[pd-discuss] The Public Domain Review's Class of 2014

Wed Dec 11 10:24:17 UTC 2013

Hi all, thanks for your very useful and thought provoking comments!

Some very good points have been raised, and dilemmas which I have struggled
with myself.

John: a really excellent point about 'life plus 50 years'. For simplicity
(and I expect some unseen euro-centric bias) I think I went with just the
70 years gang, but in hindsight I think this may be a mistake - you make a
very good point about the outliers - perhaps 50 years should indeed be the
marker we are working towards. In future iterations I should include the 50
lot. And if there is time even this year make a supplement to this class. I
also think highliting this

Peter/John/Tom: as to confusing "life plus 70" public domain with worldwide
public domain, the PDR is definitely trying to be clear with this. Peter I
don't agree that the class should have been those earning a PD mark this
year. One thing i have found is that this "Class of.." series raises a lot
of questions and debate about why the U.S. is not included and I think this
is a good thing (see for example:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121214/07565721387/uss-public-domain-class-2013.shtml).
There's a very clear statement at the end about the situation in the U.S.
with links to useful articles for people to learn more. People in the U.S>
seeing what Europe is celebrating I think is a useful tool in sparking
debate and raising awareness.

Although I feel like you disagree Peter (and perhaps others), I think we
can definitely talk usefully of a public domain which is jurisdiction
specific. It's highlighting this difference which can raise awareness of
the complicated reality of the situation and also get people moving on
issues. The vast majority of content on the PDR is in fact PD Worldwide,
and in cases where it is not we take measures to make this clear (see the
rights/re-use info with each collections post which links through to this
page: http://publicdomainreview.org/rights-labelling-on-our-site/ ) .
Helping people understand the complexities of the fact that there are in
fact lots of different public domains (as many as there are legal systems)
I think is very important in clearing the fog in what, frankly, to the
normal person is a very confusing concept. (Please, if you have some
suggestions/corrections to help make this clearer to people than I would
love to hear them).

I do acknowledge that some people do get confused about what the public
domain means on our site, whether everything on our site is free to use for
everyone etc. A lot of this is down to people not bothering to take the
time to look at things carefully, but I do think that i could perhaps make
this clearer!

*Adam GreenEditor, The Public Domain Review
<http://publicdomainreview.org/> | @PublicDomainRev
<https://twitter.com/PublicDomainRev>The Open Knowledge Foundation
<http://okfn.org/>Empowering through Open Knowledgehttp://okfn.org/
<http://okfn.org/>  |  @okfn <http://twitter.com/OKFN>  |  OKF on Facebook
<https://www.facebook.com/OKFNetwork>  |  Blog <http://blog.okfn.org/>  |
 Newsletter <http://okfn.org/about/newsletter>*

On 11 December 2013 05:27, Tom Morris <tfmorris at gmail.com> wrote:

> I like the way Peter reframed the statement.  Say what you mean, mean what
> you say.  There's no such thing as an unqualified intergalatic "public
> domain" work.  It varies by jurisdiction. Even the simplification to being
> creator based, rather than work based, varies by jurisdiction.
>
> Yes, OKF is a London thing, but not everyone knows that, so the context
> should be made explicit.  Sam works in Cambridge.  I'm usually the next
> town over, but when OKF says they're hosting an event in "Cambridge," it's
> a continent away from the real Cambridge.  When you say "public domain" and
> mean  "English public domain" or "Western European public domain," you
> should say that.
>
> All this is independent of aspirational goals of what one wishes were
> true, rather than what actually is true...
>
> Tom
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Peter B. Hirtle <pbh6 at cornell.edu>wrote:
>
>> I like the way that John has reframed my question.  Why has the Public
>> Domain Review adopted life+70 as the norm for entry into the public domain
>> when Berne stipulates life+50 and different terms are at work in different
>> countries?
>>
>> Phrased a different way, when should we say that a work enters the public
>> domain?  Life +50 is what Berne says.  The Public Domain Review is
>> apparently using life+70 (John suggests because it is a European, not a
>> global, project).  There are other definitions that could apply.
>>
>> I would argue that the graduating class should be items that would
>> qualify for the Public Domain Mark in 2014.  As Creative Commons specifies,
>> "The PDM is intended for use with old works that are free of copyright
>> restrictions around the world, or works that have been affirmatively placed
>> in the worldwide public domain prior to the expiration of copyright by the
>> rights' holder. It should not be used to mark works that are in the public
>> domain in some jurisdictions while known to be restricted by copyright in
>> others. Currently, Creative Commons does not recommend the Public Domain
>> Mark for works whose copyright status differs jurisdiction to jurisdiction,
>> though we are developing means for marking and tagging such works."
>>
>> I have already heard of people in the US who have inquired whether works
>> of the "graduating class" could be considered to be in the public domain in
>> the US.  This kind of confusion helps no one and will, in the end, hurt the
>> public domain.
>>
>> So let's come up with some clear definitions of the extent of the public
>> domain.  If you want the Public Domain Review to be "Public Domain in
>> Life+70 Countries such as in Europe but not elsewhere," say so.
>>
>> (And yes, we should all fight the unwarranted extension of life+70
>> through initiatives like the TPP.  Let's admit it: the US got it right when
>> it suggested a 14 year term, plus an additional 14 years if the author was
>> still alive and wanted to renew.  Anything else is unnecessary.)
>>
>> Peter Hirtle
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: John Mark Ockerbloom [mailto:ockerblo at pobox.upenn.edu]
>> > Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 4:27 PM
>> > To: Public Domain discuss list
>> > Cc: Peter B. Hirtle
>> > Subject: Re: [pd-discuss] The Public Domain Review's Class of 2014
>> >
>> > On 12/10/13 3:56 PM, Peter B. Hirtle wrote:
>> > > I know that you are careful to restrict the Public Domain Review to
>> > > works that are in the public domain in life+70 countries, but wouldn't
>> > > it be better if your graduating class were works that have entered the
>> > > public domain everywhere in the world, and hence are eligible to
>> receive
>> > > a CC PD mark?
>> >
>> > And here I'd been thinking that it was a shame that the class didn't
>> > include the life+50 classes (including CS Lewis, Aldous Huxley, Robert
>> > Frost, Francis Poulenc, Sylvia Plath, AJ Liebling, etc.)
>> >
>> > This is more relevant than usual, because a number of the prominent
>> > countries that still use the Berne convention standard (like Canada,
>> > Japan, and New Zealand) are involved in the Trans-Pacific Partnership
>> > negotiations, where they could lose all of these people, and many more,
>> > from their public domain, for an additional 20 years.  (Or, if Mexico's
>> > "life+100" proposal gets traction, another 50!)
>> >
>> > Much of the relentless push to extend copyright further and further
>> > has involved taking the outliers in copyright terms and making them
>> > the norm for discussions of the public domain.  It's my opinion that
>> > repeating that pattern for the Public Domain Review will promote that
>> > damaging way of thinking.
>> >
>> > As a project of the OKFN (which while global is primarily based in
>> > Europe), I'm find with the PDR going with the European term benchmark
>> > of life+70, as long as they make it clear that that's what they're
>> > using, and that the lengths of copyrights vary around the world.
>> > (Where I am in the US, for example, early works of many of the PDR
>> > "class of 2014" are already in the public domain now, while later works
>> > won't be for some time to come.)
>> >
>> > And I encourage folks in other countries with different terms to also
>> > discuss works and authors who are entering the public domain where
>> > they are (or, in the case of some countries, discussing why stuff
>> > *isn't* entering the public domain where they are).  And perhaps the PDR
>> > and the OKFN can publicize links to these various discussions, to show
>> > how the public domain works in many different places, and encourage
>> > more sensible public domain policies globally.
>> >
>> > John
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > My worry is that a non-specialist may not realize that the works that
>> > > you list are not in the public domain everywhere.
>> > >
>> > > Peter Hirtle
>> > >
>> > > *Peter B. Hirtle*, FSAA
>> > >
>> > > Senior Policy Advisor, Cornell University Library &
>> > >
>> > > Research Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Harvard
>> University
>> > >
>> > > peter.hirtle at cornell.edu <mailto:peter.hirtle at cornell.edu>
>> > >
>> > > phirtle at cyber.law.harvard.edu <mailto:phirtle at cyber.law.harvard.edu>
>> > > t.  607.592.0684
>> > >
>> > > http://vivo.cornell.edu/individual/individual23436
>> > >
>> > > /Copyright and Cultural Institutions: Guidelines for Digitization for
>> > > U.S. Libraries, Archives, and Museums:/
>> > >
>> > > _http://hdl.handle.net/1813/14142_
>> > >
>> > > *From:*pd-discuss [mailto:pd-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org] *On
>> Behalf
>> > > Of *Adam Green
>> > > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:15 AM
>> > > *To:* Public Domain discuss list
>> > > *Subject:* [pd-discuss] The Public Domain Review's Class of 2014
>> > >
>> > > Hi all,
>> > >
>> > > Just to let you know that The Public Domain Review has just published
>> > > it's yearly instalment of the "Class of..." series, Class of 2014: our
>> > > top pick of those entering the public domain next year in those
>> > > countries with a 'life plus 70 years' copyright term.
>> > >
>> > > See the post here: http://publicdomainreview.org/2013/12/10/class-of-
>> > 2014/
>> > >
>> > > Would be great if you could spread word of the post as much as
>> possible
>> > > through email lists, social media, etc, and I'd also love to hear your
>> > > comments: who we might be missing, some useful links to include, etc.
>> > >
>> > > Also any ideas about how we might follow up on this, ideas for
>> projects,
>> > > collaborations relating to some of the "graduation class", would be
>> very
>> > > welcome.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks!
>> > >
>> > > Adam.
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Adam Green
>> > >
>> > > Editor, The Public Domain Review <http://publicdomainreview.org/> |
>> > > _ at PublicDomainRev <https://twitter.com/PublicDomainRev>_
>> > >
>> > > TheOpen Knowledge Foundation <http://okfn.org/>
>> > >
>> > > /Empowering through Open Knowledge/
>> > >
>> > > http://okfn.org/ | @okfn <http://twitter.com/OKFN> | OKF on Facebook
>> > > <https://www.facebook.com/OKFNetwork> |Blog
>> > > <http://blog.okfn.org/> |Newsletter <http://okfn.org/about/newsletter
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > pd-discuss mailing list
>> > > pd-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>> > > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/pd-discuss
>> > > Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/pd-discuss
>> > >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> pd-discuss mailing list
>> pd-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/pd-discuss
>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/pd-discuss
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pd-discuss mailing list
> pd-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/pd-discuss
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/pd-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/pd-discuss/attachments/20131211/f9164d88/attachment-0002.html>