dagblog - Comments for "Your Public Domain Report for 2018"

I think you're onto something

Michael Maiello — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 22:33:36 +0000

In reply to Seemed believable Naples

I think you're onto something...

Just sharing a link from my

artappraiser — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 06:11:13 +0000

In reply to Your Public Domain Report for 2018

Just sharing a link from my email

Happy Public Domain Day! Works by Magritte and 9 Other Artists Are Now Copyright-Free

Happy Public Domain Day 2018! Here are 10 artists whose work is leaving copyright (although not in the United States).

By Allison Meier @ Hyperallergic.com, 2 days ago

Welcome to 2018! January 1 means it’s time to celebrate Public Domain Day. As is Hyperallergic tradition, we’re celebrating the visual artists whose work is entering the public domain this year.

However what works are coming out of copyright depends on the country. In the United States, the Copyright Term Extension Act dictates that no published work will be part of the public domain until 2019 (and even then, there’s the potential for an extension). Duke Law School’s Center for the Study of the Public Domain explains that “[in] addition to lengthening the term, Congress also changed the law so that every creative work is automatically copyrighted, even if the author does nothing.” The map below visualizes copyright terms around the world: [....]

Seemed believable Naples

NCD — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 00:49:05 +0000

In reply to I met Kearns as well, when he

Seemed believable Naples would rein in any idea that a world famous writer was murdered in their tony enclave, perhaps affecting the investigation. It is in Florida.

Or that people close to a more creative than business savvy old man might try to increase their share of the immense money stream from his work, by any means available.

I met Kearns as well, when he

Michael Maiello — Tue, 02 Jan 2018 23:24:51 +0000

In reply to Another 'creative rights'

I met Kearns as well, when he was shopping that book around... He has some interesting ideas, certainly. Not sure I believe a word of them, though.

Another 'creative rights'

NCD — Tue, 02 Jan 2018 22:53:35 +0000

In reply to I think the long tail is a

Another 'creative rights' case for you.

Robert Ludlum's estate (Jason Bourne, etc) has apparent for years been under the tight control of lawyers, not his surviving family. This according to discussions with Ken Kearns, MD. I met Kearns around 2011, Kearns was a relative and RL's personal physician, he wrote a book on RL and the odd circumstances surrounding his death.

One of RL sons, John, the younger of two, died mysteriously shortly after his fathers also mysterious death in 2001. John (upper 40s age) was reported to be actively asking questions about where the huge streams of money were going from his deceased Dad's work. Kearns said the money was controlled by a legal firm.

I'm with you. While I have

Michael Maiello — Tue, 02 Jan 2018 22:06:47 +0000

In reply to I think the long tail is a

I'm with you. While I have no problem with Scottie Fitzgerald making much of her living as the steward of F Scott's work, literary estates and creative states in general should not become perpetual foundations with ownership of the creative works as their main assets. If drugs can go off patent to the benefit of all, so can old novels and movies.

Yep! He was part of a

Michael Maiello — Tue, 02 Jan 2018 22:03:34 +0000

In reply to That your grandfather's

Yep! He was part of a musician's union that was more powerful during his day and it made his retirement possible.

I think the long tail is a

Doctor Cleveland — Tue, 02 Jan 2018 20:47:00 +0000

In reply to My grandfather received

I think the long tail is a great thing, and I generally think it is to the benefit of good art. I think long tails commercially benefit some of the best work, and make it more attractive to invest in good work.

But the lengths get excessive. Copyright is now at a 95-year term. The next extension will put it over a century. That's getting crazy.

There's also a story where a lot of Kafka's materials, letters and journals and apparently even unpublished fiction, were until this decade in the control of completely random heirs: his friend Max Brod's secretary's children, who had the right to publish those works or keep them from publication, and who had to be sued by the State of Israel to get them into an archive. The case was settled in 2012. Kafka died in 1924.

P.S. Here is the current main

artappraiser — Tue, 02 Jan 2018 19:40:13 +0000

In reply to Here's an example, a clip

P.S. Here is the current main similar U.S. entity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artists_Rights_Society

their website

https://www.arsny.art/ Your Work. Your Worth. Experience the benefits of becoming an ARS member artist.

They act as aggressive collection agents. And suffice it to say they don't do that for free. It's: sign with us, we'll get ya some of that dough you're finally entitled to.

Here's an example, a clip

artappraiser — Tue, 02 Jan 2018 19:31:58 +0000

In reply to Models like this are going to

Here's an example, a clip from a recent email I got, how ridiculously deep and long ago they dig, looking for a needle in a haystack. This goes to Dr. Cleveland's point: if the heirs don't care enough to pay attention, why is this not public domain:

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to you from the Artists' Collecting Society (ACS) in London, an organisation that represents artists for their intellectual property rights.

As I am sure you are aware, Artist's Resale Right (ARR) is a European intellectual property right that entitles artists to a royalty payment when their work sells on the secondary market. The estates of deceased artists have been entitled to this royalty since 2012 in the UK. Over the past five years, £3,956 in ARR has been collected from sales of the [artist's] work, which has been passed on to us and which I believe the Estate of [artist's widow....] is now entitled to.

I understand that [deceased corporate president.] arranged the transfer of papers relating to [artist] from the Estate of [artist's widow] to the Smithsonian's Archives of American Art in 1985, based on evidence from their website [link to page]. I, therefore, wondered if the [corporation] had any information on [artist's widow's] Estate that might help me contact them so we can organise the transfer of the ARR royalties?

What she found was the name of the deceased owner of the corporation arranging a donation in 1985, a single day of work decades ago, when he was not in business for the corporation but working for another, actually just helping one customer of many with cleaning up an estate. What I found outrageous is that she would be expecting someone to help them for free, to spend time digging into records out of the goodness of their heart. As if this is about scholarship and truth and justice and not profit.

Is one thing to have an unclaimed funds entity, it is another to have an organization so aggressively working to deliver those funds.