I got warned for copyright violation: How to post video for fair use purpose?

I translated and subtitled some old popular and children’s songs. Yes, they are copyrighted, I know but these songs are great for cultural sharing and language exercises. There is something called fair use I think allows me the right to create something educational for small group or teaching use. If I understand it correctly.

I first tried to share the video on facebook to a small group of friends and fellow students. The video got “fingerprinted” and removed.
I then tried to post it on you tube as an unlisted and then private file. It got flagged, and prevented from being shared internationally. It also warned that they have the right tell on me. They also gave me the option to declare it fair use but then said that it’s up to the courts to decide. I want nothing of that. I can’t afford any problems.

So, I took it all down. I still want to share the songs with my fellow students at home and here. Is there a way? I mean if this product would be available commercially, I would buy it. Copyright does stop sharing and culture. Ironically the source video came from Youtube! I just downloaded and added subtitles. I think it is also a fan page and not an official page. Could I apply for permission or would that just draw attention to me?

The short answer is “don’t.” That is, don’t even try to work around this. Just let it go.

Copyright laws in the USA are vicious. This is very much an American thing, and Google (owner of Youtube and based in the USA) has to comply with these insane laws.

Educate yourself on just how bad the situation is by reading (everyday!) this site:

techdirt.com

Most people have no idea. You’ll be astounded.

These rotten intellectual property laws were brought to us by lobbyists from: Apple, Microsoft, the MPAA (Motion Picture Ass. of America) and RIAA (Recording Industry Ass. of America). Several of their lobbyists are over here in Taiwan, trying to screw up Taiwan’s laws too. They are employed by the American Chamber of Commerce (AmCham) - several of these folks are here on Forumosa, so be careful what you admit to doing.

Good luck,
DB

You need to find out who retains the rights and permissions of the original material. Then kindly ask them if it is ok for you to edit/share the material for educational purposes.

[quote=“Dog’s_Breakfast”]

These rotten intellectual property laws were brought to us by lobbyists from: Apple, Microsoft, the MPAA (Motion Picture Ass. of America) and RIAA (Recording Industry Ass. of America). Several of their lobbyists are over here in Taiwan, trying to screw up Taiwan’s laws too. They are employed by the American Chamber of Commerce (AmCham) - several of these folks are here on Forumosa, so be careful what you admit to doing.

Good luck,
DB[/quote]

Not exactly. IP laws in the US are based on the Copyright Act of 1976, which in turn is an update of the Copyright Act of 1909 in order to reflect technological changes brought about by TV, radio etc. The act was also partly as a result of the US participation in the Universal Copyright Convention (developed by UNESCO in Geneva 1952) and planned participation in Berne Convention (dates from 1886 but the US didn’t join and ratify until 1988). Apple, Microsoft etc have nothing to do with bringing about the laws.

Where the issue lies with corporations and lobbying groups that you mentioned is that they have deep pockets and can afford to take advantage of IP laws in ways that will bring them the maximum benefit. But it works both ways - there have been instances of major corporations breaching the IP rights of small creatives, and as long as the creative has registered his/her work, the courts have found against the big corporations. For the tens of thousands (or more) of solo or independent creatives, copyright law is about the only protection they have against the big guys. Without it, a lot of those independents would not be able to make a living.

Sorry CF, but you are WAY behind the times. America’s “modern” copyright law is the awful Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998. To quote Wiki, it criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet.

What that means in practice is best shown by a few examples. It is now illegal to manufacture (or modify an existing) DVD player to make it “multi-region.” If you own a DVD player bought in Taiwan (which plays Region 3 DVDs) and you modify it so you can watch Region 1 DVDs, you go to jail. This has nothing to do with piracy of movies - you can purchase all your DVDs legally but you still go to jail for attempting to watch a DVD manufactured for a region of the world where you currently do not live in.

Another great example: it’s a criminal offense to manufacturer replacement remote controls for garage door openers (unless you have written authorization from the manufacturer of the original device). It’s even a criminal offense to tell someone else how to do it.

It is a criminal offense for an automobile mechanic to use an “unauthorized” diagnostic computer that takes advantage of a modern car’s embedded sensors.

If that wasn’t enough, in that same awful year of 1998 the US Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act. This has led to some real absurdities - did you know that the Happy Birthday Song is covered by copyright? It was written in 1893, but in the USA the mere passage of 120 years does not mean the copyright has yet expired. It is expected to expire in 2030, but maybe not because I’m sure we can expect the MPAA, RIAA, Microsoft and Apple to make sure that copyright law gets extended again. Don’t believe me? Reference: The Unhappy Birthday.

Another good one: it’s a criminal offense to have an unauthorized “public performance” of a copyrighted work. Taxi drivers have been prosecuted for playing the radio in the car when a passenger was in the back seat. It’s legal for the driver to listen to the radio if he/she is alone, but allowing a passenger to hear it makes it an unauthorized “public performance” and thus subject to criminal and civil penalties.

The rotten laws have created a new industry: copyright trolling. All you need to do is quote some author or newspaper article in an online post, and surprise, there is an email from a lawyer in your inbox demanding a US$5000 “license fee” - don’t pay and they take you to court, almost always in East Texas (which is a haven for corrupt judges). You don’t live in East Texas? Too bad - better buy a plane ticket, or else the plaintiff will win a default judgement. This is why I advised our original poster to keep his mouth shut about his attempt at “fair use.” Basically, he confessed to a crime, and the smart asses from Amcham who are on this forum work for the copyright-trolling industry. Fresh from their recent victory at shoving Ractopamine down our throats (literally), they are on a roll.

I haven’t even gotten into the issue of software patents, another “modern” invention of the USA. Almost everywhere else, software isn’t patentable. Yes, it can be copyrighted, but patented features like the “Save As…” command is what I’m talking about. Apple and Microsoft are both leaders is shoving this rottenness down our collective throats, and trying to shove it down other nations’ throats as well. There is now a thriving “patent trolling” industry in the USA as well (ie recent Apple vs. Samsung lawsuits).

Fortunately, Taiwan still hasn’t given in on software patents, but they did give in on the DMCA, so no multiregion DVD players for sale now like there used to be. However, the USA continues to chip away at other countries’ more reasonable intellectual property laws via “free-trade agreements.” We may be rather lucky that Taiwan has a very hard time signing any free-trade agreements with countries that don’t have diplomatic relations with the ROC (which is most countries).

Again, you’re talking about those ancient copyright laws, not the “modern” ones that were written by corporate lobbyists. Independent artists and writers don’t gain any benefit whatsoever from the DMCA and copyright extension (unless they live to be age 140 or so).

Again, I urge you to read techdirt.com. Daily. It’s a real eye-opener.

Sorry CF, but you are WAY behind the times. America’s “modern” copyright law is the awful Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998. To quote Wiki, it criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet.[/quote]

DMCA is simply an amendment or update to the 1976 act that allows the 2 WIPO treaties to be implemented. The underlying laws are still based on the act of 1976.

copyright.gov/title17/

[quote]

I haven’t even gotten into the issue of software patents, another “modern” invention of the USA. Almost everywhere else, software isn’t patentable. Yes, it can be copyrighted, but patented features like the “Save As…” command is what I’m talking about. Apple and Microsoft are both leaders is shoving this rottenness down our collective throats, and trying to shove it down other nations’ throats as well. There is now a thriving “patent trolling” industry in the USA as well (ie recent Apple vs. Samsung lawsuits).

Fortunately, Taiwan still hasn’t given in on software patents, but they did give in on the DMCA, so no multiregion DVD players for sale now like there used to be. However, the USA continues to chip away at other countries’ more reasonable intellectual property laws via “free-trade agreements.” We may be rather lucky that Taiwan has a very hard time signing any free-trade agreements with countries that don’t have diplomatic relations with the ROC (which is most countries).[/quote]

Patents and copyright are two different things.

Again, you’re talking about those ancient copyright laws, not the “modern” ones that were written by corporate lobbyists. Independent artists and writers don’t gain any benefit whatsoever from the DMCA and copyright extension (unless they live to be age 140 or so).[/quote]

Those “ancient” laws as you call them are the laws that apply today. Independents most certainly do benefit from DMCA. Any creator can use it as need be, and most independent creatives I know and work with have had to at one time or another.

if for educational use, you can share it under fair use if you don’t share it on a public forum where non-students can access the work and therefore deprive the owner of economic benefit. so you could just upload it to a file-sharing space with password available to your students. note however fair use is not black and white, the above is just opinion.

clearly, youtube and facebook are too public a space. on the other hand, some people seem confident that if you simply reverse the image, you can sidestep copyright. I see that on youtube a lot, but dunno how it works.

about DMCA, i read somewhere that if you unlock phones (so as to use other carriers), it violates the DCMA although there was once an exception by the Library of Congress (who is empowered to do so). that to me, is a abuse of DCMA (or else DCMA is overbroad).

Thank you guys. I really enjoyed the rant/explanation from dog’s breakfast. Come on we are all criminals… Aren’t we from an other place? Don’t we have favorite movies and TV shows that we liked in our past lives that no Taiwanese will ever be interested in? Do we have a DVD player for each region? Don’t tell anyone from America, but small brand DVD player are multi region out of the box… shhh. It blew over. My first DVD Player when DVD players were new to Taiwan was a region one Pioneer, fixed and bought right from SOGO. There were also card reader devices that allowed Chinese to insert data cards containing Chinese subtitles. Those were the days…
Next DVD player was Taiwan made but the manufacturer freely told me the menu code to change it. The following DVD player, I tried to do the same thing. The factory people nearly shit in their pants and said they can’t dare tell me the codes. Now I’ve been buying players that named for a clear day or a restaurant in America. They last one year and there are no issues… I really want see the face of that mighty Meiguo Ren who came to Taiwan just to disrupt my legal DVD watching experience. Is he one of us?

Back to my particular issue. Why me? Why did I get picked on. All these music videos, TV shows and all that were posted by fans. They were not stopped or asked to be taken down. There are even Google Adds on some of them. (Profit from someone elses work? ). It’s a true pitty that we can’t share and subtitle things. It only increases interest and maybe sell more records. Could we convince the big companies to release Music Videos with international subtitles? How much would that cost? Would people buy them? Question… there are many editors on this forum. Many of the Learn English Magazines feature pop songs. Can someone ask the business department how much they pay for the rights?

[quote=“Taiwan_Student”] I really want see the face of that mighty Meiguo Ren who came to Taiwan just to disrupt my legal DVD watching experience. Is he one of us?
[/quote]

I know of at least two Amcham lobbyists who are here on Forumosa. However, it is against forum rules to blow somebody’s cover, and actually I support that rule as I wouldn’t want anyone to do that to me. There are a few people on this forum who do out themselves, but that’s their decision. So rest easy you Amcham folks, you needn’t fear me - you only have to struggle with your own conscience, assuming you have one. I wish I could ask you guys if you personally eat the ractopamine that you forced the Taiwanese to accept into their food. If my arguments make no sense to you, perhaps this quote from Upton Sinclair (great author!) will help: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

You can pretty much assume that the director of AIT (which despite the lack of diplomatic relations is in fact an unofficial embassy) takes his orders from Amcham. It’s practically written into the job description. Ditto for other American embassy/consulate staff in other countries. Those few brave (but naive) individuals who think that State Department employees shouldn’t be working for corporate lobbyists soon find themselves transferred to a remote posting (Antarctica? Deep sea oil drilling platform?) where their moral principles don’t get in the way of their job.

One of the things you will learn if you read Techdirt.com is just how irrational some of these intellectual property organizations can be. The MPAA has issued DMCA takedown notices to web sites hosting movie trailers released by the MPAA. Go figure.

One of my favorite stories is how a copyright troll demanded royalties for a video on Youtube of somebody’s kid’s birthday party in which you could barely hear a radio playing in the background - the barely audible song being played on the radio was totally incidental to the video. If that isn’t “fair use,” then what is? There was an even more absurd case where someone posted an outdoor video, and you could hear birds singing in the trees - a copyright troll insisted that he owned the copyright on the noises being made by the birds. Only in America do birds need a lawyer.

[quote=“Dog’s_Breakfast”][quote=“Taiwan_Student”] I really want see the face of that mighty Meiguo Ren who came to Taiwan just to disrupt my legal DVD watching experience. Is he one of us?
[/quote]

I know of at least two Amcham lobbyists who are here on Forumosa. However, it is against forum rules to blow somebody’s cover, and actually I support that rule as I wouldn’t want anyone to do that to me. There are a few people on this forum who do out themselves, but that’s their decision. So rest easy you Amcham folks, you needn’t fear me - you only have to struggle with your own conscience, assuming you have one. I wish I could ask you guys if you personally eat the ractopamine that you forced the Taiwanese to accept into their food. If my arguments make no sense to you, perhaps this quote from Upton Sinclair (great author!) will help: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”[/quote]
(Me making those noises of agreement heard in the British Parlament, wish I could remember what they said but they sounded like warlruses… use to listen to the bbc world service all the time)

The thing is. They are people. They live here. They have roots elsewhere. I can bet that if you get into their houses, they will have some movies on sticks, DVD+/- R’s or even (gulp) a fixed or multi region DVD player. If they walk the talk, then, they can be respected. But that would make one very ignorant by rejecting media and ideas from other areas. (The king says don’t read that paper, its not meant for your eyes, but you can keep it in your house.) Unless they do have a dvd player from each region they like to watch media from. Then I can respect the more.

I too don’t want to out them for I know that I don’t want to be outed. But, a nice off the record chat with them would be nice. I really want to know what they do and what they expect us to do publicly and privately. So that’s your assignment Mr. Dog’s Breakfast. Take one of those guys to a nice dinner or coffee shop and have a chat. Do they really walk the talk, or would they be candid like some my bosses and professors and whisper… Of course you’re not expected to comply with all the rules, just keep your mouth closed. (I gave the impression of being a Johny Honest at one point and got cut out of some great activities like rescuing old computer equipment from dumpsters that were marked to be destroyed for tax purposes) I still Naively wish the world would be more honest.
And what is to be gained by cracking down on multi region players. I mean… the US media is more expensive here. And the presence or absence of subtitles to Taiwanese means more to them than the savings they would get by buying from overseas. Plus the media itself, what people are intersted in or not interested is more of a factor. I can’t get my Taiwan friends interested in Green Acres no matter how hard I try. Why is it a region one only disk?

[quote=“Dog’s_Breakfast”]

That still doesn’t answer the question why other people post lots of good stuff but not me.

[quote=“Dog’s_Breakfast”]
One of my favorite stories is how a copyright troll demanded royalties for a video on Youtube of somebody’s kid’s birthday party in which you could barely hear a radio playing in the background - the barely audible song being played on the radio was totally incidental to the video. If that isn’t “fair use,” then what is? There was an even more absurd case where someone posted an outdoor video, and you could hear birds singing in the trees - a copyright troll insisted that he owned the copyright on the noises being made by the birds. Only in America do birds need a lawyer.[/quote]

This is great stuff… Please give me references to some of your stories and points. I’ve been here to long not to believe the stranges things people say but I want to read the cases with my own eyes… Thanks :popcorn:

it’s pretty clear he cannot obtain a copyright for that. all you need to do is ask for the copyright document (or number). don’t need a lawyer for that.

it’s pretty clear he cannot obtain a copyright for that. all you need to do is ask for the copyright document (or number). don’t need a lawyer for that.[/quote]

We may be talking similar but still stupid things. Aren’t I think they are original works (copyrights), Patents (new inventions), and methods like for assembling a big mac are or running a special kind of restaurant (not sure what that is called).

The trouble is with these stupid protects at this stage is we have already created virtual reality so we can do just about everything in that we do in the real world in the virtual world yet we still protect obvious things like clicking on a certain data file and having that correct application open. (An argument I think apple is having) That is stupid… We should not be able to protect simple methods that exist in the real world.

Bird songs are dificult to record perhaps. If the person who did first he could I guess claim that he disovered the only way to record bird songs. That is stupid.

BTW, here is something I don’t understand. What is a troll? I mean does he buy the copyright and then try his luck collecting. Or does he shake down stupid users, make them pay then give a portion of the proceeds to the copyright owner?

What percentage does the troll keep? How much goes to the copyright owner?

There was a case where a Woody Guthrie song was charged for even though he himself put it into the public domain. According to EEF, they forced the agency to stop charging for use but no one to their knowledge sued for a refund. They should.

it’s pretty clear he cannot obtain a copyright for that. all you need to do is ask for the copyright document (or number). don’t need a lawyer for that.[/quote]

First off, the copyright system no longer works that way. Anything you publish is automatically copyrighted. You make a video of your dog taking a dump and upload it to Youtube, you now have the copyright on that video. No registration number required. At one time all copyrights needed to be registered - that is no longer the case.

If you’re doubting that this bird-chirping incident actually occurred and you think I made it up, then…

Guy Gets Bogus YouTube Copyright Claim… On Birds Singing In The Background

And a similar case…

Apple Sued For Copyright Infringement Because Third Party App Has Someone Else’s Bird Sounds

===========================================

Yes indeed, human beings have a great capacity for hypocrisy. It’s not just copyrights and patents, of course. I can’t help but think of those cases of women who had abortions when they were younger, now standing outside of abortion clinics with signs saying “Abortion is Murder” and demanding that anyone who has an abortion be thrown in jail. Would they like to “walk the talk” by turning themselves in and serving a sentence for murder? Oh no, it’s other people who should go to jail, not them. Ditto for the War on Drugs - former pot smoker (“but I didn’t inhale”) Bill Clinton, former cocaine head George Bush and former pot smoker Barack Obama, telling the attorney-general to vigorously prosecute any and all cases of drug use and possession - except, of course, not to prosecute the president for his previous drug use.

I’ve asked myself that question many times, and can only chalk it up to this irrationality that runs through the corporate world. The whole point behind region coding is so movie producers can charge higher prices in some markets than they can in others. But then many movies aren’t even released in certain regions. Thus, if the Taiwanese did, for some reason, think that Green Acres was a great show, they couldn’t buy it in Taiwan because it’s not released in region 3 format, and if they order a region 1 DVD from Amazon they can’t watch it in Taiwan unless they also buy a region 1 DVD player from the USA (plus a region 2 DVD player for European movies). And as you say, no Chinese subtitles on region 1 DVDs makes it rather inaccessible anyway, so WTF are these Hollywood studios complaining about. By the way, there are a total of 8 regions of DVD players, but the new blue-ray players have “only” 3 regions - as to why that is, perhaps the Amcham folks can tell us (you guys following this thread?).

You just got lucky, I guess.

OK, I’ll try to include more references. But like I said, Techdirt is a great resource if you want to read about the “intellectual property” wars. Not all their stories are great, but there are some real gems in there. A few more recent ones:

Copyright Dispute Means Germans Can’t See All Those Russian Meteor Videos

New Hampshire Politicians Want To Make ‘Satellite View’ On Maps A Criminal Offense

Pure Scamming Copyright Troll Implies It’s A Gov’t Agency And That You Will Face Jail Time If You Don’t Pay Up

You asked about the definition of a “copyright troll.” A quick search on Google will answer that and most any other questions, but here you go:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_troll

…and along similar lines…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll

cheers,
DB

Copyright has been automatic at the time the work was in fixed form for a loooong time in the US. It is not new. What’s new is that so many more people have the means and desire to disseminate things that are not of their own creation, through reposting or “publishing” in electronic means.

Write a couple of books and watch them get copied for free, then come back and tell us how you feel about “fair use”.

it’s pretty clear he cannot obtain a copyright for that. all you need to do is ask for the copyright document (or number). don’t need a lawyer for that.[/quote]

First off, the copyright system no longer works that way. Anything you publish is automatically copyrighted. You make a video of your dog taking a dump and upload it to Youtube, you now have the copyright on that video. No registration number required. At one time all copyrights needed to be registered - that is no longer the case.

[/quote]

There’s nothing new about anything you publish being automatically protected - it’s been that way for close to 40 years. For unpublished works, similar protection has existed for over 100 years. But, and this is the key, if you don’t register copyright and try to take someone to court over it, you can only be awarded actual damages. For a song in a YouTube video, that may mean you make a grand total of $1.99. The big money lawsuits that get talked about involve statutory damages and for that, registration is necessary. In fact, if you contact a copyright lawyer and ask them to take your case, the first thing they’ll ask you is whether or not your work is registered. If it’s not registered, 99% of copyright lawyers won’t take your case. Registration is a quick and easy process and is something that most creatives do on a regular basis.

Some of the links you provide have only tangential relevance to copyright. They are scams using copyright as the excuse but have no legal basis under any copyright law.

[quote=“ironlady”]Copyright has been automatic at the time the work was in fixed form for a loooong time in the US. It is not new. What’s new is that so many more people have the means and desire to disseminate things that are not of their own creation, through reposting or “publishing” in electronic means.

Write a couple of books and watch them get copied for free, then come back and tell us how you feel about “fair use”.[/quote]

I have written a couple of books, and watched them get copied for free. That isn’t “fair use.”

An example of “fair use” is when someone quotes something you wrote. Thus, if here on Forumosa, I post…

[quote]When Fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.

  • Sinclair Lewis[/quote]

Thanks to the “fair use” clause in copyright law, I presumably don’t have to worry about Sinclair Lewis suing me for copyright infringement. Actually, he can’t sue me since he died in 1951, but now that copyrights never expire in the USA some corporate entity could send me an email demanding US$5000 in royalties for licensing the intellectual property rights to that quote. My only defense would be the fair use clause.

Equally, a song being played in the background of a birthday party video should be fair use.

It shouldn’t be hard to see the difference between fair use and piracy. The intent of piracy is to steal someone else’s work, so you get a copy without paying for it. Merely quoting someone or recording a few seconds of sound track in the background is not taking money out of the original author’s pocket. Indeed, it might be great free publicity - could actually inspire someone to seek out the original recording or book and purchase it.

[quote=“Dog’s_Breakfast”]Actually, he can’t sue me since he died in 1951, but now that copyrights never expire in the USA some corporate entity could send me an email demanding US$5000 in royalties for licensing the intellectual property rights to that quote. My only defense would be the fair use clause.

[/quote]

Not true at all. Copyrights expire all the time.

[quote=“cfimages”][quote=“Dog’s_Breakfast”]Actually, he can’t sue me since he died in 1951, but now that copyrights never expire in the USA some corporate entity could send me an email demanding US$5000 in royalties for licensing the intellectual property rights to that quote. My only defense would be the fair use clause.

[/quote]

Not true at all. Copyrights expire all the time.[/quote]

Ah, I got you good on this one, my friend…

[quote=“Dog’s_Breakfast”][quote=“cfimages”][quote=“Dog’s_Breakfast”]Actually, he can’t sue me since he died in 1951, but now that copyrights never expire in the USA some corporate entity could send me an email demanding US$5000 in royalties for licensing the intellectual property rights to that quote. My only defense would be the fair use clause.

[/quote]

Not true at all. Copyrights expire all the time.[/quote]

Ah, I got you good on this one, my friend…

[quote]
Public Domain Day 2013

What is entering the public domain in the United States? Nothing. Once again, we will have nothing to celebrate this January 1st. Not a single published work is entering the public domain this year. Or next year. In fact, in the United States, no publication will enter the public domain until 2019. Even more shockingly, the Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that Congress can take back works from the public domain. Could Shakespeare, Plato, or Mozart be pulled back into copyright? The Supreme Court gave no reason to think that they could not be. more…

 --------------------------

What Could Have Been Entering the Public Domain on January 1, 2012?
What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2012? Under the law that existed until 1978, works from 1955
more…
[/quote][/quote]

You didn’t “get” me at all. In fact, your own quote says some will enter public domain in 2019 which is hardly never. But your source is not particularly accurate. James Joyce “Ulysses” for one, had its copyright expire in June last year. Based on the Copyright Act of 1976, any works produced now will see their copyright expire 70 years after the creators death, unless it’s renewed. You can bet that of the thousands and thousands of individuals who hold copyright to their own works, the vast majority will not be renewed and will thus expire. I seriously doubt my descendants will renew the registration on copyrights I hold and thus my work will one day enter the public domain. Realistically, it’s only the famous artists that see their work renewed. For the 80-90% of working creatives who are not known, their copyrights expire all the time. Anyone who published before 1923 is now public domain. Anything published between 1923 and 1963 has a maximum of 95 years if renewed or 28 years if not. A lot of that content is either now in the public domain or is about to be. Stuff published between 1964 and 1977 has a maximum of 95 years due to automatic extensions applying.

[quote=“cfimages”]You didn’t “get” me at all. In fact, your own quote says some will enter public domain in 2019 which is hardly never.
[/quote]

But before 2019, it will be extended again. That prick, Sonny Bono (no wonder Cher divorced him) will rise from the grave with the Sonny Boner Copyright Extension Act, Part II, of 2018. Just wait and see.

My source is accurate. Multiple sources available with a little bit of Googling. Here is Wikipedia’s word on the issue:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_in_pu … ted_States

It’s true that James Joyce “Ulysses” entered the public domain in 2012…in his native Ireland. Not in the USA.

Much more complicated than that. Here is the mind-boggling mess that is US copyright law, if you want to wade through it:

copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

There are many thousands of such works, presently locked up by copyright. These are known as “orphaned copyrights.” You cannot get permission to publish any of this stuff since no living rights’ holder can be contacted.

Have a good day.
DB