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

Tue Dec 17 15:32:17 UTC 2013

Peter,  I think there was some problem with the mailing list permissions
and your response has only just been sent.

Thanks for your kind comments about the Rights section. The distinction
between the PD Worldwide label that we use and the PD Mark echoes a
distinction between the legal status of a work and how this status is often
represented/communicated.

I really agree that The Public Domain Review should focus mainly on PD
Worldwide stuff, and we will - but sometimes, on the odd occasion, we will
celebrate "Jurisdiction-specifc PD stuff" simply in order to celebrate (and
bring awareness) to the how things do pass into the public domain. (Rightly
or wrongly, we've also decided to do "Jurisdiction-specifc PD stuff" when
it comes to audio and film, just for the sake of representing these mediums
- if was just PD Worldwide then they'd be pretty empty!).

Anyhow, back to the Class of 2014 - Based on the really helpful comments
here, I've put in a new section talking about the "life + 50 years"
graduating class - see: http://bit.ly/1dtkkz3 - If there's time a
graduating photo, but perhaps that will have to wait till next year...

(and I've corrected to "published works" in relation to works not entering
PD in US - thanks Peter for flagging this up!)

Thanks all for this really helpful discussion

*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 14:35, Peter B. Hirtle <pbh6 at cornell.edu> wrote:

>  After thinking over this good discussion, I have come to the conclusion
> that John is right.  Initially I saw the goal of the “graduating class”
> page as identifying those works that are actually in the public domain
> worldwide.  But of course that is really hard given the anomaly of the US
> and its focus on works rather than authors.  You don’t want to say “Works
> by Rachmaninoff published before 1923” when speaking of a “graduating
> class.”
>
>
>
> I now see the primary purpose for the very clever “graduating class” idea
> to be re-affirming that works do come into the public domain, though on an
> irregular and haphazard schedule.  If the graduating class was based on
> life+50, the jurisdictional qualifiers would become even more important.
> We should have people asking why aren’t Aldous Huxley’s works in the public
> domain in the UK when they will be entering the public domain in Canada and
> Australia?  Emphasis on life+70 entrants may have the unfortunate effect of
> reaffirming that duration as the public domain norm.  Those lists could be
> left to national public domain day initiatives.
>
>
>
> Your page explaining rights labelling is excellent (though I do wonder why
> you distinguish between your “PD Worldwide” label and the PD Mark.
> Shouldn’t they be the same thing?).  But maybe linking to your rights
> labelling page from the 1st sentence in the graduating class article
> would be important, to highlight how qualified the term “public domain” is?
>
>
>
> In general I think the Public Domain Review should focus on those works
> that are in your term PD Worldwide.  But I can see how the graduating class
> idea might be an exception.
>
>
>
> And BTW, at the end of the page you say “Wondering what will enter the
> public domain in the U.S.? …Nothing.”  That is wrong.  Unpublished works by
> anyone in the life+70 class will be entering the public domain on 1
> January.  It would be proper to say “Wondering what published works will
> enter the public domain in the U.S.? …Nothing.”
>
>
>
> One last point: I said that the US got copyright terms right in its
> initial copyright law.  Those terms of course came from the Statute of
> Anne, so the UK actually got copyright duration right in 1710.  It has been
> downhill ever since…
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> *From:* pd-discuss [mailto:pd-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Adam Green
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 11, 2013 5:24 AM
>
> *To:* Public Domain discuss list
> *Subject:* Re: [pd-discuss] The Public Domain Review's Class of 2014
>
>
>
> 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 Green
>
> Editor, The Public Domain Review <http://publicdomainreview.org/> | *@PublicDomainRev
> <https://twitter.com/PublicDomainRev>*
>
> The Open 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>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pd-discuss mailing list
> pd-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/pd-discuss
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/pd-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/pd-discuss/attachments/20131217/b62e8a23/attachment-0002.html>