TopShelf TG Fiction in the BigCloset!
The folks who manage this site keep track of what has entered public domain:
https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2023/
and even reprint what they consider significant.
That last of the Conan Doyle Sherlock Holmes stories is now included.
Checks can be made out & sent to:
Joyce Melton
1001 Third St.
Space 80
Calimesa, CA 92320
USA
Note: $6000 is the operating, maintenance and upgrade budget. Amounts received in excess of the $6000 will be applied to long term debt accrued over the last 19 years.
If you prefer, you can donate through Patreon:
Become a Patron!
Thank you!
Comments
Public Domain
A good list of classics.
Wake me (or dig me out of the ground) when non-Steamboat Willie Mickey enters public domain.
However, it would be seminal event when Steamboat Willie Mickey becomes public domain next year.
Still Seven More Years...
...for Donald Duck, though.
(And the Winnie the Pooh characters went public domain last year -- except Tigger, who was introduced in House at Pooh Corner and has to wait for 2024.)
Of course, the later publications themselves using the characters are still copyright protected. Nicholas Meyer doesn't lose the rights to his book The Seven-Per-Cent Solution and its sequels. And the vast majority of Mickey Mouse's exploits will still be covered by their original copyrights until they expire after 95 years.
The articles point out that Disney's trademarks -- as opposed to their copyright -- remain in effect as long as they're merchandising the characters. So you still won't be able to make or sell Mickey Mouse watches next year without a license.
But you'll be able to write and sell stories about him (and Minnie, and his nemesis Peg-Leg Pete, if I'm remembering the cartoon correctly), whether the trademark holders like them or not. (Also their friend Clarabelle Cow; apparently Horace Horsecollar has to wait another year. I guess Mickey's predecessor, Oswald the Lucky Rabbit, would have gone public last year.)
Original illustrations from before 1928 (as opposed to the depictions now being merchandised) seem to be OK; Disney abandoned their trademark claims to the original E.H. Shepard Pooh sketches sometime back; they'd subtly redesigned the characters after they acquired the rights.
Getting back to Sherlock Holmes, he's trademarked, though his copyright has expired. So the illustrations that accompanied the original magazine appearances of the stories (and the original books also, if there were depictions there) ought to be usable in creating a graphic novel. comic or animated work. But those created for later editions of the books would be questionable at best.
I guess lawyers could have fun arguing about illustrations based on Basil Rathbone's portrayal of Holmes, since at least some of the films involved didn't have their (U.S.) copyright renewed -- which is the reason there are (or were) VHS copies out there for, like, $6.95 -- back when actively renewing it was required after 28 years.
Eric
Fascinating
Disney seem to have a kind of reverse Midas touch nowadays, whereby everything they touch takes a turn for the worse. (Still, I suppose I’m not the target market for their formulaic guff.) I wonder what will happen to the corporation if they gradually lose control over their back catalogue as time goes by?
Sugar and Spiiice – TG Fiction by Bryony Marsh
Thanks...
I really enjoyed the accompanying article, and also the link there to last year's Winnie-the-Pooh analysis. (Milne's version had hyphens in the name.)
I took a course on Intellectual Property when studying for a paralegal certificate 15 years ago, but this was the kind of thing I really wanted to work on.
Eric
Disney Characters??
What of Dippy Dawg aka Goofy?
2028, I Think...
Wikipedia says he first appeared in 1932, as Dippy Dawg. (The rule is the first January 1 following 95 years past the original appearance.)
But there might be problems using him as a sports figure, as in the "How to..." series that started in 1941. Different aspects to a fictional character's personality can't affect a copyright. The Sherlock Holmes folks tried to argue that their protagonist had gotten warmer, more capable of friendship and tolerant of women in later books and stories and that those elements of his depiction shouldn't be permitted until the copyright on those books and stories had expired; the court found those arguments absurd and rejected their claim.
But the Disney people could argue that the silent Goofy who demonstrated riding a horse, playing football and baseball, etc., was an essentially different character who only shared the same appearance and name with the one Pinto Colvig voiced in the 1930s. I don't know of any precedents that apply to that, though I haven't researched it beyond reading the Duke University articles that linked to the story above.
Eric