|
|
Post by Jason Aiken on Dec 21, 2023 15:39:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by johnnypt on Dec 24, 2023 9:10:05 GMT -5
I thought Mickey was there last month but that was just the 95th birthday, I guess official PD needs some other qualifications. The first two Kull stories should be hitting soon and Red Shadows should already be there. |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Aiken on Dec 24, 2023 16:23:51 GMT -5
I thought Mickey was there last month but that was just the 95th birthday, I guess official PD needs some other qualifications. I think it's the first of the year. I'll post the Duke Law School site once it's up on the first. |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Aiken on Dec 25, 2023 11:02:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Aiken on Jan 1, 2024 10:18:51 GMT -5
The Duke University 2024 Public Domain site is live: web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2024/Good reading here. Especially what they are alluding to as "the invisible public domain." Works that are in the public domain because the proper copyright formalities were not renewed in the past but the public is not aware of it. They mention this happened with Cthulhu in 1956 when the Weird Tales issue that contained the Call of Cthulhu didn't have its copyright renewed so it went into the public domain. I personally think a lot of pulp authors and their estates didn't know or think to renew their copyrights so they could be extended. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of REH's early published work are in this invisible public domain. |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Aiken on Jan 2, 2024 13:41:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by bazinga on Jan 13, 2024 10:14:59 GMT -5
I don't have the time to write much, but I've been thinking about this recently, due to Mickey Mouse. I also have not thought about it enough to give a definite opinion.
The problem I see is that the IP holders do still hold some rights. For the sake of completeness, it's important to play ball. Otherwise, you have to be careful what works you use and in which jurisdictions, as different rights exist in different countries. This unfortunately makes using the public domain works quite restrictive. They also have the possibility of simply filing a lawsuit anyway, which few people want to deal with regardless of the merits.
Legally speaking, the courts both in the EU and the US seem to agree that trademarks cannot be used to prevent the use of public domain works. The USPTO guidance makes clear that a mark which merely describes the character within a work cannot be given protection. The "Vigeland" case in the EU for the most part implies the same. So, at the risk of having to explain yourself in court, someone so inclined could release a product based on the public domain works and even call it "Conan". But it is mostly that risk which puts people off.
However, from a business standpoint, it is perfectly logical that the IP holders would want to strongly disagree with this interpretation of the law. From the standpoint of a business making a Howard-based product, having access to those few works still under copyright is a very good reason to just smile and nod when the IP holders claim ownership of things which they largely do not.
There is also the risk that any derivative works may too closely resemble pastiche works which are under copyright. This is especially a risk for non Howard Purists who may have difficulty distinguishing Howard from pastiche in their minds. If sued, they would then have to convince a judge that just because two derivative works come came to similar derivations, it is not original enough to be the basis of a new copyright. It all gets very messy, and a court has not definitively decided the subject, although the Sherlock Holmes case is very informative. Again, the argument probably doesn't have much merit, but I would bet good money that this is the argument the IP holders would want to test in court.
Another aspect is appearances. Most people don't understand IP law. There is a lot of weight in being able to claim your product is "official", regardless of the extent to which that term has any legal basis. For me, I think it's really obvious that they are very aware that both the jurisprudence and the public perception is changing, and this is putting pressure on them to do as much as they can to exploit the IP because its value diminishes. This is why we are getting so many quality Howard products while the US copyrights are still a kind of Schrödinger's Cat. I can't deny that the past decade has given us some very good licenced products.
This means that anyone who decides to make use of the public domain stuff is likely to find themselves not welcome on licenced projects, which are, in my opinion, currently producing derivative products of exceptional quality. Regardless of how moral you find this approach, there's a huge practical incentive for creators who want to work with Conan and Howard to accept such extralegal claims of ownership over what are otherwise public domain works.
If anyone has any thoughts, I'd love to hear them. When I have more time, I might like to write something on this topic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Von K on May 17, 2024 14:07:05 GMT -5
Creators Getting Cease And Desists Over Conan And Red Sonja
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Aiken on May 31, 2024 13:07:10 GMT -5
I think both of those could be beat. Especially the Conan one.
|
|
