Shop More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
January 10, 2013
Link

Statistics

Replies: 32

No more public domain (in the U.S.)?

:icondelusionalhamster:
delusionalHamster Featured By Owner Jan 10, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Seems kinda perverse. Is this really happening? Can a government really take works that were once in public domain out of it? What if you use a public domain work in your own work, and later it gets made proprietary - are you then retroactively breaking the law, or does grandfather clause apply?

[link]
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconsiantjudas:
siantjudas Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013   Digital Artist
You can't retroactively break the law. It's in the constitution.
However, if you are using it in an ongoing thing (based on your hypothetical situation), then they may ask for you to stop.

Example. If using paint was made illegal, you could not be charged for using paint before the law existed, and any paintings made before the law would be legal. However, continuing to use paint after the law would be illegal, and any paintings made after the law would be illegal. Make sense?
Reply
:icondelusionalhamster:
delusionalHamster Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Yeah but it's still stupid. Not to mention immoral. What is public domain once should stay that way, period. No one has the right to appropriate common property. It's like if I suddenly said that I own all the air and everyone has to pay me for breathing. That'd be ridiculous because air is common property and no one can claim ownership of it.
Reply
:iconmlaproduction:
MLAproduction Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013  Student Digital Artist
pretty much. it is happening and has happened.

and as for public domain grandfathering it's up to the 'new' owner to decide if its worth suing the seconday creator and it also would depend on the court.


I'm all for if the individual or corporation who owns the [object/picture/song/etc] is still alive or functioning than the copyright should continue to exist.

However ONCE something falls into public domain it should stay there.
Reply
:icondelusionalhamster:
delusionalHamster Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Copyright should exist during the lifetime of the creator, HOWEVER the protection granted by copyright should be significantly reduced. It should be considered that whenever a work is published publicly it should be free to be shared and copied for noncommercial uses. Copyright should only apply to commercial use.

Also nobody should be able to claim ownership on public domain works.
Reply
:iconmlaproduction:
MLAproduction Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013  Student Digital Artist
I agree.
Reply
:iconmlaproduction:
MLAproduction Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013  Student Digital Artist
pretty much. it is and has happened. and as for public domain grandfathering it's up to the 'new' owner to decide if its worth suing also would depend on the court.

then there's disney with the renewable copyright just so they can hang on to all of their characters.
Reply
:iconnovuso:
Novuso Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013
This has been going on for a long time. The "Happy Birthday" song written in 1893 was removed from the public domain and copywritten by Time Warner. In the US it is illegal to sing this song in public.

The really sick stuff is the pharmaceutical companies copywritting people's DNA. This is the type of tyranny not even George Orwell could imagine.

The whole system needs to be torn down before it gets any worse.
Reply
:icondoctorv23:
DoctorV23 Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013
Total abuse of copyright. [link]
I'm trying to wrap my head around this one and it won't...someone writes a popular song. Being popular, people like to sing it. Then those same people who gave the author of the song it's popularity and success can get arrested for doing so :(
Reply
:iconnovuso:
Novuso Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013
Copyright is game of scoundrels, frauds, and liars.

The Mildred and Patty Hill sisters were pretty much plagiarists themselves. "The good morning to all" song they copyrighted was but a ripoff of older songs with exact same melody. "Happy Greetings to All" and "Good night to you all" published in 1858. [link]

This goes along with what Professor of law Robert Brauneis wrote, “Many question the validity of the current copyright, as the melody of the song was most likely borrowed from other popular songs of the time, and the lyrics were likely improvised by a group of five- and six-year-old children who never received any compensation.” [link]


The American court system is beyond corrupt when it comes to upholding the copyrights of liars. Another example story is the two greatest fortunes of the modern era Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were founded on piracy. The founding principle of point and click computing was invented by the Xerox corporation but they never patented it and then the thieves stole it to pass it off as their own creations which became MicroSoft and Apple. [link]

Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, kings of technology? Hell no, more like king of thieves and lord of liars. The world as we know it is not what it seems. The whole thing is just a big racket.
Reply
:icondelusionalhamster:
delusionalHamster Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Yep. The copyright mafia is worse than the actual mafia in many ways.
Reply
Add a Comment: