On January 1st in the USA (and also in some other countries), most books first published in America fell out of copyright protection and became “public domain”. That means they are owned by the public, and you can legally do pretty much whatever you want with them: copy them, sell them, adapt them to movies or TV, produce terribly proofread versions, add adult elements…whatever.
This is probably a good place for me to say that IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer). That said, this is relatively unambiguous, which is certainly not always the case in copyright.
In 1998, copyright (again, this is just the USA) was largely extended to 95 years. It’s more complicated than that, somewhat, and changes over time (at one point, a proper copyright notice had to be published…due to an odd set of circumstances, that didn’t happen with the movie Night of the Living Dead, which caused it to fall into the public domain. That’s no longer the case).
Works 1st published in the USA in 1924 had 95 years of permission. 1924+95=2019, so they were protected through that period. On January 1st, 2020, that ended.
However, my feeling is that page is advocatory: it certainly seems to favor the idea of shorter copyright terms (for example, listing what would have gone into the public domain if copyright had not been extended).
I do think their listing is likely to be accurate, even though we may have different feelings about potential copyright reform. They argue that shorter copyright terms are better, while I have explored the idea of permanent copyright in exchange for greater Fair Use provisions:
Let’s take a look…I will also include books that don’t appear on that page that I’ve seen other places:
A Passage to India by E.M. Forster: it’s been listed as one of the 100 top novels, and had an Oscar-winning adaptation in 1984 (directed by David Lean). This is a good place to point out that just because a source work is in the public domain, it doesn’t mean that every version and adaptation of it is. Let’s say you publish a new version of A Passage to India…and add illustrations. Those illustrations are not in the public domain just because Passage is, so you have to be careful if you choose to distribute a book you think is PD
When We Were Very Young by A.A. Milne: this is a book of poetry for children and includes the first reference to what would become known as Winnie-the-Pooh
The Man in the Brown Suit by Agatha Christie: yes, an Agatha Christie mystery! This one introduces Colonel Race
Tarzan and the Ant Men by Edgar Rice Burroughs: this is the 10th book in the Tarzan series and the series changes in tone afterwards, with less focus on the Jungle Lord. Trivia: it gets mentioned in To Kill a Mockingbird
Dr. Dolittle’s Circus by Hugh Lofting: another book in a series, this one has some elements that people who have seen the 1967 musical movie may remember, in particular the Pushmi-Pullyu (like a llama with heads on both ends)
The King of Elfland’s Daughter by Lord Dunsany: another fantasy, but of the epic variety
The Magic Mountain by Thomas Mann: a philosophical novel
Old New York by Edith Wharton: a set of four novellas
That’s just some…and they’ll show up fairly quickly online (they may be there already, since people knew this was happening). I’d particularly look at
Also, Google search will generally show the full book for public domain titles (where they have already scanned them), as opposed to snippets. For example, here is
It’s more than books: there are also movies, which will affect those of us watching on Fire TVs and such. 🙂 Interesting, while some songs are part of it, actual sound recordings tend not to be (meaning you can’t just reproduce the records you bought at a garage sale).
This should continue until the laws change (well, until 2073…then, we are reliant on the “life+” system, which is much harder to figure), with more books entering the public domain on January 1st each year…
Feel free to let me and my readers know if you are releasing anything based on these works by commenting on this post!
* I am linking to the same thing at the regular Amazon site, and at AmazonSmile. When you shop at AmazonSmile, half a percent of your purchase price on eligible items goes to a non-profit you choose. It will feel just like shopping at Amazon: you’ll be using your same account. The one thing for you that is different is that you pick a non-profit the first time you go (which you can change whenever you want)…and the good feeling you’ll get.
Shop ’til you help! 🙂
This post by Bufo Calvin originally appeared in the I Love My Kindle blog. To support this or other organizations, begin your Amazon shopping from a link on their sites: Amazon.com (Smile.Amazon.com)
Books (& more) enter the public domain in the USA today…in a way we haven’t seen for 20 years
Over time, copyright extension has been repeatedly extended in the USA (and certainly, in some other countries). I think there are legitimate reasons for that, and have even explored the idea of permanent copyright in exchange for greater Fair Use (educational & preservational uses):
That said, I love that books are available legally to people for free! Anyone who has the means to access them (and public libraries commonly provide those) can read, for example, “the Famous Fourteen” original (Wizard of) Oz books for free.
For the past 20 years, though, large numbers of works have not fallen into the public domain on January 1st, as had been happening. That’s because of an extension to copyright which happened in 1998, largely extending copyright to 95 years. NOTE: It’s important to note at this point that I am not an intellectual property attorney (or a lawyer of any kind)…just an interested layperson. I’m also not trying to cover every possibility (it can be complicated), and I’m only talking about the USA. Take everything below as rule of thumb.
Works first published 1922 or earlier in the USA have already been in the public domain in the USA. Oh, I haven’t defined public domain! Basically, the books (and most other works, including movies) become owned by the public. You don’t have to get permission from anyone to reproduce them, distribute them, sell them (although the containers, like the paperbooks themselves, can still be owned), or adapt them into other works (making movies out of books, for instance). Also be aware that a translation of a work creates a new copyright, and if you are scanning a paperbook or looking at something online, introductions, analyses, images can all still be copyrighted when the original work is not.
Well, it’s great for the information…be aware that it is advocatory. They make the point about what would have fallen into the public domain if copyright had not been extended in the past, which clearly seems to advocate for shorter terms.
Based on what they say, here are some of the books you now own:
Tarzan and the Golden Lion by Edgar Rice Burroughs (Tarzan is one of those characters, like Sherlock Holmes, which can really confuse people. Some of the works are in the public domain, but some have not been. If a series was published starting before 1922, and continued into 1923 or beyond, some of the books are in the public domain, and some are not. A character could also be trademarked as well, which is something different…works could be in the public domain featuring a character, and you still might not be free to do whatever you want with the character)
The Prophet by Kahil Gibran
Agatha Christie, The Murder on the Links (Hercule Poirot)
e.e cummings: Tulips and Chimneys
John Ds Passos: Streets of Night
Arthur Conan Doyle: The Case for Spirit Photography
E.M. Forster: Pharos and Pharillon
Laura Lee Hope: The Bobbsey Twins Camping Out
Elbert Hubbard: Antic Hay
Rudyard Kipling: Land and Sea Tales for Boys and Girls
D.H. Lawrence: Birds, Beasts and Flowers
Hugh Lofting: Dr. Doolittle’s Post Office
Bertrand Russell: The Prospects of Industrial Civilization
Carl Sandberg: Rootabag Pigeons
Booth Tarkington (The Fascinating Stranger and Other Stories)
Edgar Wallace: The Valley of Ghosts
P.G. Wodehouse: Jeeves
That’s just some…and they’ll show up fairly quickly online (they may be there already, since people knew this was happening). I’d particularly look at
It’s more than books: there are also movies, which will affect those of us watching on Fire TVs and such. 🙂 Interesting, while some songs are part of it, actual sound recordings tend not to be (meaning you can’t just reproduce the records you bought at a garage sale).
This should continue until the laws change, with more books entering the public domain on January 1st each year…
Have any thoughts about this? Are you planning to make any of the books available to the public yourself, perhaps adding copyrighted material (such as an introduction) to them? Feel free to let me and my readers know by commenting on this post.
* I am linking to the same thing at the regular Amazon site, and at AmazonSmile. When you shop at AmazonSmile, half a percent of your purchase price on eligible items goes to a non-profit you choose. It will feel just like shopping at Amazon: you’ll be using your same account. The one thing for you that is different is that you pick a non-profit the first time you go (which you can change whenever you want)…and the good feeling you’ll get.
will start at noon Pacific Time (3:00 PM Eastern) on July 16th and run through midnight Pacific July 17th…36 hours. That’s why they keep saying it is “Prime Day (and a half)”. 36 hours is 1.5 days.
This year’s sweepstakes (at AmazonSmile*) (which started July 3rd) is amazing, with prizes including $50,000, an Alexa-equipped Lexus, and a SmartHome makeover. There are lots of ways to enter, detailed here (at AmazonSmile*). One way is to visit the Prime Day page when logged into your account and stay there for a minute…I’m not sure how many people realize that they are timing you like that…
Giant (really giant) Smile boxes are visiting a few cities, and you can watch online (at AmazonSmile*). My guess? At least one of these will open up to reveal a concert by a top music act which is featured on Prime Music.
Free PC games from Twitch…every day through Prime Day
Try Kindle Unlimited for three months for $0.99
Buy your first Kindle book (there are people who haven’t bought Kindle books? 😉 ) and get a $10 credit for e-books, p-books (paperbooks) and Audible audiobooks on Prime Day
I have an Amazon gift card to spend…but I’m going to wait until Prime Day. 🙂
Did a judge just really expand Fair Use?
I’m not an intellectual property lawyer, but I do follow copyright pretty closely. My natural tendency is to reserve rights for the creator, rather than giving the work to society.
About eight years ago, I explored the idea of making copyright permanent in exchange for much broader Fair Use rights:
decided that a site which used part of a photograph that it had found on the internet did not infringe upon the photographer’s rights.
Fair Use has a number of factors which makes a ruling a bit complicated in terms of setting precedent, but this one does concern me. I need to look at it more closely…
Wanna buy a business?
There are a lot of ways to make money with Amazon…you can get royalties as an author, you can be a third party seller, you do tasks through Amazon Mechanical Turk, you can be an Amazon Flex driver…and now, if you invest $10,000, Amazon will help set you up with a delivery business!
Amazon says you could make up to $300,000…but of course, you could also lose money.
Even with help, running a business isn’t easy. The old saying goes that when you own a business, the business owns you. Even just as a manager (not owner) of a bookstore, I worked…a lot.
I absolutely think this is a good opportunity for the right people! However, unless Amazon does screen very carefully (and they certainly might), a much bigger number of people will fail than succeed…just like in most businesses.
Little House in the Phantom Zone
There have been a lot of stories and opinions published
about the Association for Library Service to Children (ALSC), which is part of the American Library Association, renaming the Laura Ingall Wilder Award to the Children’s Literature Legacy Award.
“Wilder’s books are a product of her life experiences and perspective as a settler in America’s 1800s. Her works reflect dated cultural attitudes toward Indigenous people and people of color that contradict modern acceptance, celebration, and understanding of diverse communities.”
This ties directly into an issue I examined in another article from 2010:
I think they probably are doing a safe thing, renaming the award so that it doesn’t tie into a specific person. I would challenge you to name any fiction author who was widely popular at least fifty years ago who didn’t write anything that could be seen as offensive today…
is one of my favorite non-reading Amazon devices…it’s an Echo, but with a screen. Yes, it can show me some commercial videos (movie trailers and such), but I really like how it shows information…and how I can make “videocalls”.
I really like it! It’s not perfect, but it is a whole new class of device. You might think you have enough Echo/Alexa devices, but you might consider swapping out one of your old devices for this one. Look for a bargain (although it may be a bundle) on Prime Day.
I have read many translated books in my time, and assuming that this accurately reflects what the author intended (and my intuition is that it does), it reads as very natural English. Not just in the words, but in the use of idiom…”as the crow flies”, for example. I doubt that the Japanese equivalent term has anything to do with crows. 😉
That one is also available through Kindle Unlimited at time of writing.
Have an opinion on any of these stories? Feel free to let me and my readers know by commenting on this post. My “day job” activities have started to slow down a bit after being super busy…that will help my responsiveness. Oh, and some of you know about our dogs: Elf got bitten by another dog at the dog park recently. Elf will be okay, but it may be a couple of weeks of recovery (and it’s a difficult time for us…by the way, Elf was literally just sitting there and it was unprovoked). That means no trips to the dog park…which gives me back literally a few hours on both Saturday and Sunday. Definitely not worth it, but it is a reality…
* I am linking to the same thing at the regular Amazon site, and at AmazonSmile. When you shop at AmazonSmile, half a percent of your purchase price on eligible items goes to a non-profit you choose. It will feel just like shopping at Amazon: you’ll be using your same account. The one thing for you that is different is that you pick a non-profit the first time you go (which you can change whenever you want)…and the good feeling you’ll get. Shop ’til you help!
This post by Bufo Calvin originally appeared in the I Love My Kindle blog. To support this or other blogs/organizations, buy Amazon Gift Cards from a link on the site, then use those to buy your items. There will be no cost to you, and a benefit to them.
Generally, books first published in 1923 in the USA are going to fall into the public domain here on January 1, 2019.
Copyright in the USA is complicated (in my opinion, a lot more complicated than it needs to be), but as a rule of thumb, books first published in the USA prior to 1923 are in the public domain now.
That means that the public (you and me and everybody else) owns them. You don’t need to ask anybody’s permission to publish them, and you don’t need to pay anybody. Note: this is rule of thumb. For example, a 1995 translation of a work created in 1921 gets a new copyright, and reproducing that might require permission.
With the last major revision of copyright (again, IANAL…I Am Not A Lawyer, this is my lay understanding), many books got 95 years of protection…so for works published in 1923 in the USA, that runs out this year. They lose their protection on January 1, 2019 (the year gets finished regardless of when in the year they were published).
You could publish the books, and you could sell them…even in the Kindle store…with some significant restrictions.
It used to be a problem in the Kindle store: there would be literally hundreds of editions of some public domain works. Many of them were identical, and of course, many of them might also be significantly flawed (even missing parts of the book).
I wrote about a revision Amazon made to the policy back in 2011:
Essentially, you need to create significant new content (a new translation, illustrations, annotations), creating a new unique copyright. That will make it what Amazon calls “differentiated”. Amazon is under no obligation to publish works, but if you have something that will sell and won’t cause them problems, it’s to their advantage to do so.
This is also not a “get rich quick scheme”. 🙂 For well-known works, there may be one hundred versions of them or more available to people…yours would need to seem to be of value to readers, and they would need to find them. Also, “undifferentiated” versions will be available for free from other sources, so you’ll have that competition.
Still, if you are an expert in something, or a fan, or an artist trying to get known, this is a great opportunity! Being the publisher might mean that you are also the creator, but it doesn’t have to mean that…there have been many great editors of anthologies. I’ve bought anthologies in the past because they were edited by specific people, or published as part of a series I’ve enjoyed.
What books are going to become public domain?
Unfortunately, the Copyright Office doesn’t have online searchable records for 1923. I’ve been hoping they would get that going for many years now, and they still might.
One of the highest profile books I think is covered by this is The Prophet by Kahil Gibran, but there will be many others. One thing I think we’ll really notice is expanded collections for series and authors which were partially published before 1923, but lasted into it. For example, The Cowardly Lion of Oz, by Ruth Plumly Thompson, was published in 1923…we’ll see it added to collections with earlier books.
All of this should make 2019 one of the most interesting ones for public domain books we’ve seen in years! Will you be part of the wave? 😉
When you shop at AmazonSmile, half a percent of your purchase price on eligible items goes to a non-profit you choose. It will feel just like shopping at Amazon: you’ll be using your same account. The one thing for you that is different is that you pick a non-profit the first time you go (which you can change whenever you want)…and the good feeling you’ll get. Shop ’til you help!
This post by Bufo Calvin originally appeared in the I Love My Kindle blog. To support this or other blogs/organizations, buy Amazon Gift Cards from a link on the site, then use those to buy your items. There will be no cost to you, and a benefit to them.
Shakeup at the Copyright Office: publishers express concern
I’ve written quite a bit about copyright, and it’s definitely an interest of mine.
All readers are affected by it. We’ve had some lively discussions about copyright in this blog.
Well, there was recently a major shakeup at the Copyright Office.
Now, to be clear, I think it’s an institution that could use some changes…I doubt very many people are satisfied with it the way it is. It definitely needs modernization (we should be able to easily go online and see if any book is in the public domain ((not under copyright protection)); that just seems obvious nowadays).
It would be nice if they would make definitive statements about policies…many of them seem deliberately fuzzy, leaving it up to the courts.
That said, though, what happened recently was a shock, and the “content industry” (books, music, and so on) seems generally dismayed and concerned.
Maria Pallante had been the Register of Copyrights since 2011, and had made some changes seen as favorable to content producers.
The new Librarian of Congress (been there less than two months), Carla Hayden, reassigned Pallante to a senior advisor position at the LoC…and Pallante declined and left.
There is talk about separating the Copyright Office from the Library of Congress (it’s currently under that organization), and perhaps this was a move in that direction.
There are rumors that this was done at the, um, suggestion of Google or other tech groups.
You see, there have been…differing points of view between content producers and tech companies. Tech companies benefit by making as much content available to their customers as easily as possible. They’d love to make it free and fully searchable and perhaps modifiable. They typically don’t make the money by selling the actual content…they sell advertising, and they may sell devices and network access. They don’t sell by the piece, most of the time.
Content producers want to be compensated, and their payment plans are most often based on piece sales. That may be changing, with subscription services like
It’s important to note that Hayden’s term is for ten years…and is quite powerful.
This move certainly suggests that we are going to see a distinctive term with significant changes. My guess is that there will be reader-friendly policies…but ones that might not be as favorable for the content producers and distributors.
In the long term, that might be bad for readers…although that’s hard to say. If, and that’s a big if, the brand name authors of today can’t make a living the way they do now, it’s safe to say that they won’t all adapt successfully to a new paradigm (that’s happened with every big intellectual property change…silent movies, for example). Fragmentation of the industry, where many books are published by the authors, would also change things.
Solving the “orphan books” problem would matter…those are books which are under copyright, but not in print, and where no one can be found to authorize a new edition.
Saying definitively that we can digitize a print book which we have purchased and which is under copyright for our own use (without explicit authorization) would create an entirely new industry.
Whatever it is, it will likely affect what you will be reading ten years from now.
The Associate Register, Karyn Temple Claggettm is temporarily in charge, and they are searching for another Register.
What do you think? Is this change a good thing? How would you like to see copyright reformed? Do you worry that an independent Copyright Office might be less reader-friendly than the current situation (under the Library or Congress)? Feel free to let me and my readers know by commenting on this post.
* I am linking to the same thing at the regular Amazon site, and at AmazonSmile. When you shop at AmazonSmile, half a percent of your purchase price on eligible items goes to a non-profit you choose. It will feel just like shopping at Amazon: you’ll be using your same account. The one thing for you that is different is that you pick a non-profit the first time you go (which you can change whenever you want)…and the good feeling you’ll get. Shop ’til you help! By the way, it’s been interesting lately to see Amazon remind me to “start at AmazonSmile” if I check a link on the original Amazon site. I do buy from AmazonSmile, but I have a lot of stored links I use to check for things.
It affects what you read, and it affects what people write.
We’ve had a lot of discussions (with my readers commenting on my posts, and me responding) in this blog about copyright. I’ve explored the idea of permanent copyright, and have really appreciated the thoughtful and respectful arguments against that idea, and in some cases for even shortening current copyright terms.
In this post, I want to look at an effect of having copyright terms at all…published works which later fall into the public domain, and are then used by other authors in new works.
Under current US copyright law (and as stated in the Constitution), copyright is for a limited time. How long that time is has gotten longer over time since the original fourteen years (renewable once) to the current Life+70 years (in most circumstances).
After that, the work is owned by the public…it is in the public domain. From that point, anybody can publish and sell the book…and authors can use the characters and settings of that book however they want.
This can lead to some great and imaginative combinations…as well as some bizarre and arguably less successful ones.
At it’s best, for me, the new work pays respect to the older work, but brings something fresh and exciting, and often fun.
I also like it when someone brings together two (or more) disparate characters and/or settings.
Before I list a few examples, I want to define it a bit more.
Parody is something different. In the USA (but not everywhere in the world), you can use in-copyright characters without permission, providing that you are doing it as a form of criticism of the original work. Mad magazine, Saturday Night Live, Marlon Wayons, even porn parodies, are legal if they are commenting on the original.
Rightsholders may also do “crossovers”. L. Frank Baum, who to me was pioneering in so many ways, did crossovers…less popular characters from other books/series would appear in the super popular Oz books (arguably, to help boost their profiles…Baum tried to stop writing the Oz books, but those were what the readers wanted). A deal can even be worked out between different rightsholders: in 1976, Superman and Spider-Man “fought” each other in a comic book…despite being owned by two very different and competitive companies (DC and Marvel, respectively).
Fan fiction (“fanfic”) is prose of a different color. 😉 It typically takes in-copyright characters and writes new stories not for profit. It can be a bit of a gray area, but some rightsholders openly support it within certain parameters (J.K. Rowling, for one)
Okay, let’s talk about a few of these works which used public domain elements in new commercial works:
First published in 1949, Silverlock brings together all sorts of characters, both historical figures and fictional. It’s considered somewhat of a classic in its own right. Serious readers can treat it as almost a puzzle, trying to recognize all of the references. 🙂 Everybody can have fun with Robin Hood and Don Quixote, among many others. This one is available through
or you can purchase it for $2.88 at the time of writing. Note that there is more than one version of Silverlock in the USA Kindle store (but differentiated by additional material, from what I’ve seen).
Sherlock Holmes is one of the most adapted characters of all time, and certainly, the public domain status of most of the original works has made for some odd adventures for Sherlock. I loved
I am very excited to see that this work is not only newly Kindleized (with text-to-speech access) but also part of Kindle Unlimited!
Like Silverlock, it brings together a wide variety of characters…which arguably include (sort of) Sherlock Holmes pursuing a possible Jack the Ripper. This is all complicated by being set in the future where humans can assume the identities (and abilities) of fictional characters…a type of super-powered cosplay. 😉 It comes after Autumn Angels (at AmazonSmile*) (also KU, and been available for more than a year), although that one is a bit different (featuring a character, for example, who is clearly Ham Brooks, one of Doc Savage’s in-copyright associates…without explicitly being Ham). You don’t need to read them in order.
There have been other version of Sherlock Holmes and Jack the Ripper (which makes sense, given their similar timeframes), but I was curious, so I searched for “Sherlock Holmes in space” and got
Several authors (even well-known ones, including Fred Saberhagen and Loren D. Estleman) have pitted the Consulting Detective against the Immortal Count…Dracula.
Dracula is another character whose versions are legion, from more than one comic book superhero version to Blacula in the movies.
The Land of Oz (I mentioned Baum earlier) has seen not only visitors from Baum’s other books (oh, and Santa Claus came to Ozma’s birthday party once…but Baum also wrote a Santa Claus book), but probably hundreds of other interactions since it fell into the public domain.
I thought a particularly interesting take, although unfortunately not available in the Kindle store, was Philip José Farmer’s A Barnstormer in Oz. The original books had Oz interacting with the rest of the world (although in a limited manner…and it becomes concerning enough that they use magic to cut themselves off, which fails at being an absolute separation. This book (as Farmer would do in other works) asked what would happen if Oz actually existed.
There are many other examples. Tarzan is (mostly) in the public domain…and encounters Frankenstein (also in the public domain) in Owen Leonard’s Frankenstein Meets the Ape-Man: Tarzan (at AmazonSmile*)…KU or $0.99. I’ve read Doc Savage in an adventure on King Kong’s Skull Island
which has a movie adaptation in the theatres right now (not breaking any box office records, though).
Is all of this an argument in favor of public domain?
I’d say yes.
I recognize the value of PD, both in making books available for free, and in making legal these sorts of innovative storytelling.
I think there is considerable room for improvement in copyright, and am thinking about different possibilities…
What do you think? Do you have a favorite book with public domain characters or settings in a new work you would recommend? What’s the weirdest crossover/mash-up/adaptation you’ve read? I left off so many (I hear some of you shouting out A League of Extraordinary Gentlemen written by Alan Moore)! Feel free to tell me and my readers what you think by commenting on this post.
* I am linking to the same thing at the regular Amazon site, and at AmazonSmile. When you shop at AmazonSmile, half a percent of your purchase price on eligible items goes to a non-profit you choose. It will feel just like shopping at Amazon: you’ll be using your same account. The one thing for you that is different is that you pick a non-profit the first time you go (which you can change whenever you want)…and the good feeling you’ll get. Shop ’til you help!
** This is take on Charles Dudley Warner’s famous line, “Politics makes strange bedfellows”…while Shakespeare used the phrase “…strange bedfellows” in the Tempest
This post by Bufo Calvin originally appeared in the I Love My Kindle blog. To support this or other blogs/organizations, buy Amazon Gift Cards from a link on the site, then use those to buy your items. There will be no cost to you, and a benefit to them.
What books you have to read depends, to a large degree, on copyright.
If there was no copyright protection, arguably, a lot of existing books would suddenly become available to you for free.
One of the questions, though, would be how it would affect future books.
Could someone make a living writing books if anyone could reproduce them and sell them with nothing paid to the author?
It is possible.
People might make a point of paying the author to support them.
Many people, though, wouldn’t, of course.
The USA didn’t invent copyright…it was at the least inspired by England’s Statute of Anne. America’s copyright came about 80 years afterwards, but even the idea that copyright belonged in the courts was derivative.
The copyright clause from 1787 explains the reasoning this way:
“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”
There was a lot of discussion of the clause at that time…and the discussion still goes on today.
The way it is written, it doesn’t say anything about a natural right to the copyright…that authors should own their creations because they created them.
It says it is to “promote the Progress”: I think we can safely say that means to encourage the production of new works.
With that idea, it goes basically like this:
“Authors will not create if they can’t have compensation for having created their works, so we offer them protection for a limited time.”
After that, the works then become available to everybody.
How long should that term be?
That’s where some of my readers, have a very definite idea.
I respect these readers a great deal, and am…impressed by their passion.
I wanted to take a post to explore this a bit more.
First, I do want to bring up one thing that to me seems quite weird.
In much of the world, including the USA, the copyright term is based on the author’s life plus a certain number of years.
I’m open to a lot of things, but I particularly don’t like that one. 🙂
It seems inherently ageist and unfair, and I’m surprised that there haven’t been legal challenges to it.
It’s simple.
If you publish a book when you are 90 years old, and the copyright term is Life+70 years (which it is in the USA right now), you and your estate will be able to make a lot less money on it than if you published it when you were 20.
People also talk about Life+70 as being designed for the author’s kids to become mature adults.
So, should a childless author get a shorter copyright term?
The other reason I don’t like life+ systems is it makes it much harder to tell if something is in copyright or not. You can’t just look at the publication date and know.
My readers haven’t proposed that change (to a finite term), by the way.
I think a finite term would tend to “promote the progress”. Some books take a considerable amount of time and effort to create, especially some non-fiction. While a 90 year old might have the same passion to create as a 20 year old, the money they could get for the book would be less…because the publisher would have a shorter time to make money.
If there is a finite term, how long should it be?
Ah, there’s the rub. 😉
Proponents of shorter terms (as short as fourteen years) may believe that we have a shared culture. They may point out that, if Shakespeare was still under copyright, poorer people would have less access to it.
I think that’s a reasonable point…I read a lot of public domain works which I got legally for free.
However, those of lesser means can read in-copyright books now…through public libraries and donations, often from the publishers.
When I’ve explored the idea of permanent copyright (which would require amending the Constitution, so it’s very unlikely), I have suggested that, in exchange, greater Fair Use rights would be made available. I would allow the use of copyrighted books for scholastic study without compensation, for one thing.
Let’s ignore permanent for now.
What would be different if copyright was fourteen years versus if it was fourteen hundred years?
With the fourteen year term, you would be able to read a book published today for free in about a decade and a half.
That sounds good…but it seems obvious to me that publishers would have to do something different to make anything like the same amount of money they make now.
One option would be to charge a lot more money for the book. If a book can sell for, oh, one-fifth the amount of time it can now (at least, sell with compensation to the publisher), one could hypothetically charge five times as much for it to make the same amount of money.
That, of course, doesn’t work very well. 🙂
You wouldn’t sell the same number of copies.
Let’s go with $10 as a price for a new e-book novel (you can pay a lot less than that, of course, but we are really looking at the traditional publishing model right now). If the book cost $50, would as many people pay for it?
Nope.
Would piracy also increase?
Very likely.
Licensing might also tighten. We have what I consider to be quite generous licensing terms right now from the Kindle store. Typically, six people on the account can be reading the same book at the same time for one purchase price (what you are purchasing is a license). You could have 100 people (or more) on the account, and they could all read the same book…just, usually, not all at the same time.
If the rights are for a much shorter time, I would expect them to want to crack down on “serial reading”, where one person (or set of people) read the book, then another person does. I expect that my descendants can read my ebooks…clearly, with a fourteen year term, that’s not going to happen as much the same way. They’ll read the books for free.
As a purchaser, the value of the book goes down considerably if it’s only good for a relatively limited time…why not wait?
The value comes in reading it before other people, and while it is “hot”.
It becomes a luxury.
The value has gone down in terms of multiple readers with shorter terms, which could drive down the price, but the prestige has gone up, which could drive up the price.
Read the current Stephen King for $100, or one from the year 2000 for free? There would be people who would pay the $100, but there would be fewer of them.
I want to return at this point to the purpose of copyright.
I would say there are two basic conceptions here:
It is a business license
It is to protect a natural right
As a business license, it makes sense that it can be for a limited time. The only considerations, really, have to do with money. Authors are granted a limited term to have exclusive rights to the work so they can make money on it to encourage them (and others) to write more works, which benefits the culture.
After that limited time, the book becomes the property of the public, and becomes part of our shared culture.
The “natural right” concept says that the author created the work, and has a natural right to control its use. In that case, it seems to me that an unlimited copyright is a reasonable possibility.
One argument against the natural right means permanent argument is that the natural right only exists for the creator, and some extend it to the creator’s children. That creator’s children part supposedly explains life+70: seventy years is a reasonable approximation of life expectancy, so it means that if an author writes a book, dies right away, and has an infant child, that child can be supported by the book throughout its expected life. I find that a pretty unlikely scenario, personally.
Some people don’t like that properties end up under the control of a corporation: they say it then becomes “profits in perpetuity”, and that it likely is no longer benefiting the author or the author’s descendants.
They wouldn’t want Disney or Sony determining how Mark Twain is used by the world, for example.
They also see it as benefiting an entity which has done nothing to deserve it.
The author, though, chose to license the rights to the publisher. If the author has control over the work, why isn’t that something they should be able to control? The longer the copyright term, the more potential value to the company, the more the likely purchase price will be. Authors should theoretically make more money when the copyright is longer, in terms of licensing fees.
It also seems to me that Disney has done a great deal of work on perpetuating the value of Mickey Mouse. The example of Mickey is often brought up in copyright discussions. We go back to Steamboat Willie, the first Mickey Mouse cartoon (1928). The Disney company has undeniably lobbied to have the copyright terms extended when Steamboat Willie’s protected end time was nigh. A 1998 act is sometimes colloquially referred to as the “Mickey Mouse Act”.
I’m not talking about those lobbying efforts as things Disney has done with Mickey…although that does show time and effort.
They have carefully promoted the character.
They have built on it over time.
Anybody who doesn’t think the Disney corporation is a large factor in why we even think the rights to Steamboat Willie are valuable…well, I’d be interested in hearing the arguments that without the Disney corporation, Mickey Mouse would be equally as valuable today as it would be if copyright had run out on Steamboat Willie in 1942 (or 1956…the original 14 year copyright term was renewable once).
Another argument in favor of earlier public domain status is that it allows more creative works to happen. People can then build upon the earlier works.
Two iconic examples of that are West Side Story (based on Romeo and Juliet) and Forbidden Planet (based on The Tempest).
The argument goes that those wouldn’t exist if the original Shakespeare works weren’t in the public domain.
I’m not convinced of that.
If the creators of those works had to license the originals, would that have made been an impossible hurdle or unreasonable burden?
Sure, it would have been up to the rightsholder. If the hypothetical “We Bought Shakespeare Corporation” didn’t like science fiction, or didn’t want the social commentary of West Side Story to happen, they could have refused the rights.
That is a perfectly legitimate argument: that’s a point I understand, about not wanting a limited group to control how something which is part of our shared culture to be used.
I also think it isn’t as simple as to say that when something is in-copyright, creativity is stymied.
Let’s say you wanted to take the beloved Archie Andrews characters (Archie, Betty, Veronica, Jughead, and so on), and put them into a violent zombie comic. That would be up to the publisher…and Archie Comics allowed just that with the popular and critically-acclaimed
If Archie had been in the public domain, anyone could have created an Afterlife with Archie type comic, of course…but how many people would ever have seen it? Since it was under license (being in-copyright) to a major distributor, it could get comic book store distribution…and the company spent money on promotion and quality control.
What about Superman flying or the existence of Kryptonite? Both brought to the company from outside, both approved by the company (see my article, xxy).
Remember, also, that in the USA, parody is protected by copyright. There are also some rights around “fanfic” (fan created fiction), at least where characters are not trademarked. What allows both of those? Fair Use. I do think that balancing longer copyright terms with greater Fair Use provisions is a possible balance.
Stepping away from the corporations for a minute, another argument I hear is that people don’t want there to be a class of people who are well off through inheritance, in this case, inheritance of intellectual property rights. That’s an interesting question of social engineering. My own feeling on that is that it should apply in a similar manner to other property rights. If intellectual property rights have limited inheritance, so should other property rights. I’m sure there are people who would agree with that: I’ve seen serious proposals for a 100% death tax: you die, and your property goes to the government, which then uses it to for the public good…including taking care of orphans, presumably.
I think that sort of discussion is beyond the scope of this post. 😉
Oh, I also hear people say that authors are only able to create their works because of the society in which they grew up, and that the audience for their works exists because of society. The public paid for their educations, and the readers can read because of the school system. When people say that, I wonder…do they think someone who immigrated here as adult and then wrote a book should get a longer copyright term, because they don’t have to “reimburse” society for the public schooling? 😉 Do we really educate people only as a loan for the good they can do society, and they should have to pay it back? What if someone calculated the costs of their education, then paid the government that money, then wrote a book…should they be entitled to longer copyright terms?
I’ve gone on quite long enough, but I do want to make one more point.
The 14 year term came about in 1787.
What was the intent of that length?
Presumably, it had something to with exploitation of the value of the created work, and the point at which it would benefit the public for it to be free to copy
I would suggest that neither of those are the same today.
There are so many more revenue streams today than there were in 1787.
One of the most significant is movie/TV adaptation.
Publishers, and authors, can make a great deal of money from licensing the rights for the kind of media adaptations which just didn’t exist in 1787.
If the copyright term was fourteen years, how often would a movie or television studio simply choose to wait fourteen years before spending significant money on the production? A book might not become popular for a few years after publication, which makes it a shorter time from interest to screen.
Of course, on the flip side, how many movie studios would pay $200m to make a blockbuster movie…when it would be free to distribute in fourteen years? I’m guessing you could say good-bye to movies like Star Wars: The Force Awakens and Jurassic World if the copyright term was significantly shorter.
At any rate, this is all a very complex topic. I’m not decided on anything (although, as I mentioned, I really don’t like life+ terms). There are people who have it as a matter of faith (they believe they will never change their minds) that copyright terms should be short, or that there should be no copyright, or that it should be permanent. I’m not one of those folks.
I know, as a writer myself, I’m probably emotionally prejudiced in favor of longer terms. I do feel like I should own my creations (although I 100% accept the idea of Fair Use, including where my own works are concerned). I can set aside emotional prejudice, though: I suppose that’s one reason I’ve been on three juries in the past ten years. 😉
I’m very interested in what you think about this. I have no doubt many of my regular readers are skipping this one, and waiting for something lighter in the next post…which is okay by me. Others of you are deeply interested and will want to express your opinions to me and my readers. Feel free to do so by commenting on this post.
* I am linking to the same thing at the regular Amazon site, and at AmazonSmile. When you shop at AmazonSmile, half a percent of your purchase price on eligible items goes to a non-profit you choose. It will feel just like shopping at Amazon: you’ll be using your same account. The one thing for you that is different is that you pick a non-profit the first time you go (which you can change whenever you want)…and the good feeling you’ll get. Shop ’til you help! By the way, it’s been interesting lately to see Amazon remind me to “start at AmazonSmile” if I check a link on the original Amazon site. I do buy from AmazonSmile, but I have a lot of stored links I use to check for things.
** A Kindle with text-to-speech can read any text downloaded to it…unless that access is blocked by the publisher inserting code into the file to prevent it. That’s why you can have the device read personal documents to you (I’ve done that). I believe that this sort of access blocking disproportionately disadvantages the disabled, although I also believe it is legal (provided that there is at least one accessible version of each e-book available, however, that one can require a certification of disability). For that reason, I don’t deliberately link to books which block TTS access here (although it may happen accidentally, particularly if the access is blocked after I’ve linked it). I do believe this is a personal decision, and there are legitimate arguments for purchasing those books. In this particular case, text-to-speech is not available, but that will be due to a technical issue. The “text” is actually part of the illustrations, and not available to TTS.
This post by Bufo Calvin originally appeared in the I Love My Kindle blog. To support this or other blogs/organizations, buy Amazon Gift Cards from a link on the site, then use those to buy your items. There will be no cost to you, and a benefit to them.
for publishers (often one person) using Amazon’s Kindle Direct Publishing.
At that point, they required that original material be added to public domain works for them to be published through KDP.
Let me explain that a bit more.
A “public domain” work is one that is not under copyright protection…in this case, that would often involve a book where the copyright term has expired. That work is no longer owned by the author or the author’s estate…the public now owns it (hence “public domain”).
Throughout the history of copyright in the USA, there has been a limited term of protection*. In fact, the idea of a limited time is in the original “copyright clause” of the Constitution:
“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”
So, once a book falls into the public domain, anyone can publish it and sell it and do whatever they want with it, without having to get permission from or pay anybody who originally created it.
One advantage of that to society is that it is a way for books (and magazines and newspapers) to become available to the public again. If you have a book in your garage which is out of copyright, you could digitize it and put it online…legally.
This is, by the way, not quite the same as “orphan works”. You may hear about that. The issue there is books which are not in the public domain, are “out of print”…and have no one to “speak for them”. For example, a book might have been published in the 1950s by a publisher that then went out of business, but had no “reversion rights” (under which the rights would have gone back to the author or author’s estate). That is being reviewed at the national level.
The one big drawback to Amazon’s 2011 policy was that it likely had a chilling effect on the variety of books available to us…and may have lead to the loss of some material.
Why is that?
Quite simply, not everyone is a creator. If someone had a box of old magazines in the garage, they might have digitized them and made them available (for a price) through the Kindle store…but not if they had to write something new about them.
Under the 2011 policy,they might have just tossed them.
Well, I was looking today, and the policy has changed! It now says
“In order to provide a better customer buying experience, our policy is to not publish undifferentiated versions of public domain titles where a free version is available in our store.”
—https://kdp.amazon.com/help?topicId=A2OHLJURFVK57Q
This should make more books available to us…and provide people with another way to make some money. The money can compensate them for the not inconsiderable work of digitizing a public domain work.
I have done that myself in my work with a non-profit (in the past)**.
In fact, this makes it quite a bit more likely that I will digitize some of the works I have for the Kindle store…and ones that aren’t available now. Don’t look for anything soon…it does take quite a while to do it reasonably well. It will be on my list of things, though. 🙂
If you have some old books/magazines/newspapers, and are curious as to whether or not they might be in the public domain, I recommend starting with the
Within certain timeframes, you can determine if a work is in the public domain there.
It’s all gotten much more complicated since it became no longer necessary to include a copyright notice, among other things. Copyright is now automatic…you don’t have to register them, although it can help.
The Copyright Office is working on getting older records to be searchable online through the Digitization and Public Access Project…they are making progress, but they don’t indicate they are done yet.
Summing up, I think that this loosening of the guideline is a good thing which may save some works from being lost, give us more options for things to read, and provide another possible revenue stream for individuals and organizations.
What do you think? Do you read public domain works? Do you think it’s reasonable for someone to charge for a book they didn’t write or help to initially create? Do you have any works you might digitize? Feel free to tell me and my readers what you think by commenting on this work.
When you shop at AmazonSmile, half a percent of your purchase price on eligible items goes to a non-profit you choose. It will feel just like shopping at Amazon: you’ll be using your same account. The one thing for you that is different is that you pick a non-profit the first time you go (which you can change whenever you want)…and the good feeling you’ll get. Shop ’til you help!
This post by Bufo Calvin originally appeared in the I Love My Kindle blog. To support this or other blogs/organizations, buy Amazon Gift Cards from a link on the site, then use those to buy your items. There will be no cost to you, and a benefit to them.
Round up #314: Discovery Zone, A Truth Worth Tellin’
The ILMK Round ups are short pieces which may or may not be expanded later.
This is how Kindle Unlimited should work
I read a good book recently.
Now, that shouldn’t be a rare thing. 🙂 I often say I’ve never read a bad book, and I do believe that. I think I’ve gotten something good out of every book I’ve read…although there have been parts of books I haven’t liked and certainly, there have been some with massive flaws.
That doesn’t mean I’m uncritically accepting, or think that all books are equal. 😉
It was refreshing to read a novel that I felt had a strong voice, good plotting, and wasn’t gimmicky.
Amazon’s subser (subscription service). People pay $9.99 a month (although there have been discounts for longer subscriptions) for an “all you can read” service. You can have up to ten books out at a time, and multiple people on the account can be reading a book at the same time.
We like to do that. 🙂
If we both read the same book, we can then talk about it later…it’s a social thing.
I looked for a book, and I started by looking for Southern fiction. That’s something my SO particularly likes…both more serious, like Pat Conroy, and funny, like Fannie Flagg.
I think I searched for “Southern fiction” in Kindle Unlimited, then limited it to Contemporary Fiction, and then sorted by average customer review.
I skipped what appeared to be romance (I read that sometimes, but it’s not my SO’s preference)…the publishers pick the classifications, by the way.
Then, the cover of A Truth Worth Tellin’ caught my eye…and it currently has 18 customer reviews, all 5-star.
I don’t want to build this up too much, 😉 but that was a good rating…so we tried it.
It is, in a sense, a bit old-fashioned. By that I just mean that it isn’t saying, “Hey, look at how I’m disrupting the traditional novel by adding graphic sex, non-linear storytelling, and characters you hate!” 😉 I’d say it could have been written in the 1950s…not in a bad way. 🙂
It was interesting: I didn’t even look at the price of it until I started writing this post. It’s $4.99.
I’m hoping that some of you read it and enjoy it…both for your benefit and for the author’s.
When people criticize KU, they tend to bring up the alleged lack of well-known novels (although there are actually a lot of famous books, they don’t tend to be current bestsellers). A Truth Worth Telllin’ (a first novel) exemplifies the argument for KU as discovery for lesser known novels.
And of course, if you borrow it, read a bit of it, and don’t share my opinion, you can just move on to another book…
Why Star Wars: The Force Awakens is an argument for permanent copyright
More than five years ago, I published what may be my most controversial post:
In it, I explored the idea of making copyright permanent in exchange for greater Fair Use provisions.
In other words, an author and the author’s estate would continue to control the commercial use of a creation (which might, of course, include having licensed it to a publisher) in perpetuity, but the work could be used for educational and research purposes generally without compensation.
That’s the simplified version.
There are reasonable arguments on both sides.
One thing I hear from people is that a work staying in copyright deprives society of a common culture…that te world (or, at least the USA) should own works like Shakespeare and Alice in Wonderland.
Well, I have to point out: is Star Wars any less of our shared culture than Romeo and Juliet?
Do people know “May the Force be with you” less than they know “Wherefore art thou, Romeo?”
Do they talk about Star Wars less than they do about Shakespeare? Are fewer kids named after Star Wars characters and actors than Romeo & Juliet ones? Well, okay, there are a lot of Romeos out there…but I wouldn’t be surprised if there were many Lukes and Leias born in early 1978. 😉 There also aren’t that many Mercutios…
You might guess it’s because Star Wars is more contemporary…but, based on the original copyright terms in the USA, it would have been in the public domain by now (the original term was 14 years, renewable once for a total of 28, if the author was still alive…not as probable then as it is now).
Three quick tips
On a touchscreen device, “long press” (hold your finger or stylus on something for about a second) for more options
Menus often look like three horizontal lines on top of each other
read this morning, although I will do it later today.
Why?
To avoid Star Wars spoilers. 🙂
My favorite thing in entertainment is to be surprised, and it can be hard to do. For that reason, I really don’t like spoilers, myself…and I also think they are…well, when done intentionally, I would consider them morally wrong.
Let me be clear: I don’t mean when you accidentally reveal a twist in a story, or when you do it without thinking about it.
I mean when people do it intentionally.
I read an article recently where the writer recalled standing outside of a movie in the Star Wars franchise, shouting the twist at people before they entered the theatre.
To me, it’s a form of intellectual bullying. That’s not to minimize traditional bullying. I think, though, it comes from similar impulses. You are using your superior power (knowledge, in this case), to take something away from someone else.
I love discussing movies (and books), but only when everybody present wants to do that.
I also think there is no statute of limitations on spoilers.
I believe that a nine-year old reading The Wizard of Oz in 2015 has the right to the same experience of the book as a nine-year old reading it in 1900 had.
I’ve been very pleased to see that mainstream media, and much of social media, has recognized the value of avoiding spoilers with regards to SW: TFA.
However, Flipboard (at least the way I have it configured) contains many non-traditional sources, and I’m guessing there will be spoilers in it this morning.
We are seeing the movie at 11:25 this morning…so I’ll read Flipboard after we’ve seen it. 😉
Jeff Bezos is one of Barbara Walters Most Fascinating People of 2015
Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s CEO (Chief Executive Officer) has had an interesting year: space news, an attack on the Amazon work culture, and an explicitly political comment.
of Barbara Walters’ “Most Fascinating People of 2015” segment with Bezos.
What do you think? How did Jeff Bezos do on Barbara Walters? What will happen to Amazon after Jeff? Should people make references to plot twists openly (for example, jokes about maybe the Wizard of Oz in relationship to public figures), or should there be spoiler alerts? Have you discovered any books or authors through KU? Feel free to tell me and my readers by commenting on this post.
When you shop at AmazonSmile, half a percent of your purchase price on eligible items goes to a non-profit you choose. It will feel just like shopping at Amazon: you’ll be using your same account. The one thing for you that is different is that you pick a non-profit the first time you go (which you can change whenever you want)…and the good feeling you’ll get. Shop ’til you help!
This post by Bufo Calvin originally appeared in the I Love My Kindle blog. To support this or other blogs/organizations, buy Amazon Gift Cards from a link on the site, then use those to buy your items. There will be no cost to you, and a benefit to them.
for about a week now, and I feel like I have a pretty good sense of it.
I would describe the device itself as serviceable, and the Fire OS 5 (which will come to some older models) as superior.
I certainly miss having dictation for the keyboard, and trace typing (like Swype…you drag your finger around to make words). I use both of those a lot on my now discontinued Kindle Fire HDX 7 (which is still what I’ve been using most of the time.
The biggest problem I’ve had with it, and I called Kindle Support to check it with them (no almost instant onscreen Mayday help), is that I can’t use it as a nightstand clock.
My Kindle Fire HDX is my nightstand clock. I have it (unplugged, just running on battery) next to the bed. The native clock app has a nightstand mode. The numbers are red, it’s dim, and it stays on all night. It takes about half the battery charge, which is fine…it charges up quickly enough in the morning.
With the new Fire, the clock app has a Night Mode…but it doesn’t override the autosleep timing! In other words, when I’m sleeping, it’s sleeping, too: no display. I don’t know about you, but I want to be able wake up groggily in the middle of the night, glance over, see what time it is….and decide if it’s appropriate to wake up the rest of the way and get out of bed. I don’t want to have to wake up the tablet to decide that.
One issue is that you can’t set the autosleep on the device to “Never”, which is my preferred setting. I’ll put my devices to sleep when I choose. 🙂
It’s a minor irritation, and I’m still using my KFHDX7 next to the bed.
Outside of that, it’s pretty good. I’d feel fine with having it for a guest or in doctor’s waiting room. We don’t call them that any more, by the way…it’s a negative connotation.. They probably say you are “in the lobby”, in the “reception area”, or just “out front”. I loved a cartoon that I saw years ago which has a patient saying to the doctor, “If you want me to be more active, why have I been sitting in your waiting room for forty-five minutes?” 😉
Jane Friedman sounds like someone I would like to know
Jane Friedman is the CEO (Chief Executive Officer) of Open Road Media.
That’s been one of the best publishers for e-books. They typically publish backlist titles (older titles…the books that aren’t in the front of the catalog), and they secured the e-book rights for those when the bigger tradpubs (traditional publishers) were still hadn’t really awakened to the need.
Friedman talks about the philosophy of the company.
I agree with a lot of it!
It’s definitely worth a read: this is a company that is still “…chasing profitability”. It has a clear-eyed view of the glory of resurrecting p-books (paperbooks) for the digital era. Plus, the good-humored CEO has close to 10,000 p-books at home…I can empathize. 😉
Orwell again
One of the most infamous incidents for Amazon and the Kindle was when they removed copies of a certain edition of George Orwell from customers’ Kindles.
No doubt, the irony of it being George Orwell added to the coverage of it.
Amazon apologized, compensated customers, and even Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos called it “stupid”. They said they wouldn’t do the same thing in the same circumstances again, and to my knowledge, they haven’t.
Now, my understanding is that what happened was that a publisher had this book in the Kindle store, but specifically for the Australian market where the books are in the public domain (no longer under copyright protection, so no permission is needed). Amazon apparently accidentally made them available in the USA, where they were (again as I understand it, unintentionally on the publisher’s part) infringing on the rights of the estate.
In trying to rectify that, Amazon reached into customer’s devices, and deleted the unauthorized file.
Possessing that file on your Kindle, by the way, was not illegal. In
the Supreme Court of the U.S.A. found that possession of infringing copies of a copyrighted work was not the same as possession of stolen goods (despite people commonly conflating the terms “theft” and “infringement”, they are different…that’s not to say that one is less “bad” than the other, but they aren’t the same).
One of my first posts, more than six years ago, was a parody about this situation:
it’s reported that “internet radio host Josh Hadley” had some designed removed from an online retailer (one I’ve used) because of a complaint supposedly from the Orwell estate.
The design had the number 1984 prominently, and I think most people would see it as a clear allusion to the Orwell book.
However, allusions are not illegal…and you can’t copyright a title.
You can trademark it, but that doesn’t seem to me to be what’s being suggested here.
On the basis of the limited information in this article, it does appear to have been an overreach…the kind for which Disney has been famous.
The retailer is within their rights (and may be wise) to remove an item when they receive a legitimate looking claim of infringement.
They are under no obligation to carry anything. If they did continue to distribute something after having been told it was infringing, and that did turn out to be the case, they could be liable.
So, irritating as it might be, someone can make a claim of infringement, and most retailers would, I think, remove the item.
I’ve made a claim like that myself to Amazon, and a work (which was infringing) was removed.
I did have to attest that I was the copyright holder, and I had to send them evidence. Amazon could have hypothetically gone after me if I had lied to them (and I didn’t and I don’t). 🙂
Just based on what I’ve seen, Hadley was probably within rights to make the design.
The retailer was within rights not to carry it.
If the estate did not file the complaint in good faith…I’m not sure what the legal ramifications could possibly be. Restraint of trade?
I’ve had the same sort of thing happen to me a couple of times when I was reasonably sure I wasn’t infringing.
One was a t-shirt design where I used a public domain illustration. Somebody complained, I guess, and it doesn’t even have to have been the rightsholder.
I basically shrugged about it.
The other one was more amusing.
We did a t-shirt that said, “Frickin’ panda heads”. Yes, that was a reference to playing on the Wii Fit. I don’t think that’s an infringement…but, oh well.
It might be different if I was designing t-shirts for a living…if my family depended on it. Then, it might be worth fighting for it.
For me, it wasn’t.
Supergirl and Pat Savage
I know some of my readers are fans of Doc Savage, who is one of my fictional heroes. If you are, you might be interested in a piece I recently wrote in The Measured Circle:
What do you think? Should I have fought the takedown notices, in order to defend people who do rely on it? What should retailers do with infringement claims? Do you use a tablet a nightstand clock? Do you have an app you like that overrides the global sleep setting? Feel free to tell me and my readers what you think by commenting on this post.
* I am linking to the same thing at the regular Amazon site, and at AmazonSmile. When you shop at AmazonSmile, half a percent of your purchase price on eligible items goes to a non-profit you choose. It will feel just like shopping at Amazon: you’ll be using your same account. The one thing for you that is different is that you pick a non-profit the first time you go (which you can change whenever you want)…and the good feeling you’ll get. Shop ’til you help!
This post by Bufo Calvin originally appeared in the I Love My Kindle blog. To support this or other blogs/organizations, buy Amazon Gift Cards from a link on the site, then use those to buy your items. There will be no cost to you, and a benefit to them.
“Bufo Calvin is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com."
You can apply them to your account or give them to someone else. This is a great way to support the blog at no cost to you...outside of paying for the gift cards, and you'll then have the same value.
I Love My Kindle 