose
Speaker 1: copyrights were still active at that time, and so anything
Speaker 1: that hadn't been previously renewed was already fair game for
Speaker 1: public use. Of course, the tricky part has been determining
Speaker 1: whether an old copyright has lapsed or not. Yeah, I'm
Speaker 1: guessing that's a pretty murky business trying to figure all
Speaker 1: that out, it is, And you know, so in the
Speaker 1: past that's been safer to air on the side of
Speaker 1: caution and just kind of steer clear of any work
Speaker 1: whose status was in question, of course, to avoid getting sued.
Speaker 1: But now the concerns are out the window, at least
Speaker 1: as far as works from three go, and now that
Speaker 1: they passed the year mark, we know for certain that
Speaker 1: they're in the public domain. So I know there's probably
Speaker 1: some folks listening or thinking, okay, but who cares about
Speaker 1: all this old timey stuff anyway. You know, it's not
Speaker 1: like I'm gonna start listening to chart toppers from the
Speaker 1: nineteen twenties or whatever. But you know, that's totally fair.
Speaker 1: But here's the thing that Gabe was pointing out to me.
Speaker 1: Most of us honestly don't know what we've been missing
Speaker 1: out on. Like the public domain provides this great chance
Speaker 1: for overlooked works to find a second lease on life.
Speaker 1: And if you look at what happened to It's a
Speaker 1: Wonderful Life. You know, that movie actually flopped when it
Speaker 1: was first released, but once it entered the public domain,
Speaker 1: it slowly became a holiday classic. And that success only
Speaker 1: happened because TV networks were actually able to play the
Speaker 1: movie for free year after year. So in this weird way,
Speaker 1: it's like cultural worth is actually greater today than it
Speaker 1: would have been had it remained under a copyright. You
Speaker 1: know this this author Glenn Fleishman, and he had this
Speaker 1: great quote in this article for The Atlantic, and and
Speaker 1: he said, quote, only so much that's created has room
Speaker 1: to persist in memory, culture and scholarship. Some works may
Speaker 1: have been forgotten because they were simply terrible or perishable,
Speaker 1: but it's also the case that a lack of access
Speaker 1: to these works and digital forms limits whether they get
Speaker 1: considered at all. I mean, it's a good point and
Speaker 1: actually reminds me of something I came across this week
Speaker 1: from the American novelist Willi Cather, And you know, she
Speaker 1: once called nineteen twenty two the year the world broke
Speaker 1: in two, and that was because of all the big
Speaker 1: literary and cultural shakeups that took place that year. It
Speaker 1: was the start of the Harlem Renaissance, plus the publication
Speaker 1: of works like Ulysses by James Joyce and The Waste
Speaker 1: Land by T. S. Eliott. So to her, nineteen twenty
Speaker 1: two was this turning point, like there was a world
Speaker 1: before that year, and then there was a world after it.
Speaker 1: And it, strangely enough, that's also how things broke down
Speaker 1: in terms of US copyright law. So everything up through
Speaker 1: nine is now part of the public domain, but it's
Speaker 1: a different story for works from nineteen twenty three and
Speaker 1: beyond on. So hundreds of thousands of songs and movies
Speaker 1: and books and newspapers, magazines, like so many different things
Speaker 1: of that era had been held back for decades, longer
Speaker 1: than they should have been. And so as a result,
Speaker 1: you figure there have to be a lot of blind
Speaker 1: spots in our understanding of that period in American history. Yeah,
Speaker 1: like even things we know about like the Harlem Renaissance,
Speaker 1: the Great Depression, or World War Two. Like, we should
Speaker 1: get like a fuller picture once we get access to
Speaker 1: these materials. And also it'll be so fun to see
Speaker 1: them show up in memes and music and things. All right, well,
Speaker 1: I'm excited to hear what you think should make the
Speaker 1: cut this year. But before we share our favorites, let's
Speaker 1: take a quick break. You're listening to Part Time Genius,
Speaker 1: so we're talking about the giant wave of classic art
Speaker 1: that just entered the public domain this month. All right, Megan,
Speaker 1: So I'm curious which works are you most excited to
Speaker 1: have free of their copyrights this year. So I'm just
Speaker 1: gonna go ahead and get the literature picks out of
Speaker 1: the way first, because that's where you find a lot
Speaker 1: of the heavy hitters, and honestly, it's too many to
Speaker 1: go through. So for fiction, we've got stories from authors
Speaker 1: like Virginia Wolfe, Altice Huxley, Jane Austin Hemingway, and and
Speaker 1: then in terms of poetry, there's work from E. Cummings,
Speaker 1: William Carlos, Williams, Wallace Stevens, Pablo Neruda, Robert Frost, including
Speaker 1: one of his most famous poems, Stopping by Woods on
Speaker 1: a snowy evening like, which is just cool that these
Speaker 1: texts are out there and easier to explore and play
Speaker 1: with them before. But but what about you, Like, are
Speaker 1: are there any books you're happy to see in the
Speaker 1: public domain that was amazing to hear? Like all those
Speaker 1: heavy hitters? Yeah? Here, But I always like it when
Speaker 1: famous literary characters make their way into the public domain
Speaker 1: because you get a whole bunch of new takes on them,
Speaker 1: like that's what happened with Robin Hood or Sherlock Holmes.
Speaker 1: You know, I didn't think of that. So so what
Speaker 1: new characters are we getting to play with now? Alright? Well,
Speaker 1: two thousand nineteen is giving us access to new Tarzan
Speaker 1: stories from Edgar Rice Burrows, but also two of Agatha
Speaker 1: Christie's mystery novels star Belgian detective Hercule Paro, The Murder
Speaker 1: of Roger Ackroyd and The Murder on the Links. Wait,
Speaker 1: wasn't Tarzan already in the public domain? Though? Yeah, that's right,
Speaker 1: there's a story from nineteen ten that's been in the
Speaker 1: public domain. And actually there's one earlier poor Oh novel
Speaker 1: that's already there too. So how do the laws work
Speaker 1: with characters like that. I mean, can people just write
Speaker 1: their own new Tarzan stories or can they only publish
Speaker 1: and rework the existing books? Like is the copyright on
Speaker 1: the character or just the stories he appears in. Well,
Speaker 1: you can't actually copyright a name or a phrase or
Speaker 1: anything like that. But what you can do is get
Speaker 1: your character trademarked while it's still under copyright. So if
Speaker 1: you take the case of Tarzan, that's what the author's
Speaker 1: airs did. So even though the original Tarzan stories can
Speaker 1: be freely published and adapted for movies or comics or
Speaker 1: whatever else, you still can't publish your own original Tarzan
Speaker 1: books without receiving permission. And of course to do that
Speaker 1: you have to pay a fee to the Boroughs Estate.
Speaker 1: And so things are a little more I see when
Speaker 1: it comes to Poor Oh, and well, not all copyrighted
Speaker 1: characters qualify for trademark protection, and and some people you know,
Speaker 1: maintain that poor O does not qualify. So for reasons
Speaker 1: that they're they're a little too complicated to get into here.
Speaker 1: But until someone is willing to gamble, you know, a
Speaker 1: potential lawsuit to publish their own unauthorized story, the character's
Speaker 1: legal status is kind of in limb. So the new
Speaker 1: public domain additions for those characters are mostly exciting because
Speaker 1: it means there are new Tarzan stories or poor Oh
Speaker 1: mysteries that can be safely adapted are altered by anyone,
Speaker 1: even if the characters themselves are still otherwise off limits.
Speaker 1: So I am a little worried about what that might
Speaker 1: mean for my next pick here, because even though two
Speaker 1: nine frees up the rights to a bunch of classic
Speaker 1: silent films from people like Buster Keaton, Charlie Chaplain, Laurel,
Speaker 1: and Hardy, which is awesome, by the way, because like
Speaker 1: it would be so amazing to start seeing these movies
Speaker 1: on late night TV. But you know, the one I
Speaker 1: was most personally excited about was the Felix the Cat cartoons,
Speaker 1: which just hit the public domain, and I was kind
Speaker 1: of hoping we could add it to the PTG logo
Speaker 1: or just make him like the official show mascot or something,
Speaker 1: but I'm guessing that's not the case if he's still trademark, right,
Speaker 1: you know, Felix was the one that stood out to
Speaker 1: me too, So I actually did a little bit of
Speaker 1: digging on this, and it turns out that even though
Speaker 1: the character is still technically trademarked by DreamWorks. They only
Speaker 1: control his use in certain instances, and and you know,
Speaker 1: of course that's really around advertising, So how does that
Speaker 1: work exactly? So you could actually publish your own Felix
Speaker 1: the cat comic strips and even adapt those new stories
Speaker 1: into animated shorts, but weirdly, you just can't include Felix
Speaker 1: himself and any of the advertising for that. Apparently DreamWorks
Speaker 1: also owns the Felix trademark for quote life saving instruments,
Speaker 1: so I guess a line of Felix branded fire extinguishers
Speaker 1: is totally off. I feel like that's exactly where I
Speaker 1: was going with us, like Felix EpiPens and detectors. But
Speaker 1: you know, if cartoons aren't your thing, we've also got
Speaker 1: plenty of new public domain songs to keep us busy.
Speaker 1: And there's some real chestnuts here, uh tunes like Dizzy
Speaker 1: Fingers Horsey keep your tail up, I know that's a favorite,
Speaker 1: the Pierson household raft and that timeless romantic valid o
Speaker 1: g Oh gosh, oh golly, I'm in love. I think
Speaker 1: these are probably in that collection of that old amberola,
Speaker 1: like the house that's all those wax cylinders. That's pretty
Speaker 1: cool to listen to, but you know it truly was
Speaker 1: a different time. I was actually listening to a few
Speaker 1: songs from our list this week, and I was struck
Speaker 1: by how many of them were just kind of wide eyed,
Speaker 1: upbeat nonsense. Like there was this one that was basically
Speaker 1: about how strange it is that the earth rotates and
Speaker 1: that it can be daytime in one part of the
Speaker 1: world at nighttime, and another was riveting song, but and
Speaker 1: I guess for fun, they just throw in a bunch
Speaker 1: of gibbers that doesn't rhyme or fit the meter or anything.
Speaker 1: So there's this one line that goes, when it's nighttime
Speaker 1: in Italy, it's Wednesday over here, when it's fish day
Speaker 1: in Germany, you can't get shaved in Massachusetts. And the
Speaker 1: whole thing is just so bizarre, and I'm really hoping
Speaker 1: this catches on again. That is amazing and in the
Speaker 1: same vein if that old timy nonsense songs, I'm pretty
Speaker 1: pumped at the copyright finally expired on Yes we Have
Speaker 1: No Bananas Today, which is actually one of the songs
Speaker 1: I know. I would definitely leave it to you to
Speaker 1: zero in on the banana song. And a bunch of these.
Speaker 1: But weirdly, it turns out there's actually a sequel song
Speaker 1: called the um. It's called I've Got the Yes, we
Speaker 1: Have No Banana Blues and uh. Since it was released
Speaker 1: the same year as the originally, it's now in the
Speaker 1: public domain as well. So why did they do a
Speaker 1: follow up song? Was just that popular? It's basically a
Speaker 1: response to how popular the first song was and how
Speaker 1: sick everyone was of hearing it all the time. And
Speaker 1: so one of the line says, quote, it hasn't got
Speaker 1: a bit of sense, and I go wild when they
Speaker 1: commenced bananas bananas. I wish I could break up a
Speaker 1: million pianos. I get it. I kind of love that
Speaker 1: this song is going to start annoying everyone all over
Speaker 1: again with back out there, And I was I guess
Speaker 1: that's kind of the scenario that these annual copyright expirations
Speaker 1: allow for. So it's nice to have them back in
Speaker 1: the mix. Yeah, I guess that's true. But you know,
Speaker 1: we can probably make a more compelling case for them
Speaker 1: than that, I'm guessing. I mean, the public domain is
Speaker 1: good for lots of stuff beyond just annoying your friends
Speaker 1: with weird old songs, No, no question, it's just fun
Speaker 1: to read all those lyrics and everything. But all right, well,
Speaker 1: now that we've checked out some of the most notable
Speaker 1: inductees for this year, I do think we should take
Speaker 1: a closer look at the benefits that come from having
Speaker 1: the growing catalog of public domain works. Yeah, it sounds great,
Speaker 1: but before we get into that, let's take another quick break.
Speaker 1: All right, So we spent a lot of time to
Speaker 1: day singing the praises of the public domain and kind
Speaker 1: of lamenting all the extensions that certain copyrights have been
Speaker 1: granted over the years. And honestly, at this point, I'm
Speaker 1: a little bit worried that people might get the impression
Speaker 1: that we are anti copyright. Well, I mean, I do
Speaker 1: think we could survive that sort of scandal, But let's
Speaker 1: go ahead and make the case for copyrights anyway, just
Speaker 1: to be safe. It's actually something we're doing because even
Speaker 1: though copyrights can feel annoying or restrictive, the core idea
Speaker 1: makes a lot of sense granting creators the right to
Speaker 1: control how their work is used, and in its purest form,
Speaker 1: copyright protections benefit not just creators but society as a whole.
Speaker 1: So the idea is like, that's how copyrights were framed
Speaker 1: in the U S Constitution. It was kind of this
Speaker 1: way to promote the progress of science and useful arts,
Speaker 1: and again in the first copyright law of sev. Nine,
Speaker 1: it was thought of as a way to further the
Speaker 1: encouragement of learning. I mean, it's interesting, was you almost
Speaker 1: guess that we're talking about the public domain again and
Speaker 1: not copyrights? I mean, how does restricting access to a
Speaker 1: work encourage learning or promote science and art? So the
Speaker 1: idea is that it isn't like a short term fix it,
Speaker 1: it's one for the long run. So the basic idea
Speaker 1: is that copyright protection offers an incentive for people to
Speaker 1: create new works. I mean, why go to the trouble
Speaker 1: of writing a book or making a movie if anyone
Speaker 1: can just copy it right after it's made public? Right. So,
Speaker 1: one way I've seen it described is that copyright is
Speaker 1: basically a contract between creators and society. They continue making
Speaker 1: new stuff and in return, we promised not to rip
Speaker 1: it off for muck with it for about twenty eight
Speaker 1: years or however long, at which point the work belongs
Speaker 1: to everyone. I mean, I get that the premises sound,
Speaker 1: but it does it feels like these copyright terms have
Speaker 1: kind of balloons so much that we've we've kind of
Speaker 1: lost sight of their original purpose. Yeah, I mean, the
Speaker 1: trouble is that there's always someone arguing that the length
Speaker 1: of the copyright is too short to make a profit.
Speaker 1: And back in the days of fourteen and twenty eight
Speaker 1: year terms, content creators may have had a point. But
Speaker 1: you know, now that we're up to ninety five years
Speaker 1: or a lifetime plus seventy years, the terms they really
Speaker 1: start to seem excessive. So the contract we start with
Speaker 1: has gotten a lot more one sided over the last century,
Speaker 1: which is of course an intentional move on the part
Speaker 1: of copyright holders, or more specifically, the part of companies
Speaker 1: that hold those copyrights, because the ones making money on
Speaker 1: the ninety five year copyrights or lifetime plus copyrights aren't
Speaker 1: the authors or really even their families in most cases. Instead,
Speaker 1: it's the companies that control the rights. Once the creator
Speaker 1: is gone, like the what he got three example you
Speaker 1: gave earlier, his descendants aren't cashing in from licensing deals.
Speaker 1: It's the publisher that is sure. I mean that that's
Speaker 1: a great point, and and corporations definitely played a huge
Speaker 1: role in the twentieth century extensions to copyright terms. I mean,
Speaker 1: the most famous example is probably the extension we mentioned earlier,
Speaker 1: the one that raised the term for older US copyrights
Speaker 1: from seventy five to ninety five years. And the law
Speaker 1: was called the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, and
Speaker 1: the Disney Corporation was actually his biggest and most vocal champion,
Speaker 1: and that's because they wanted to keep the first Mickey
Speaker 1: Mouse cartoon ever released, which is Steamboat Willie, from entering
Speaker 1: the public domain in two thousand three. So what did
Speaker 1: Sonny Bono have to do with this? Like, shouldn't have
Speaker 1: been called the Mickey Mouse Act? Yeah, I mean, that
Speaker 1: might have been more accurate. And actually Disney lobbied so
Speaker 1: hard for the legislation that some people actually do refer
Speaker 1: to it as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act. But in reality,
Speaker 1: the nine Bill was named as a way to honor
Speaker 1: Sonny Bono, who had passed away in January of that year.
Speaker 1: And if that sounds kind of random, it isn't just
Speaker 1: that he was an entertainer. It's also that he was
Speaker 1: a congressman in California, and during his tenure, Bono had
Speaker 1: actually pushed hard for better copyright protection, So the gesture
Speaker 1: kind of made a lot of sense if you, you know,
Speaker 1: knew all that. Yeah, But I mean, you know, what
Speaker 1: it still strikes me about this whole thing is how
Speaker 1: ironic it is that a company build on adaptations of
Speaker 1: public domain fairy tales. They're the ones that wound up
Speaker 1: fighting to keep all those adaptations under wraps. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: the ironies don't end there either, because disney Steamboat Willie
Speaker 1: cartoon was itself a parody of Buster Keaton's short called
Speaker 1: Steamboat Bill Jr. It actually premiered the same year. So yeah,
Speaker 1: and so while the Keaton shore entered the public domain
Speaker 1: years ago, the cartoon inspired is still under lock and
Speaker 1: Key it's kind of his ar but you know, just
Speaker 1: like with Felix the Cat, Mickey Mouice his trademark. So
Speaker 1: when the copyright on his debut cartoon expires, the short
Speaker 1: itself can be bought or sold or given away or
Speaker 1: remixed by anyone, but the Mickey character will still belong
Speaker 1: to the Disney Company for as long as it continues
Speaker 1: to you know, use his likeness and continuity. And so
Speaker 1: one of the things you hope doesn't happen is that
Speaker 1: someone makes an adult version of Steamboat Willie. Actually, one
Speaker 1: of the main arguments you hear from staunch copyright defenders
Speaker 1: like the ideas that when work slip into the public domain,
Speaker 1: they will be abused their tarning in some way. So
Speaker 1: for instance, the book could be published with errors, or
Speaker 1: film could be released in low quality. Yeah, or someone
Speaker 1: could replace every other line in your poem with Beyonce lyrics,
Speaker 1: which might be an improvement depending on how bad the
Speaker 1: poetry is. But I mean, you get the point. The
Speaker 1: worry is that a public domain work will be over
Speaker 1: exploited and that it's cultural or artistic worth, you know,
Speaker 1: by because of that, it will be diminished in the process.
Speaker 1: I mean that sounds like a legit concern doesn't have
Speaker 1: But you know, like I love the idea of Pride,
Speaker 1: Prejudice and zombies. You know, like Jane Austin might not
Speaker 1: have wanted that when she wrote it, but it's a
Speaker 1: pretty great thing for all of us, and probably more
Speaker 1: people went back and actually read Pride and Prejudice when
Speaker 1: that Yeah, that's true. And for the most part, I'm
Speaker 1: not sure the argument holds that much water, you know, because,
Speaker 1: for instance, There was a study back in two thousand
Speaker 1: twelve where researchers took a bunch of different audio books,
Speaker 1: some of the public domains, some under copyright, and they
Speaker 1: had listeners provide feedback on the quality of each one
Speaker 1: and just actually, I'll just read here what they found.
Speaker 1: So our data provided almost no support for the arguments
Speaker 1: made by proponents of copyright term extension that once works
Speaker 1: fall into the public domain, they will be produced in
Speaker 1: poor quality versions that will undermine their cultural or economic value.
Speaker 1: Our data indicate no statistically significant difference, for example, between
Speaker 1: the listeners judgments of the quality of the professional audiobook
Speaker 1: readers or copyrighted and public domain texts. So it sounds
Speaker 1: like we're saying, even though there could be downsides to
Speaker 1: a work entering the public domain, those drawbacks tend to
Speaker 1: be heavily outweighed by the benefits of open access. I mean,
Speaker 1: teachers can make photo copies without breaking the law, artists
Speaker 1: can pay tribute to and and even build off the
Speaker 1: worst that inspire them, and the rest of us can
Speaker 1: kick back and listen to Yes, we have no Bananas
Speaker 1: on loop completely free of charge. I was I was
Speaker 1: there with you until that last part but I do
Speaker 1: agree the public domain is a win for society and
Speaker 1: it's exciting to see how it, you know, it can
Speaker 1: grow substantially again after a twenty year hiatus. But before
Speaker 1: we go exploring into that treasure trove once again, I
Speaker 1: know we still have a bunch of weird copyright facts
Speaker 1: to share, So let's get into the fact off all. Well,
Speaker 1: here's something I think is pretty cool. There's this little
Speaker 1: village in England called Wookie Hole. That's already cool. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And there are over three eggs painted with clown faces
Speaker 1: on them. And this collection is known as the Clown Register.
Speaker 1: And while it started as a hobby where one individual
Speaker 1: was cataloging these clowns just for fun, the collection grew
Speaker 1: into a way for professional clowns to basically copyright the
Speaker 1: way they make up their faces, you know, to protect
Speaker 1: from imitators. And so the tradition actually continues today. If
Speaker 1: you register with the Clowns International, they will have your
Speaker 1: makeup painted on a ceramic. That's crazy. There's one thing
Speaker 1: I learned this week that you can't copyright, and that's
Speaker 1: a chicken sandwich. And I know this because a man
Speaker 1: named Nolberto Cologne Lorenzana tried to do this in the
Speaker 1: nineteen eighties. Apparently, Norberto added a simple chicken sandwich to
Speaker 1: the menu at Church's Chicken in Puerto Rico, and the
Speaker 1: company made millions of it. They even used the name
Speaker 1: he gave it, the Paytree Sandwich. But when he tried
Speaker 1: to sue for intellectual property theft, the judge sternly rebuked
Speaker 1: and letting him know that while films, books, music, and
Speaker 1: architecture and even some art are all protected, culinary inventions
Speaker 1: are kind of a gray area, especially chicken sandwiches are well.
Speaker 1: Speaking of architecture, it is interesting to note that Hershey's
Speaker 1: has a trademark for the structural design of their chocolate bar,
Speaker 1: and apparently it took a ton of work to get that. Basically,
Speaker 1: they were trying to protect the fact that you can
Speaker 1: snap those little rectangles off to fit perfectly on a smorn.
Speaker 1: If you think about like, everyone can imagine those exact rectangles.
Speaker 1: But as Smithsonian notes, functionality is not a qualifying feature
Speaker 1: when registering a product design for trademark, so to win
Speaker 1: the case, they basically had to show that the ridges
Speaker 1: were more than just utility. The architectural design was something
Speaker 1: that people associated with Hershey Bars, even when the brand
Speaker 1: name was absent from the chocolate, and I would completely
Speaker 1: agree with Yeah, that's really interesting. Well, here's a funny
Speaker 1: one for mental class. Apparently the nineteen three Beach Boys
Speaker 1: hit Surf in USA is a complete knockoff of a
Speaker 1: Chuck Berry song called Sweet Little sixteen. I had never
Speaker 1: heard of that. When very accused Brian Wilson of steel
Speaker 1: in the song without telling anyone, Wilson's dad, who also
Speaker 1: happened to be the band's manager, gave Barry the copyright
Speaker 1: to the tune, but he didn't tell anyone in the band,
Speaker 1: so the band actually only learned that they weren't getting
Speaker 1: royalties from the song twenty five years after it was released, Like,
Speaker 1: why are we not getting any money on this song? Well,
Speaker 1: speaking of wild, did you know that animals can't own
Speaker 1: copyrights manga? I don't even know how that could be
Speaker 1: an issue. Well, in two thousand eleven, this photographer named
Speaker 1: David Slater went to Indonesia and he had this brilliant idea,
Speaker 1: like what if he set up a tripod and tried
Speaker 1: to get the monkeys to take selfies of themselves and
Speaker 1: somehow this one female macaque named Naruto went crazy, and
Speaker 1: of course the photos went viral. The Wikipedia put them
Speaker 1: up claiming no one could own the copyright, and David
Speaker 1: Slater assumed that he owned the rights. It was his
Speaker 1: camera and idea after all. But Peter and their ethical
Speaker 1: treatment of all animals decided to sue on a monkey's behalf,
Speaker 1: claiming that this female should get the royalties on the photos.
Speaker 1: So far, the U S Copyright Office has taken a
Speaker 1: firm line that quote, the office will not register works
Speaker 1: produced by nature, animals or plants, and it's put the
Speaker 1: photos in the public domain. But PETA is still fighting
Speaker 1: for its social media star client. That's pretty crazy. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think monkeys are a great way to end the show.
Speaker 1: Clown eggs, monkey selfies. I do think you deserve today's
Speaker 1: trophy and to celebrate your victory at Tristan, will you
Speaker 1: please queue up. Yes, we have no more bananas. That
Speaker 1: is it for today's show. I do want to give
Speaker 1: a special shout out to our listener Savantha, who tipped
Speaker 1: us off on some Brady Bunch spinoffs from our last
Speaker 1: nine things that we did, our our favorite of which
Speaker 1: is the Brady Brides where Marcia and Jen have a
Speaker 1: double wedding to their boyfriends and then have to live
Speaker 1: in the same house because they can't afford to move out. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: the Hijinks only lasted six episodes, which sounds great and
Speaker 1: terrible but yeah, but thank you so much for that, Sabantha.
Speaker 1: But that's it for today's show. If you want to
Speaker 1: send us facts where part time genius at House start
Speaker 1: works dot com and from Gabe, Tristan Will and me.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for listening. M M.