|
|
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | [[Image:lighterstill.jpg]] [[Image:Communia.jpg|right|frame|<center>[http://www.communia-project.eu/ Communia]</center>]] | + | [[Image:lighterstill.jpg]] [[Image:Communia.jpg|right|frame]] |
| | | | |
| − | The '''public domain''' is a range of abstract materials - commonly referred to as [[intellectual property]] -; which are not owned or controlled by anyone. The term indicates that these materials are therefore "public property", and available for anyone to use for any purpose. The [[law]]s of various countries define the scope of the public domain differently, making it necessary to specify which jurisdiction's public domain is being discussed. Furthermore, the public domain can be defined in contrast to several forms of intellectual property; the public domain in contrast to ''copyrighted'' works is different from the public domain in contrast to ''trademarks'' or ''patented'' works.
| + | *[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19th_century 1832] |
| | + | ==Definitions== |
| | + | *1: [[land]] owned directly by the [[government]] |
| | + | *2: the realm embracing [[property]] [[rights]] that belong to the [[community]] at large, are unprotected by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright copyright] or [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent patent], and are subject to appropriation by anyone |
| | + | ==Description== |
| | + | Works in the ''public domain'' are those whose [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property intellectual property] rights have expired, have been forfeited, or are inapplicable. Examples include the works of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare Shakespeare] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beethoven Beethoven], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Bible The King James Bible], most of the early [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_film silent films], the formulae of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtonian_physics Newtonian physics], and the patents on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powered_flight powered flight]. The term is not normally applied to situations where the creator of a work retains residual rights, in which case use of the work is referred to as "under [[license]]" or "with [[permission]]". |
| | | | |
| − | The public domain is most often discussed in contrast to works restricted by [[copyright]]. Under modern law, most original works of art, literature, music, etc. are covered by copyright from the time of their creation for a limited period of time (which varies by country). When the copyright expires, the work enters the public domain. It is estimated that currently, of all the books found in the world's libraries, only about 15 percent are in the public domain, even though only 10 percent of all books are still in print; the remaining 75 percent are books which remain unavailable because they are still under copyright protection. Kevin Kelly. "[http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/magazine/14publishing.html?ex=1305259200en=c07443d368771bb8ei=5090&pagewanted=all Scan This Book!]". [[New York Times]], [[14 May]] [[2006]].
| + | In [[informal]] usage, the ''public domain'' consists of works that are publicly available; while according to the [[formal]] definition, it consists of works that are unavailable for [[private]] ownership or are available for [[public]] use. As rights are country-based and vary, a work may be subject to rights in one country and not in another. Some rights depend on registrations with a country-by-country basis, and the absence of registration in a particular country, if required, implies ''public domain'' status in that country. |
| | | | |
| − | The public domain can also be defined in contrast to [[trademarks]]. Names, logos, and other identifying marks used in commerce can be restricted as proprietary trademarks for a single business to use. Trademarks can be maintained indefinitely, but they can also lapse through disuse, negligence, or widespread misuse, and enter the public domain. It is possible, however, for a lapsed trademark to become proprietary again, leaving the public domain.
| + | [[Definitions]] of the boundaries of the ''public domain'' in relation to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright copyright], or [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property intellectual property] more generally, regard the public domain as a [[negative]] space, that is, it consists of works that are no longer in copyright term or were never protected by copyright law. According to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Boyle_(academic) James Boyle] this definition underlines common usage of the term public domain and equates the public domain to [[public]] [[property]] and works in copyright to [[private]] property. However, the usage of the term public domain can be more granular, including for example uses of works in copyright permitted by copyright exceptions. Such a definition regards work in copyright as private property subject to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use fair use rights] and limitation on ownership. A conceptual definition comes from Lange, who [[focused]] on what the public domain should be: "it should be a place of [[sanctuary]] for individual [[creative]] [[expression]], a sanctuary conferring affirmative protection against the forces of private appropriation that threatened such expression". Patterson and Lindberg described the public domain not as a "territory", but rather as a [[concept]]: "There are certain materials - the [[air]] we breathe, [[sunlight]], rain, space, [[life]], creations, [[thoughts]], [[feelings]], [[ideas]], [[words]], [[numbers]] - not subject to [[private]] ownership. The materials that compose our cultural [[heritage]] must be free for all to use no less than [[matter]] [[necessary]] for [[biological]] [[survival]]." The term public domain may also be interchangeably used with other imprecise and/or undefined terms such as the "public sphere" or "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons commons]", including concepts such as "commons of the mind", the "intellectual commons", and the "information commons". |
| | | | |
| − | The public domain also contrasts with [[patent]]s. New inventions can be registered and granted patents restricting others from using them without permission from the inventor. Like copyrights, patents last for a limited period of time, after which the inventions covered by them enter the public domain and can be used by anyone. | + | The term ''public domain'' did not come into use until the mid-17th century, although as a [[concept]] "it can be traced back to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Roman_Law ancient Roman Law], as a preset system included in the property right system." The Romans had a large proprietary rights system where they defined "many things that cannot be [[privately]] owned" as ''res communes'', ''res publicae'' and ''res universitatis''. The term res commune was defined as "things that could be commonly enjoyed by [[mankind]], such as [[air]], [[sunlight]] and [[ocean]]." The term res publicae referred to things that were [[shared]] by all [[citizens]], and the term res universitatis meant things that were owned by the municipalities of [[Rome]]. When looking at the public domain from a [[historical]] [[perspective]], one could say the construction of the [[idea]] of "public domain" sprouted from the concepts of ''res commune'', ''res publicae'', and ''res universitatis'' in early Roman Law. |
| − | | |
| − | ==No legal restriction on use==
| |
| − | A creative work is said to be in the public domain if there are no laws which restrict its use by the public at large. For instance, a work may be in the public domain if no laws establish [[proprietary]] rights over the work, or if the work or its subject matter are specifically excluded from existing laws.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Because proprietary rights are founded in national laws, an item may be public domain in one jurisdiction but not another. For instance, some works of literature are public domain in the United States but not in the European Union and vice versa.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The underlying [[idea]] that is expressed or manifested in the creation of a work generally cannot be the subject of copyright law (see [[idea-expression divide]]). Mathematical formulae will therefore generally form part of the public domain, to the extent that their expression in the form of software is not covered by copyright; however, algorithms can be the subject of a [[software patent]] in some jurisdictions. [http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2106_02.htm#sect2106.02 Patentability of Mathematical Algorithms under US Manual of Patent Examining Procedure] [http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/hearings/software/notices/notice94.html USPTO Notice of Public Hearings and Request for Comments on Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions 1994]
| |
| − | | |
| − | Works created before the existence of copyright and patent laws also form part of the public domain. The [[Bible]] and the inventions of [[Archimedes]] are in the public domain. However, copyright may exist in [[translation]]s or new formulations of these works.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Although "intellectual property" laws are not designed to prevent facts from entering the public domain, collections of facts organized or presented in a creative way, such as categorized lists, may be copyrighted. Collections of data with intuitive organization, such as alphabetized directories like telephone directories, are generally not copyrightable. In some countries copyright-like rights are granted for databases, even those containing mere facts. A [[Directive on the legal protection of databases|sui generis database rights regime]] is in place in the [[European Union]].
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[Work of the United States Government|Works of the United States Government]] and various other governments are excluded from copyright law and may therefore be considered to be in the public domain in their respective countries. [http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#piu Copyright Office Basics: Publications Incorporating U.S. Government Works] They may also be in the public domain in other countries as well.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Expiration==
| |
| − | All copyrights and patents have always had a finite term, though the terms for copyrights and patents differ. When terms expire, the work or invention is released into public domain. In most countries, the term for patents is 20 years. A [[trademark]] registration may be renewed and remain in force indefinitely provided the trademark is used, but could otherwise become [[genericized trademark|generic]].
| |
| − | | |
| − | Copyrights are more complex than patents; generally, in [[2007|current]] law, the copyright in a published work expires in all countries (except [[Colombia]], [[Côte d'Ivoire]], [[Guatemala]], [[Honduras]], [[Mexico]], [[Samoa]], and [[Saint Vincent and the Grenadines]]) when either of the following conditions are satisfied: [[Cornell University]] Copyright Information Center; updated January 1, 2007, accessed January 28, 2007[http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Domain.htm]; Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States
| |
| − | * The work was created and first published before [[January 1]], [[1923]], or at least 95 years before January 1 of the current year, whichever is later; or
| |
| − | * The last surviving author died at least 70 years before [[January 1]] of the current year
| |
| − | | |
| − | but only provided that both of the following also hold:
| |
| − | | |
| − | * No [[Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works|Berne Convention]] signatory has passed a [[perpetual copyright]] on the work; and
| |
| − | * Neither the United States nor the European Union has passed a [[Copyright Term Extension Act|copyright term extension]] since these conditions were last updated. (This must be a condition because the exact numbers in the other conditions depend on the state of the law ''at any given moment''.)
| |
| − | These conditions are based on the intersection of United States and European Union copyright law, which most other [[Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works|Berne Convention]] signatories recognize.
| |
| − | Note that copyright term extension under U.S. tradition ''usually'' does not ''restore'' copyright to public domain works (hence the 1923 date), but European tradition does because [[Directive harmonizing the term of copyright protection|the EU harmonization]] was based on the copyright term in [[Germany]], which had already been extended to life plus 70.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===United States law===
| |
| − | [[Image:(C) Term by Tom Bell.gif|thumb|right|500px|Expansion of U.S. copyright law]]
| |
| − | Copyright law in the United States has changed several times. Although it is held under ''[[Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service|Feist v. Rural]]'' that Congress does not have the power to re-copyright works that have fallen into the public domain, re-copyrighting has happened: "After World War I and after World War II, there were special amendments to the Copyright Act to permit for a limited time and under certain conditions the recapture of works that might have fallen into the public domain, principally by aliens of countries with which we had been at war." (Testimony of Dorothy Schrader, general counsel of the U.S. copyright office, hearing for House Resolution 1623, serial 100/50.)
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[Work of the United States Government|Works created by an agency of the United States government]] are public domain at the moment of creation. ''Subject matter and scope of copyright'' Examples include [[military]] [[journalism]], [[United States federal court|federal court]] opinions (but not necessarily state court opinions), [[congressional committee]] reports, and [[United States census|census]] data. However, works created by a contractor for the government are still subject to copyright. Even public domain documents may have their availability limited by laws limiting the spread of [[classified information]].
| |
| − | | |
| − | ====Since 1978====
| |
| − | Before 1978, unpublished works were not covered by the federal copyright act. Rather, they were covered under (perpetual) [[common law]] copyright. The [[Copyright Act of 1976]], effective 1978, abolished common law copyright in the United States so that all works, published or unpublished, are now covered by federal statutory copyright. The claim that "pre-1923 works are in the public domain" is correct only for published works; unpublished works are under federal copyright for at least the life of the author plus 70 years. For a work made for hire, the copyright in a work created before 1978, but not theretofore in the public domain or registered for copyright, subsists from January 1, 1978, and endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first.<ref>{{usc|17|ch3}} ''Duration of Copyright''</ref> If the work was created before 1978 but first published on or before December 31, 2002, the work is covered by federal copyright until 2047.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ====1964 to 1977====
| |
| − | Works published with notice of copyright or registered in unpublished form prior to January 1, 1964, had to be renewed during the 28th year of their first term of copyright to maintain copyright for a full 95-year term.<ref>U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 15a, [http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.html#special Duration of Copyright: Provisions of the Law Dealing with the Length of Copyright Protection].</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | Until the [[Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works|Berne Convention]] Implementation Act of 1988, the lack of a proper copyright notice would place an otherwise copyrightable work into the public domain, although for works published between January 1, 1978 and February 28, 1989, this could be prevented by registering the work with the [[Library of Congress]] within 5 years of publication. After March 1, 1989, an author's copyright in a work begins when it is fixed in a tangible form; neither publication nor registration is required, and a lack of a copyright notice does not place the work into the public domain.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ====Sound recordings====
| |
| − | Sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, were generally covered by common law or in some cases by statutes enacted in certain states, not by federal copyright law. The 1976 Copyright Act, effective 1978, provides federal copyright for unpublished and published sound recordings fixed on or after February 15, 1972. Recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, are still covered, to varying degrees, by common law or state statutes. An exception to the 1976 Copyright Act's general abolition of common law copyright. Any rights or remedies under state law for sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, are not annulled or limited by the 1976 Copyright Act until February 15, 2067.
| |
| − | ====Term extensions====
| |
| − | Critics of copyright term extensions have said that Congress has achieved a perpetual copyright term "on the installment plan."<ref> Statement of Professor [[Peter Jaszi]], The Copyright Term Extension Act of 1995: Hearing on S.483 Before the Senate Judiciary Committee, 104th Congress.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Notes==
| |
| − | # Kevin Kelly. [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/magazine/14publishing.html?ex=1305259200en=c07443d368771bb8ei=5090&pagewanted=all "Scan This Book!"]. New York Times, 14 May 2006.
| |
| − | # [http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2106_02.htm#sect2106.02 Patentability of Mathematical Algorithms under US Manual of Patent Examining Procedure]
| |
| − | # [http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/hearings/software/notices/notice94.html USPTO Notice of Public Hearings and Request for Comments on Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions 1994]
| |
| − | # [http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#piu Copyright Office Basics: Publications Incorporating U.S. Government Works]
| |
| − | # [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornell_University Cornell University Copyright Information Center]; Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States
| |
| − | # Testimony of Dorothy Schrader, general counsel of the U.S. copyright office, hearing for House Resolution 1623, serial 100/50.
| |
| − | # [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_17_of_the_United_States_Code 17 U.S.C.] [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch1.html § ch1] Subject matter and scope of copyright
| |
| − | # [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_17_of_the_United_States_Code 17 U.S.C.] [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch3.html§ ch3] Duration of Copyright
| |
| − | # U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 15a, [http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.html#special Duration of Copyright: Provisions of the Law Dealing with the Length of Copyright Protection.]
| |
| − | # An exception to the 1976 Copyright Act's general abolition of common law copyright.
| |
| − | # 17 U.S.C. § 301 Preemption with respect to other laws
| |
| − | # Statement of Professor Peter Jaszi, The Copyright Term Extension Act of 1995: Hearing on S.483 Before the Senate Judiciary Committee, 104th Congress
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | ===British law===
| |
| − | [[United Kingdom|British]] government works are restricted by either [[Crown copyright|Crown Copyright]] or [[Parliamentary copyright|Parliamentary Copyright]]. Published Crown Copyright works become public domain at the end of the year 50 years after they were published, unless the author of the work held copyright and assigned it to the Crown. In that case, the copyright term is the usual life of author plus 70 years. Unpublished Crown Copyright documents become public domain at the end of the year 125 years after they were first created. However, under the legislation that created this rule, and abolished the traditional [[common law]] perpetual copyright of unpublished works, no unpublished works will become public domain until 50 years after the legislation came into effect. Since the legislation became law on [[1 August]] [[1989]], no unpublished works will become public domain under this provision until 2039. Parliamentary Copyright documents become public domain at the end of the year 50 years after they were published. Crown Copyright is waived on some government works provided that certain conditions are met.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Laws of Canada, Australia, and other Commonwealth nations===
| |
| − | These numbers reflect the most recent extensions of copyright in the United States and Europe. Canada and New Zealand have not, [[as of 2006]], passed similar twenty-year extensions. Consequently, their copyright expiry times are still life of the author plus 50 years. Australia passed a 20-year copyright extension in
| |
| − | 2004, but delayed its effect until 2005, and did not make it revive already-expired copyrights. Hence, in Australia works by authors who died before 1955 are still in the public domain.
| |
| − | | |
| − | As with most other [[Commonwealth of Nations]] countries, [[Canada]] and [[Australia]] follow the general lead of the United Kingdom on copyright of government works. Both have a version of Crown Copyright which lasts for 50 years from publication. [[New Zealand]] also has Crown Copyright, but has a much greater time length, at 100 years from the date of publication. [[India]] has a government copyright of sixty years from publication, to coincide with its somewhat unusual life of the author plus sixty years term of copyright.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Thai law===
| |
| − | According to [[Thailand|Thai]] copyright law, the copyright term is the life of author plus 50 years.<ref>[[:s:th:พระราชบัญญัติลิขสิทธิ์ พ.ศ. ๒๕๓๗|พระราชบัญญัติลิขสิทธิ์ พ.ศ. ๒๕๓๗]]. Copyright Act of B.E. 2537 (1994 A.D.), from [[Wikisource]], in [[Thai language|Thai]]. Section 4 governs copyright expiration terms</ref> When the author is a [[Juristic person|legal entity]] or an [[Anonymity|anonymous person]], the copyright term is 50 years from the date of publication. Works of applied art (defined as drawings, paintings, sculpture, prints, architecture, photography, drafts, and models) have a copyright term of 25 years from publication.<ref>[[:s:th:พระราชบัญญัติลิขสิทธิ์ พ.ศ. ๒๕๓๗|พระราชบัญญัติลิขสิทธิ์ พ.ศ. ๒๕๓๗]]. Copyright Act of B.E. 2537 (1994 A.D.), from [[Wikisource]], in [[Thai language|Thai]]. Section 4, Article 22 states the copyright term for applied art works</ref> Republication of works after the expiration of the copyright term does not reset the copyright term. Thai state documents are public domain,<ref>[[:s:th:พระราชบัญญัติลิขสิทธิ์ พ.ศ. ๒๕๓๗|พระราชบัญญัติลิขสิทธิ์ พ.ศ. ๒๕๓๗]]. Copyright Act of B.E. 2537 (1994 A.D.), from [[Wikisource]], in [[Thai language|Thai]]. Article 7 governs works not copyrightable. The law refers specifically to Thai state rules, regulations, announcements, orders, explanations, and correspondence, and includes the constitution, laws, court decisions, examinations, and reports.</ref> but creative works produced by or commissioned by government offices are protected by copyright.<ref>[[:s:th:พระราชบัญญัติลิขสิทธิ์ พ.ศ. ๒๕๓๗|พระราชบัญญัติลิขสิทธิ์ พ.ศ. ๒๕๓๗]]. Copyright Act of B.E. 2537 (1994 A.D.), from [[Wikisource]], in [[Thai language|Thai]]. Article 14 states that any government office receives a copyright on creative works produced by it or produced for it under contract, unless other arrangements regarding copyright have been previously agreed to by those involved.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Japanese law===
| |
| − | [[Japanese copyright law]] does not mention public domain. Hence, even when some materials are said to be "in the public domain" there can be some use restrictions. In that case, the term [[copyright-free]] is sometimes used instead.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Many pre-1953 both Japanese and non-Japanese films are considered to be in the public domain in Japan. [http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/japanese%20court%20rules%20pre-1953%20movies%20in%20public%20domain_1002318 Paramount - Japanese court rules pre-1953 movies in public domain]
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | ===Examples===
| |
| − | Examples of inventions whose patents have expired include the inventions of [[Nikola Tesla]] and [[Thomas Edison]].
| |
| − | Examples of works whose copyrights have expired include the works of [[Carlo Collodi]], [[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart|Mozart]], and most of the works of [[Mark Twain]], excluding the work first published in 2001, ''A Murder, a Mystery, and a Marriage''. In the United States, the images of [[Frank Capra]]'s classic film, ''[[It's a Wonderful Life]]'' (1946) entered into the public domain in 1974, because someone inadvertently failed to file a copyright renewal application with the Copyright Office during the 28th year after the film's release or publication. It wasn't until 1993 when Republic Pictures relied on the 1990 [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] ruling in ''[[Stewart v. Abend]]'' to enforce its claim of copyright to portions of the film's sound track. As a result, only [[NBC]] is currently licensed to show the film on U.S. network television, the colourized versions have been withdrawn and Republic got exclusive video rights to the film (under license with [[Artisan Entertainment]]). Rights to ''It's a Wonderful Life'' now belong to Paramount Pictures.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Currently four shorts by the [[Three Stooges]] are in the public domain due to accidental failure to renew their copyrights in the [[1960s|'60s]]. These are ''[[Disorder in the Court]]'', ''[[Brideless Groom]]'', ''[[Malice in the Palace]]'', and ''[[Sing a Song of Six Pants]]''. Other features and films from the Stooges are known to be in public domain as well.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Several episodes of ''[[The Lucy Show]]'' are similarly in the public domain.<ref>"[http://www.pdcomedy.com/ClassicTV/TheLucyShow/FullEpisodes/index.html List of public domain The Lucy Show episodes]"</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | Some works may never fully lapse into the public domain, such as the play ''[[Peter Pan]]'' by [[J. M. Barrie]]. While the copyright of this work expired in the United Kingdom in 1987, it has been granted a special exception under [http://www.jenkins-ip.com/patlaw/cdpasc6.htm the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (Schedule 6)][http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_28.htm] that requires royalties to be paid for performances within the UK that meet certain requirements, so long as [[Great Ormond Street Hospital]] continues to exist. Barrie had bequeathed the rights to the play to the hospital in perpetuity as an endowment. This act specified the play and adaptations thereof and not the original character and storyline, which predates the play.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Disclaimer of interest==
| |
| − | Laws may make some types of works and inventions ineligible for monopoly; such works immediately enter the public domain upon publication. Many kinds of mental creations, such as publicized [[baseball statistics]], are never covered by copyright. However, any special layout of [[baseball statistics]], or the like, would be covered by copyright law. For example, while a [[phonebook]] is not covered by copyright law, any special method of laying out the information would be.
| |
| − | | |
| − | For example: [[United States copyright law|U.S. copyright law]], [http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000105----000-.html 17 U.S.C. § 105], releases all [[Work of the United States Government|works created by the U.S. government]] into the public domain. U.S. patent applications containing a copyright notice must also include a disclaimer of certain exclusive rights as part of the terms of granting the patent to the invention (leaving open the question regarding copyright of patents with no such notice). Agreements that Germany signed at the end of [[World War I]] released such trademarks as "[[aspirin]]" and "[[heroin]]" into the public domain in many areas.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Another example would be [[Charles Darwin]]'s [[Evolution|theory of evolution]]. Being an abstract idea it has therefore never been patentable. After Darwin constructed his theory, he did not disclose it for over a decade (see [[Development of Darwin's theory]]). He could have kept his manuscript in his desk drawer forever but once he published the idea, the idea itself entered public domain. However, the carrier of his ideas, in the form of a book titled ''[[The Origin of Species]]'', was covered by copyright (though, since he died in 1882, the copyright has since expired).
| |
| − | | |
| − | === Copyright ===
| |
| − | In the past, in some jurisdictions such as the [[United States|USA]], a work would enter the public domain with respect to copyright if it was released without a copyright notice. This was true prior to March 1, 1989 ([http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#noc according to the USA Copyright office]), but is no longer the case. Any work (of certain, enumerated types) receives copyright as soon as it is fixed in a tangible medium.
| |
| − | | |
| − | It is commonly believed by non-lawyers that it is impossible to put a work into the public domain. Although copyright law generally does not provide any statutory means to "abandon" copyright so that a work can enter the public domain, this does not mean that it is impossible or even difficult, only that the law is somewhat unclear. Congress may not have felt it necessary to codify this part of the law, because abandoning property (like a tract of land) to the public domain has traditionally been a matter of common law, rather than statute. (Alternatively, because copyright has traditionally been seen as a valuable right, one which required registration to achieve, it would not have made sense to contemplate someone abandoning it in 1976 and 1988.)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ====Statutory law====
| |
| − | =====Computer Software Rental Amendments Act=====
| |
| − | There are several references to putting copyrighted work into the public domain. The first reference is actually in a statute passed by Congress, in the Computer Software Rental Amendments Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–650, 104 Stat. 5089 (1990)). Although most of the Act was codified into Title 17 of the U.S. Code, there is a very interesting provision relating to "public domain shareware" which was not, and is therefore often overlooked.
| |
| − | | |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | '''''Sec. 805. Recordation of Shareware'''''
| |
| − | | |
| − | ''(a) IN GENERAL- The Register of Copyrights is authorized, upon receipt of any document designated as pertaining to computer shareware and the fee prescribed by section 708 of title 17, United States Code, to record the document and return it with a certificate of recordation.''
| |
| − | | |
| − | ''(b) MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS; PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION- The Register of Copyrights is authorized to maintain current, separate records relating to the recordation of documents under subsection (a), and to compile and publish at periodic intervals information relating to such recordations. Such publications shall be offered for sale to the public at prices based on the cost of reproduction and distribution.''
| |
| − | | |
| − | ''(c) DEPOSIT OF COPIES IN LIBRARY OF CONGRESS- In the case of public domain computer shareware, at the election of the person recording a document under subsection (a), 2 complete copies of the best edition (as defined in section 101 of title 17, United States Code) of the computer shareware as embodied in machine-readable form may be deposited for the benefit of the Machine-Readable Collections Reading Room of the Library of Congress.''
| |
| − | | |
| − | ''(d) REGULATIONS- The Register of Copyrights is authorized to establish regulations not inconsistent with law for the administration of the functions of the Register under this section. All regulations established by the Register are subject to the approval of the Librarian of Congress.''
| |
| − | </blockquote>
| |
| − | | |
| − | One purpose of this legislation appears to be to allow "public domain shareware" to be filed at the Library of Congress, presumably so that the shareware would be more widely disseminated. Therefore, one way to release computer software into the public domain might be to make the filing and pay the [http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/708.html $20] fee. This could have the effect of "certifying" that the author intended to release the software into the public domain. It does not seem that registration is necessary to release the software into the public domain, because the law does not state that public domain status is conferred by registration. [[Judicial]] rulings supports this conclusion, see below.
| |
| − | | |
| − | By comparing paragraph (a) and (c), one can see that Congress distinguishes "public domain" shareware as a special kind of shareware. Because this law was passed after the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, Congress was well aware that newly created computer programs (two years worth, since the Berne Act was passed) would automatically have copyright attached. Therefore, one reasonable inference is that Congress intended that authors of shareware would have the power to release their programs into the public domain. This interpretation is followed by the Copyright Office in [http://www.bitlaw.com/source/37cfr/201_26.html 37 C.F.R. § 201.26].
| |
| − | | |
| − | =====Berne Convention Implementation Act=====
| |
| − | | |
| − | The Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 states in section twelve that the Act "does not provide copyright protection for any work that is in the public domain." The congressional committee report explains that this means simply that the Act does not apply retroactively. Some interest groups lobbied heavily to make the Act retroactive in order to increase the U.S.'s negotiating leverage with other countries, because the U.S. often asks developing countries to allow the copyrighting of previously public-domain work.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Although the only part of the act that does mention "public domain" does not speak to whether authors have the right to dedicate their work to the public domain, the remainder of the committee report does not say that they intended copyright should be an indestructible form of property. Rather the language speaks to getting rid of formalities in order to comply with Berne (non-compliance had become a severe impediment in trade negotiations) and making registration and marking optional, but encouraged. A fair reading is that the Berne Act did not intend to take away author's right to dedicate works to the public domain, which they had (by default) under the 1976 Act.
| |
| − | | |
| − | =====Section 203 of the Copyright Act=====
| |
| − | Although there is support in the statutes for allowing work to be dedicated to the public domain, there cannot be an unlimited right to dedicate work to the public domain because of a quirk of U.S. copyright law which grants the author of a work the right to cancel "the exclusive or nonexclusive grant of a transfer or license of copyright or of any right under a copyright" thirty-five years later, unless the work was originally a work for hire.<ref>[http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html#203 U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright Law: Chapter 2<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | It is unsettled how this section would mesh with a purported public domain dedication. Any of these interpretations are possible:
| |
| − | * No effect. Any holder of a copyright can release it to the public domain. This interpretation is probably wrong, because then an author would lose the right to his "termination right," which in practical terms means a royalty. To prevent paying the royalty, a comic book company could release the copyright to the public domain but hold onto the trademark, which would suffice to prevent knock-off comics from being made. Because the Captain America case (''Marvel v. Simon'') showed that this termination right cannot be alienated before death, this interpretation is almost certainly wrong.
| |
| − | * Some effect. An author may release his own work into the public domain, and a company holding a work for hire may release his work into the public domain. But a company which has purchased a copyright from an author (as was the case with most of the "Golden Age" comic book writers) cannot. Although the distinction of allowing an author to release his own work is not explicit in the statute, it may not be literally inconsistent (it is not a "transfer" or a "license," and it arguably is not a grant of a right ''under copyright''), and this reading is necessary to comply with the 1990 Act discussed above, as well as the case law discussed below.
| |
| − | * Strong effect. Only a company holding a work for hire can release the work into the public domain. Because of the references to "shareware" (above) and "programmers" (below), and the fact that many software companies in the 1980s were quite small (and thus did not have employees), this reading seems inconsistent with the intent of Congress.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ====Case law====
| |
| − | Another form of support comes from the seminal case ''[[Computer Associates Int. Inc. v. Altai Inc.|Computer Associates Int'l v. Altai]]'', 982 F.2d 693. This case set the standard for determining copyright infringement of computer software and is still followed today. Moreover, it was decided by the Second Circuit appellate court, which is famous for handing down some of the most well-reasoned American copyright decisions. In this case, it discusses the public domain.
| |
| − | | |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | '''''(c) Elements Taken from the Public Domain'''''
| |
| − | </blockquote>
| |
| − | | |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | ''Closely related to the non-protectability of scenes a faire, is material found in the public domain. Such material is free for the taking and cannot be appropriated by a single author even though it is included in a copyrighted work. ... We see no reason to make an exception to this rule for elements of a computer program that have entered the public domain by virtue of freely accessible program exchanges and the like. See 3 Nimmer Section 13.03 [F] ; see also Brown Bag Software, slip op. at 3732 (affirming the district court’s finding that “‘[p]laintiffs may not claim copyright protection of an . . . expression that is, if not standard, then commonplace in the computer software industry.’“). Thus, a court must also filter out this material from the allegedly infringed program before it makes the final inquiry in its substantial similarity analysis.''
| |
| − | </blockquote>
| |
| − | | |
| − | This decision holds that computer software may enter the public domain through "freely accessible program exchanges and the like," or by becoming "commonplace in the computer industry." Relying only on this decision, it is unclear whether an author can dedicate his work to the public domain simply by labeling it as such, or whether dedication to the public domain requires widespread dissemination.
| |
| − | | |
| − | This could make a distinction in a [[CyberPatrol]]-like case, where a software program is released, leading to litigation, and as part of a settlement the author assigns his copyright. If the author has the power to release his work into the public domain, there would be no way for the new owner to stop the circulation of the program. A court may look on an attempt to abuse the public domain in this way with disfavor, particularly if the program has not been widely disseminated. Either way, a fair reading is that an author may choose to release a computer program to the public domain if he can arrange for it to become popular and widely disseminated.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ====Treatise analysis====
| |
| − | The treatise cited (Nimmer), holds in its most recent edition:
| |
| − | | |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | '''''13.03[F][4]'''''
| |
| − | </blockquote>
| |
| − | | |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | ''It is axiomatic that material in the public domain is not protected by copyright, even when incorporated into a copyrighted work. ...'' | |
| − | </blockquote>
| |
| − | | |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | ''An enormous amount of public domain software exists in the computer industry, perhaps to a much greater extent than is true of other fields. Nationwide computer "bulletin boards" permit users to share and distribute programs. In addition, computer programming texts may contain examples of actual code that programmers are encouraged to copy.'' | |
| − | </blockquote>
| |
| − | | |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | ''Programmers often will build existing public domain software into their works. The courts thus must be careful to limit protection only to those elements of the program that represent the author's original work.'' | |
| − | </blockquote>
| |
| − | | |
| − | Although [[Computer Associates]] only mentioned the issue in passing, Nimmer observes that the public domain is particularly rich and valuable for computer programs. He seems to say that a computer program author who wishes to release his work into the public domain may either include it in a book as example code or post it on a "bulletin board" and encourage sharing and distribution. (Nimmer is the treatise most widely cited in copyright opinions, and is generally authoritative.)
| |
| − | | |
| − | === Patent ===
| |
| − | With regard to [[patent]]s, on the other hand, public use or publishing the details of an invention before applying for a patent will generally place an invention in the public domain and (in theory) prevent its subsequent patenting by anyone – an effective disclaimer. For example, a chemistry journal publishing a formula prevents patenting the formula by anyone. This tactic was commonly used by [[Bell Labs]]. The famous [[Bell Labs Technical Journal]] was sent free of charge to the library of the U.S. Patent Office to establish a base of prior art without the inconvenience, cost, and hassle of filing patent applications for inventions of no immediate monetary value. ([[Unix]] was famously described in this journal.) This is sometimes called "defensive disclosure" - one way to make sure you are not later accused of infringing a patent on your own invention. There is an exception to this rule, however: in U.S. (not European) law, an inventor may file a patent claim up to one year after publishing a description (but not, of course, if someone else published or used it first).
| |
| − | | |
| − | In practice, patent examiners only consider other patents and the books they have in their library for prior art, largely because the patent office has an elaborate classification system for inventions. This means that an increasing number of issued patents may be invalid, based upon prior art that was not brought to the examiner's attention. Once a patent is issued, it is very expensive to invalidate. Publishing a description on a website as a preemptive disclosure does very little in a practical sense to release an invention to the public domain; it might still be considered "patentable", although erroneously. However, anyone aware of an omitted prior art citation in an issued patent may submit it to the US Patent Office and request a "reexamination" of the patent during the enforceable period of the patent (that is, its life plus statute of limitations). This may result in loss of some or all of the patent on the invention, or it may backfire and actually strengthen the claims.
| |
| − | | |
| − | An applicant may also choose to file a [[United States Statutory Invention Registration|Statutory Invention Registration]], which has the same effect as a patent for prior art purposes. These SIRs are relatively expensive. These are used strategically by large companies to prevent competitors from obtaining a patent.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Section 102(c) says that an invention that has been "abandoned" cannot be patented. There is precious little case-law on this point. It is largely a dead letter.
| |
| − | | |
| − | If an inventor has an issued patent, there are several ways to release it to the public domain (other than simply letting it expire). First, he can fail to pay the maintenance fee the next time it is due, about every four years. Alternatively he can file a [http://www.bitlaw.com/source/37cfr/1_321.html terminal disclaimer] under 37 CFR 1.321 for a reasonable fee. The regulations explicitly say that the "patentee may disclaim or dedicate to the public the entire term, or any terminal part of the term, of the patent granted. Such disclaimer is binding upon the grantee and its successors or assigns." Usually this is used during the application process to prevent another patent from a "[[double patenting]]" invalidation. Lastly, he may grant a patent license to the world, although the issue of revocability may raise its head again.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Trade secret===
| |
| − | If guarded properly, [[trade secret]]s are forever. A business may keep the formula to [[Coca-Cola]] a secret. However, once it is disclosed to the public, the former secret enters public domain, although an invention using the former secret may still be patentable in the United States if it is not barred by statute (including the [[on-sale bar]])[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=656243].
| |
| − | | |
| − | Some businesses choose to protect products, processes, and information by guarding them as trade secrets, rather than patenting them. Hershey Foods, Inc., for example, does not patent some of its processes, such as the recipe for [[Reese's]], but rather maintains them as trade secrets, to prevent competitors from easily duplicating or learning from their invention disclosures, or from using the information after the patent lapses.
| |
| − | | |
| − | One risk, however, is that anyone may [[reverse engineering|reverse engineer]] a product and thus discover (and copy and publish) all of its secrets, to the extent they are not covered by other laws (e.g. contract).
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Trademark===
| |
| − | A [[trademark]] registration is renewable. If a trademark owner wishes to do so, he may maintain a registration indefinitely by paying renewal fees, using the trademark and defending the registration.
| |
| − | | |
| − | However, a trademark or [[brand]] can become unenforceable if it becomes the [[Genericized trademark|generic]] term for a particular type of product or service – a process called "genericide." If a mark undergoes genericide, people are using the term generically, not as a trademark to exclusively identify the particular ''source'' of the product or service. One famous example is "[[thermos]]" in the United States.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Because trademarks are registered with governments, some countries or trademark registries may recognize a mark, while others may have determined that it is generic and not allowable as a trademark in that registry. For example, the drug "acetylsalicylic acid" (2-acetoxybenzoic acid) is better known as ''[[aspirin]]'' in the United States – a generic term. In Canada, however, "aspirin" is still a trademark of the German company [[Bayer]]. Bayer lost the trademark after [[World War I]], when the mark was sold to an American firm. So many copycat products entered the [[marketplace]] during the war that it was deemed generic just three years later.<ref>[http://www.worldofmolecules.com/drugs/aspirin.htm World of Molecules / Aspirin].</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | Terms can be deemed "generic" in two ways. First, any potential mark can be deemed "generic" by a trademark registry, that refuses to register it. In this instance, the term has no secondary meaning that helps consumers identify the source of the product; the term serves no function as a "mark". Second, a mark, already in use, may be deemed generic by a court or registry after the mark is challenged as generic – this is known as "genericide". In this instance, the term previously had a secondary meaning, but lost its source-identifying function.
| |
| − | | |
| − | To avoid "genericide", a trademark owner must balance between trying to dominate the market, and dominating their market to such an extent that their product name ''defines'' the market. A manufacturer who invents an amazing breakthrough product which cannot be succinctly described in plain English (for example, a vacuum-insulated drinking flask) will likely find its product described by the trademark ("Thermos"). If the product continues to dominate the market, eventually the trademark will become generic ("thermos").
| |
| − | | |
| − | However, "genericide" is not an inevitable process. In the late 1980s "[[Nintendo]]" was becoming synonymous with home video game consoles but Nintendo was able to reverse this process through marketing campaigns. [[Xerox]] was also successful in avoiding its name becoming synonymous with the act of photocopying (although, in some languages (Russian) and countries (like India), it became generic).
| |
| − | | |
| − | Trademarks currently thought to be in danger of being generic include [[iPod]], [[Jell-O]], [[Band-Aid]], [[Rollerblade]], [[Google]], [[Spam (food)|Spam]], [[The Hoover Company|Hoover]], and [[Sheetrock]]. Google vigorously defends its trademark rights. Although Hormel has resigned itself to genericide [http://www.spam.com/ci/ci_in.htm], it still fights attempts by other companies to register "spam" as a trademark in relation to computer products [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/31/spam_ruling/].
| |
| − | | |
| − | When a trademark becomes generic, it is as if the mark were in the public domain.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Trademarks which have been genericized in particular places include: [[Formica]], [[Escalator]], [[Trampoline]], [[Raisin Bran]], [[Linoleum]], [[Dry Ice]], [[Shredded Wheat]] (generic in US), [[Mimeograph]], [[Yo-Yo]], [[Kerosene]], [[Cornflakes]], [[Cube steak|Cube Steak]], [[Lanolin]], and [[High Octane]], (Source: Xerox ad, reprinted in ''Copyright, Patent, Trademark, ...'', by Paul Goldstein, 5th ed., p. 245) as well as [[Aspirin]] (generic in the United States, but not in Canada), [[Allen wrench]], [[Beaver Board]], [[Masonite]], [[Coca-Cola|Coke]], [[Pablum]], [[Styrofoam]], [[Heroin]], [[Bikini]], [[Chyron]], [[Thomas Crapper|Crapper]], [[Weedwhacker]], [[Kleenex]], [[Linux]] (generic in Australia) and [[Zipper]].
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Domain name===
| |
| − | | |
| − | A [[domain name]] never enters public domain in the sense that copyrighted material does. It is closer in nature to a trademark, in that a failure to maintain it makes it available for others to use (with different standards to maintain it from those for a trademark). If another party registers a lapsed domain name, it is no longer available to the public, as would be the case with former intellectual property which has become public domain.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Public domain and the Internet==
| |
| − | The term "public domain" is often poorly understood and has created significant legal controversy. Historically, most parties attempting to address public domain issues fell into two camps:
| |
| − | # Businesses and organizations who could devote staff to resolving legal conflicts through negotiation and the court system.
| |
| − | # Individuals and organizations using materials covered by the [[fair use]] doctrine, reducing the need for substantial governmental or corporate resources to track down individual offenders.
| |
| − | | |
| − | With the advent of the Internet, however, it became possible for anybody with access to this worldwide network to "post" copyrighted or otherwise-licensed materials freely and easily. This aggravated an already established but false belief that if something is available through a free source, it must be public domain. Once such material was available on the net, it could be perfectly copied among thousands or even millions of computers very quickly and essentially without cost.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Freely obtained does not mean free to republish===
| |
| − | These factors have reinforced the false notion that "freely obtained" means "public domain." One could argue that the Internet is a publicly available domain, not licensed or controlled by any individual, company, or government; therefore, everything on the Internet is public domain. This specious argument ignores the fact that licensing rights are ''not'' dependent on the means of distribution or consumer acquisition. (If someone gives a person stolen merchandise, it is still stolen, even if the receiving party was not aware of it.) Chasing down copyright violations based on the idea that information is inherently free has become a primary focus of industries whose financial structure is based on their control of the distribution of such media.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===(Almost) everything written down is copyrighted===
| |
| − | Another complication is that publishing exclusively on the Internet has become extremely popular. In countries party to the [[Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works|Berne Convention]], an author's original works are covered by copyright as soon as the work is put into a "fixed" form; no formal copyright notice or registration is necessary. But such laws were passed at a time when the focus was on materials that could not be as easily and cheaply reproduced as digital media, nor did they comprehend the ultimate impossibility of determining which set of electronic bits is original. All Internet postings (including [[blogs]] and [[email]]s) are copyrighted material unless explicitly stated otherwise.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The distribution of many types of Internet postings (particularly [[Usenet]] articles and messages sent to electronic mailing lists) inherently involves duplication. The act of posting such a work can therefore be taken to imply consent to a certain amount of copying, as dictated by the technical details of the manner of distribution. However, it does not imply total waiver of copyright.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Furthering the public domain with the Internet===
| |
| − | Many people are using the Internet to contribute to the public domain, or make works in the public domain more accessible to more people. For example, [[Project Gutenberg]] and [[LibriVox]] coordinate the efforts of people who transcribe works in the public domain into electronic form. Some projects exist for the sole purpose of making material available into the public domain or under no-cost licenses. The [[International Music Score Library Project|IMSLP (International Music Score Library Project)]] is attempting to create a virtual library containing all public domain musical scores, as well as scores from composers who are willing to share their music with the world free of charge. The [[Eyebeam Atelier|Eyebeam OpenLab]] creates [[software]] and [[hardware]] projects in the public domain, such as the work of the [[Graffiti Research Lab]].
| |
| − | | |
| − | Note that there are many works that are not part of the public domain, but for which the owner of some proprietary rights has chosen not to enforce those rights, or to grant some subset of those rights to the public.
| |
| − | See, for example, the [[Free Software Foundation]] which creates copyrighted software and licenses it without charge to the public for most uses under a class of license called "[[copyleft]]", forbidding only proprietary redistribution. Sometimes such work is inadvertently referred to as "public domain" in colloquial speech.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Note also that while some works (especially musical works) may be in the public domain, international law considers performances or some transcriptions of those works to be derivative works, subject to their own copyrights. Similarly, a film adaptation of a public-domain story (such as a fairy tale or a classic work of literature) would be covered by copyright law.
| |
| − | | |
| − | == See also ==
| |
| − | * [[Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works|Berne Convention]]
| |
| − | * [[Copyfraud]]
| |
| − | * [[Copyleft]]
| |
| − | * [[Copyright Term Extension Act]]
| |
| − | * [[Creative Commons]]
| |
| − | * [[Fair dealing]]
| |
| − | * [[Fair use]]
| |
| − | * The [[work of the United States Government]] is in the public domain.
| |
| − | * [[Traditional Knowledge Digital Library]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Footnotes==
| |
| − | # [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/th:%E0%B8%9E%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B0%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%8A%E0%B8%9A%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%8D%E0%B8%8D%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%95%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%A5%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%82%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%97%E0%B8%98%E0%B8%B4%E0%B9%8C_%E0%B8%9E.%E0%B8%A8._%E0%B9%92%E0%B9%95%E0%B9%93%E0%B9%97 พระราชบัญญัติลิขสิทธิ์ พ.ศ. ๒๕๓๗.] Copyright Act of B.E. 2537 (1994 A.D.), from Wikisource, in Thai. Section 4 governs copyright expiration terms
| |
| − | # [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/th:%E0%B8%9E%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B0%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%8A%E0%B8%9A%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%8D%E0%B8%8D%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%95%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%A5%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%82%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%97%E0%B8%98%E0%B8%B4%E0%B9%8C_%E0%B8%9E.%E0%B8%A8._%E0%B9%92%E0%B9%95%E0%B9%93%E0%B9%97 พระราชบัญญัติลิขสิทธิ์ พ.ศ. ๒๕๓๗.] Copyright Act of B.E. 2537 (1994 A.D.), from Wikisource, in Thai. Section 4, Article 22 states the copyright term for applied art works
| |
| − | # [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/th:%E0%B8%9E%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B0%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%8A%E0%B8%9A%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%8D%E0%B8%8D%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%95%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%A5%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%82%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%97%E0%B8%98%E0%B8%B4%E0%B9%8C_%E0%B8%9E.%E0%B8%A8._%E0%B9%92%E0%B9%95%E0%B9%93%E0%B9%97 พระราชบัญญัติลิขสิทธิ์ พ.ศ. ๒๕๓๗.] Copyright Act of B.E. 2537 (1994 A.D.), from Wikisource, in Thai. Article 7 governs works not copyrightable. The law refers specifically to Thai state rules, regulations, announcements, orders, explanations, and correspondence, and includes the constitution, laws, court decisions, examinations, and reports.
| |
| − | # [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/th:%E0%B8%9E%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B0%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%8A%E0%B8%9A%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%8D%E0%B8%8D%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%95%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%A5%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%82%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%97%E0%B8%98%E0%B8%B4%E0%B9%8C_%E0%B8%9E.%E0%B8%A8._%E0%B9%92%E0%B9%95%E0%B9%93%E0%B9%97 พระราชบัญญัติลิขสิทธิ์ พ.ศ. ๒๕๓๗.] Copyright Act of B.E. 2537 (1994 A.D.), from Wikisource, in Thai. Article 14 states that any government office receives a copyright on creative works produced by it or produced for it under contract, unless other arrangements regarding copyright have been previously agreed to by those involved.
| |
| − | # [http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/japanese%20court%20rules%20pre-1953%20movies%20in%20public%20domain_1002318 "Paramount - Japanese court rules pre-1953 movies in public domain" (2006-12-07)]
| |
| − | # [http://www.pdcomedy.com/ClassicTV/TheLucyShow/FullEpisodes/index.html"List of public domain The Lucy Show episodes"]
| |
| − | # [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html#203 U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright Law: Chapter 2]
| |
| − | # [http://www.worldofmolecules.com/drugs/aspirin.htm World of Molecules / Aspirin].
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | ==References==
| |
| − | * Fishman, Stephen, ''The Public Domain: How to Find & Use Copyright-Free Writings, Music, Art & More''. ISBN 0-87337-433-9
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==External links==
| |
| − | * [http://www.law.duke.edu/pd/papers/Lange_background.pdf David Lange, Recognizing the Public Domain, 44 Law & Contemp Probs 147 (1981)]|
| |
| − | * [http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?66+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+463+(WinterSpring+2003) David Lange, Reimagining the Public Domain, 66 Law & Contemp Probs 463 (2003)]
| |
| − | * [http://www.bromsun.com/practices/copyright-portfolio-development/flowchart.htm Flowchart to determine Public Domain status of a work in the U.S.]
| |
| − | * [http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020305_sprigman.html ''The mouse that ate the public domain: Disney, The Copyright Term Extension Act, And Eldred v. Ashcroft''] by Chris Sprigman
| |
| − | * [http://www.edwardsamuels.com/copyright/beyond/articles/public.html ''The Public Domain In Copyright Law''] by Edward Samuels, published in Journal of the Copyright Society (1993)
| |
| − | * [http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v36-issue1/samuels.pdf The Public Domain Revisited]|260 [[Kibibyte|KiB]]<!-- application/pdf, 266275 bytes -->}} by Edward Samuels, published in the Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review (2002)
| |
| − | * [http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v36-issue1/martin-original1.pdf ''The Mythology of the Public Domain: Exploring the Myths Behind Attacks on the Duration of Copyright Protection'']|410 [[Kibibyte|KiB]]} by Scott M. Martin, Senior VP for Intellectual Property and Associate General Counsel, [[Paramount Pictures|Paramount Pictures Corporation]], published in the Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review (2002)
| |
| − | * [http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wnp Short list of uncopyrightable things in the U.S.] - Circular by the [[U.S. Copyright Office]]
| |
| − | * [http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/okbooks.html#whatpd Summary list of copyright terms in other countries] from the [[University of Pennsylvania]].
| |
| − | * [http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/ Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States] from [[Cornwell University]].
| |
| − | * [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ Public Domain Dedication]
| |
| − | * [http://www.communia-project.eu European Union thematic network COMMUNIA for the Public Domain]
| |
| | | | |
| | + | When the first early [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law copyright law] was first established in Britain with the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne Statute of Anne] in 1710, public domain did not appear. However, similar concepts were developed by British and French jurists in the eighteenth century. Instead of "public domain" they used terms such as ''publici juris'' or ''propriété publique'' to describe works that were not covered by copyright law. The phrase "fall in the public domain" can be traced to mid-nineteenth century France to describe the end of copyright term. The French poet [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_de_Vigny Alfred de Vigny] equated the expiration of copyright with a work falling "into the sink hole of the public domain" and if the public domain receives any [[attention]] from intellectual property lawyers it is still treated as little more than that which is left when intellectual property rights, such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright copyright], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent patents], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark trademarks], expire or are [[abandoned]]. In this historical context Paul Torremans describes copyright as a "little coral reef of private right jutting up from the ocean of the public domain." Because copyright law is different from country to country, Pamela Samuelson has described the public domain as being "different sizes at different times in different countries". |
| | + | ==See also== |
| | + | *'''''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons Creative Commons]''''' |
| | | | |
| | [[Category: Law]] | | [[Category: Law]] |
| | [[Category: General Reference]] | | [[Category: General Reference]] |
