copyright

A look back at the Valancourt case

This entry was posted in Publishing and tagged books copyright law publishing on by

This post presents the finish of a story that I first blogged about in 2018. Court cases can take a long time to reach a resolution, and I missed it when the decision came out last year. Before the resolution of Valancourt Books’ lawsuit, the US copyright office demanded a free copy of every book published in the US. It was uneven in pressing its demands; for reasons I don’t know, it came down hard on Valancourt, a small-run publisher. The requirement was especially burdensome for such publishers; it costs a bigger part of your assets to send out an unpaid copy when you print a hundred copies or do print-on-demand than when you print a hundred thousand. Regardless of the number, it was a clear-cut violation of the Fifth Amendment, which says the government can’t take private property for public use without paying “just compensation.”

In 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia agreed with this reasoning and said the requirement for free copies was unconstitutional.
(more…)

What can you do with Steamboat Willie?

This entry was posted in Writing Writing as business and tagged copyright law writing on by

What can you do with Steamboat Willie, early in the next year?

I won’t try to write a filk about it just now; answering the question is complicated enough in prose. You may have heard that “Mickey Mouse is going into the public domain,” but that’s true only in a limited sense. The first two released Mickey Mouse cartoons, Steamboat Willie and Plane Crazy, will enter the public domain on January 1, 2024, after 95 years. If you’re thinking of creating your own cartoons, drawings, fan fiction, or professional fiction based on them, you can do that legally, but you need to be careful. Mickey Mouse changed significantly over the years, and later versions of him, along with the vast majority of his cartoons, are still under copyright protection. In addition, Mickey Mouse™ remains a Disney trademark. If your work steps over certain bounds, you could hear from Disney’s lawyers.

Duke University’s website has a detailed article on what you can and can’t do. It’s not a substitute for a lawyer’s advice, but it’s a good place to start, and it could be enough if you aren’t creating stuff for profit.
(more…)

Hachette v. Internet Archive

This entry was posted in Commentary Publishing and tagged books copyright law libraries preservation on by

The legal battle over the Internet Archive’s Open Library has drawn passionate responses from people involved in the creation, publication, and distribution of books. As I’m writing this, the court of the Southern District of New York has ruled that putting unauthorized digitized versions of copyrighted books on the open Internet is a violation of copyright, and the Internet Archive is appealing the decision.

Publishers Hachette, Penguin Random House, Wiley, and HarperCollins argued that distributing books through the Open Library violated their copyrights. The Internet Archive has declared its appeal is “a necessary fight if we want library collections to survive in the digital age.” SFWA has stated that the Open Library “is not library lending, but direct infringement of authors’ copyrights.” The debate pits the rights of authors and publishers against the aims of preservation.
(more…)

Song copyrights 1

This entry was posted in Commentary Music and tagged copyright music writing on by

Reports about a copyright lawsuit by Ed Townsend’s estate against Ed Sheeran recently caught my attention. The suit claims that Sheeran’s song “Thinking Out Loud” infringes on “Let’s Get It On,” usually attributed to Marvin Gaye but co-authored by Townsend. The claim was that Sheeran improperly used “harmonic progressions” and “melodic and rhythmic elements” from the earlier song, but a federal court has ruled there was no copyright violation. That got me thinking about the whole issue of song copyrights.

To start by making my own views clear, I’m in favor of copyright. Some libertarians argue that creative works aren’t tangible objects and thus shouldn’t be subject to property rights, but I think the concept of ownership is as applicable to creations of the mind as to physical creations. Copyright prevents one person (or corporation) from taking someone else’s creation and profiting without getting consent or offering compensation. I think 95-year copyrights are inappropriate, but living creators should enjoy protection against the appropriation of their work.
(more…)

A writer’s guide to freedom of speech and press in America

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged copyright law liberty writing on by

People in the United States enjoy some of the strongest legal protections on their speech and writing in the world. Saying some things is illegal, though, and others open you to getting sued. There’s a lot of misinformation around on what is and isn’t considered free speech. Here’s a quick rundown of some common claims. US Constitution

Standard disclaimer: This isn’t legal advice. It’s my best understanding. See a lawyer when in doubt. In some cases, I’ve cited court cases you can look up and study.
(more…)

The Seuss affair 4

This entry was posted in Censorship Commentary and tagged books censorship copyright on by

Dr. Seuss Enterprises has announced it will discontinue publication of six Dr. Seuss books. Its stated reason is that they “portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong.”

Whatever you think of this decision, you need to remember what every writer knows and many on the right forget: Publishers have no obligation to publish, except when they’re bound by a contract. The villain of the piece isn’t Dr. Seuss Enterprises, but absurdly long copyright terms. Theodore Geisel died in 1991. And to Think that I Saw It on Mulberry Street was published in 1937. It won’t enter the public domain until, I think, 2033.
(more…)

US Copyright Office attacks small publisher

This entry was posted in Publishing and tagged censorship copyright on by

There’s an old federal law that affects publishers. It requires every book publisher to submit two copies of each work published to the Copyright Office, without getting any payment. It originated long before automatic copyright and print-on-demand existed. Originally that served the purpose of securing copyright, and it only affected large-volume publishers. The burden on such publishers was low.

Today the law still exists, but it’s rarely enforced. With automatic copyright, it no longer serves its original purpose. Collecting free books from every print-on-demand operation and every fan publisher would ruin them. But when someone in the government wants to target a business, antiquated laws are useful. The Copyright Office is trying to ruin small PoD publisher Valancourt Books by enforcing this law.
(more…)