Everybody’s Library Questions: Copyright and advertisements

My previous post answered a reader question about how to determine whether a newspaper (or other serial issue) was under copyright or not.  (More details about the process can be found in our guide “Determining copyright status of serial issues”.)  Some people still wonder about the ads, though.  Here are some questions about those from Nena Ceg of Project Mindshare.  (Steve Jones also asked similar questions):

“Where can I find copyright information about illustrations from magazine ads (pre-1964)? Are illustrations in those ads in the public domain? They required a copyright notice from the illustrator, or the illustrator´s signature was enough?”

The short answer: Yes, ads, and the illustrations in them, can have their own copyrights, just like issue contributions and illustrations can have their own copyright.  But very few pre-1964 US ads still have active copyright; and research and library digitization projects often don’t have to worry about them.  Those wanting to use magazine ads commercially might need to take more care, not just for copyright reasons but also for trademark reasons.  For reliable legal guidance, you should talk to your lawyer (and I’m not one).

Here’s a longer answer with more details:

Finding ad-related copyrights

Copyrights for ads that appear in serials might be registered and renewed in one of three categories: in Contributions to Periodicals (which is where stories and articles in serials would also be registered and renewed); in Artwork (for advertising illustrations); or possibly in Commercial Prints and Labels.  The Catalog of Copyright Entries (which runs up to 1978, covering renewals for publications through 1950) published different sections for each category, and the sections can be examined and searched online.  (The link above goes to a page with more details.) All categories in the Copyright Office’s online database (which runs from 1978 onward, covering renewals for publications from 1950 and later) can be searched at once.  (Note that copyrights from 1964 and later either automatically renewed or didn’t have to be renewed, which is why we’re discussing pre-1964 ads here.)

There are a few ads renewed as contributions to periodicals, but not many that I’ve found so far.  In our copyright information page for the New York Post, where we’ve filled in details for early renewed contributions, you’ll see some ads for Schenley Distillers among the renewals. (The first one is dated May 15, 1936.)  Some  ads featuring the electric utility mascot Reddy Kilowatt were also renewed as periodical contributions– the earliest ones I’ve found ran in the Philadelphia Public Ledger in 1934.  I have a hard time recalling any other ad series before 1950 that had significant numbers of renewals.  Since we list the first contribution renewals for serials in our copyright inventory, though, if an ad was renewed as a contribution to a periodical appearing in that inventory, the periodical should be shown with a first-renewal date for contributions on or before the date of the ad.  (And in some cases, as with the New York Post, we also list contribution renewals after the first one, so you can look for a renewal for the ad in that list if it says it includes all active renewals up to the ad’s date.)

It’s also possible that images in the ads (or of the ads) may have renewed copyrights.  But, as with other images in periodicals, that’s pretty rare, and in our decision guide, we consider it highly unlikely unless they have a copyright notice of their own (as some did). We describe in Appendix C of our copyright determination guide how to search for copyrights of images.  You will find a few ad-related images in the sources listed there, including the original cartoon image of Reddy Kilowatt, copyrighted in 1926 and renewed in 1954.  Search for “Reddy” in Project Gutenberg’s transcription of artwork renewals from 1951 to 1959, and he comes right up.

Some other well-known cartoon characters that made their debut after 1923 also may have active copyrights, either from artwork renewals or from copyright renewals of the publications or films in which they first appeared.  (Many of the best-known characters, franchises, and syndicates with active copyrights are mentioned in Appendix D of our guide.)  But beyond Reddy Kilowatt, active renewed copyrights in characters specifically created for advertising appear to be rare, at least in the renewals I’ve looked at (primarily for publications up to 1950).

Advertising matter also could get copyrighted in the “Commercial Prints and Labels” category.  Unlike with contributions and artwork, no one that I know of has yet produced searchable files or databases for commercial prints renewals in the Catalog of Copyright Entries.  (They are in the Copyright Office’s searchable registered works database when that picks up in 1978.)  But there aren’t that many commercial prints renewals, so it could be convenient and not too hard to produce searchable files for the early active ones, like Project Gutenberg has done for other artwork renewals.  You can still look through them online through the Catalog of Copyright Entries scans, but for now you’ll have to look at the page images of the scans.  I’ve looked over many of the Commercial Prints renewals pages, and have found a number of labels and what appear to be standalone posters, but have had a hard time finding anything in this category that appears to be a magazine or newspaper ad.  (If you find any, though, let me know.)

Copyright, fair use, and trademark

I’m inclined myself not to worry about searching for ad copyright renewals unless I find a copyright notice for the ad.  (An artist signature by itself is not a copyright notice, though it can provide a useful name to search on if you’re inclined to do so.)  I’m not particularly worried both because copyright renewals for ads are rare in my experience (as noted above), and also because even if there are active copyrights in some of the advertising matter, a good case for fair use can be made for the sort of uses we tend to make of them in libraries and universities.  Our digitization is noncommercial; it’s typically for purposes of study, research, or commentary; the ads are generally not the primary focus of interest for the content we’re digitizing; and there is usually little or no market now for the ads themselves (as opposed to the products the ads were designed to sell).  Appendix E of our copyright determination guide has more notes on the use of materials that might still be under copyright.

If I were contemplating more commercial use of an ad, though, such as selling prints or T-shirts, or including them in promotions, I’d want to be more careful both to check the copyrights, and also to ensure that I wasn’t using trademarks improperly.  Although copyrights expire after a set time period, trademarks (including brand names, slogans, logos, and other distinctive imagery associated with a brand) can last indefinitely as long as their owner keeps them in use, with some still going strong after more than a century.

It’s not against the law to simply reproduce a trademark, but it can be illegal to present it in a manner that creates confusion or misleads a consumer.  For instance, if I reproduced a public domain ad for Coca-Cola in a newspaper that I scanned and put online, readers would not normally think that my scan was sponsored by Coca-Cola, or indeed had any direct connection with the company.  But if I placed that same ad prominently on a vending machine that dispensed bottles of Pepsi, thirsty customers might think they were buying a soda different from the one they actually got.  That could lead to legal troubles that I wouldn’t have from simply reproducing the newspaper.

Similar problems could result if I sold T-shirts or posters with a company logo or other trademark that customers thought was created or endorsed by that company.  For this reason, Disney may retain control over clothing featuring Disney characters even after copyrights for the older characters start expiring a few years from now. They can’t use their character trademarks to stop all reproductions or creative uses of copyright-expired characters, but since they’ve registered trademarks for the use of many of those characters in branded clothing, and continue to sell character-themed clothes, they’d have good arguments that, say, many unlicensed Mickey Mouse-themed hats or T-shirts would be confused for approved Disney products.

The long and short of it

In summary, then, I believe serial digitization projects can clear copyrights for ads in periodicals pretty much the same way that they clear copyrights for other material in periodicals.  The instructions we have in our copyright determination guide should work for them, as far as I’m aware.  Remember, though, that I am not a lawyer, and certainly not your lawyer, and you’re best off consulting one if you want more assurance about the legal soundness of your reproducing or otherwise using other people’s ads.  I also have not had as much experience myself with digitization of serials as others have.  Comments are open below (for now), and I’d be very happy to hear from people with more expertise or relevant experience.

 

Posted in copyright, serials | 2 Comments

Everybody’s Library Questions: Newspaper copyrights, notices, and renewals

Because I blog about  copyrights for serials, I occasionally get questions in comments to my posts about determining what exactly is copyrighted in those serials.  I’ve been slow to answer them in the comments threads, partly because some of them get a bit complicated to answer there.  So instead, I’ll answer them in posts of their own, so I can spend a bit more time on them, and so that others can more easily make their own comments.

Below I respond to one of the questions asked in a comment to my earlier post “Why pay for what’s free? Finding open access and public domain articles”.  While I’m answering these questions to the best of my knowledge, please keep in mind that I am not a lawyer, and should not be relied on for legal advice.  Much of what I say below is based on my guide “Determining copyright status of serial issues”, which I recommend for folks who want to know more details.

In a comment to my earlier post, Steve Jones asks in part

“When I look at an newspaper I can never find a copyright notice on them? Do they require them? For instance the Dec 8th 1941 Minneapolis Star Journal…. Is [it] copyrighted? Can I republish a newspaper article in a book? Could the Newspaper file a copyright later, say at the end of the year? If I want to use it in a book do I have to pay[?]”

Prior to 1989, all US publications, newspapers included, had to have copyright notices on them in order to be copyrighted. Publishing an issue without such a notice would normally put it into the public domain.  (There are some exceptions to this rule for inadvertent omission or unauthorized publication, but those generally wouldn’t come into play for an established newspaper in the 1940s.)

Not all newspapers published with copyright notices. (Some may have figured that no one else would bother to copy their material until it was old news, for instance.)  Newspapers that did publish copyright notices put them in various places, but the most common places were the front page, particularly near the newspaper title (where it appears in recent issues of The New York Times) or the bottom of the page (where it appears in recent issues of the Philadelphia Inquirer), or in a “masthead” section that gives basic information about the paper’s editors, publishers, subscription details, and so on.  The masthead section could be put in various places, but common locations included page 1, page 2, the last page, and the editorial page.  (Magazines often printed their mastheads on their contents page.)

I don’t have easy access to any 1941 issues of the Minneapolis Star Journal, so I don’t know if they had copyright notices in them or not.  (They can be quite small.  Both the Times and Inquirer issues I looked at have them in smaller type than the rest of the pages they’re on.)  Before you determine that a serial issue you’re interested in lacked a copyright notice, make sure the copy you’re looking at has all of the pages that originally appeared in the issue (including the cover, in the case of magazines that had them).  An omitted or cut-off page might be where the  copyright notice had appeared.   A transcription of a newspaper issue that doesn’t include page images may omit things like the original copyright notices.

Let’s suppose, though, that there was a copyright notice in the December 8, 1941 issue of the Minneapolis Star Journal.  If so, the newspaper would have been copyrighted initially.  However, as with other US publications before 1964, that copyright had to be renewed in its 28th year, or it would expire.  Looking up this title in my first renewals inventory, I see that there was no such renewal (either for issues or contributions) mentioned there for that publication, and since all publications with renewed issues prior to 1950 should be represented there, I can conclude that the newspaper issue’s copyright has now expired.

(While newspapers didn’t necessarily have to register their copyrights immediately, they did have to renew promptly 28 years from the start of the copyright– and that copyright would have started no later than the date of publication, even if registration was delayed.  So if a 1941 copyright was not renewed by the end of 1969, its former owner generally couldn’t go back later and try to renew it retroactively.)

Given that, you should be able to republish articles from a 1941 issue of the Minneapolis Star Journal in a US-published book(*) without permission or payment, as long as the articles in question originated in that paper.  (If they’re reprinted or syndicated from elsewhere, that articles might still have copyrights based on their publication elsewhere. But newspapers generally will include a copyright or reprint notice in those cases.)

Besides reprinted articles, there might be other parts of a newspaper that might still be under copyright even if the issue as a whole is not.  Major syndicates such as King Features and United Features were renewing copyrights to their comic strips routinely by this point, so any of their comics that ran in the December 8, 1941 issue of the Minneapolis Star Journal might still have active copyrights.

Newspapers, like many other periodicals, also had ads, which both Steve Jones and another commentator asked about.  It is possible for ads, or the images in ads, to also have their own copyrights.  But it’s quite rare for those copyrights to be renewed, and depending on what you’re doing, you might not have to get permission to reproduce a newspaper page even if it does have copyrighted advertising material in it.  In my next post, I’ll discuss ads in periodicals, and how one can research or respond to their copyrights, if they have any.

(* My answer in this post only concerns US copyright law.  Copyright law works differently in other countries, and some countries will keep something under copyright longer than the US will.  If this might be an issue for you, I recommend consulting an expert on international copyright laws.)

Posted in copyright, serials | Leave a comment

More and better copyright data online for serials and books

It’s getting easier over time to find and use data on copyrights, and thereby to find and make use of materials in the public domain.  Here’s a quick update on what’s new and what’s coming, in my projects and elsewhere.

1. My inventory of first renewals for serials is now completely updated to reflect that all 1923 publications are now in the US public domain (as of this past January). All the copyright renewals for publications from 1923 and earlier that were recorded in my inventory are now gone, and many serials from this list therefore have later “first active renewal” dates, or are shown to no longer have any active copyright renewals.  So you’ll be able to clear copyright quickly for more serial issues.  (A number of major serial archives have now opened access to their 1923 issues– HathiTrust did so back in January, and JSTOR  opened 1923 for many of their journals earlier this month.  With the information in our inventory, though, you can often go substantially farther.)

2. As the result of moving our serials inventory past 1923, we now have a complete set of issue and contribution renewals recorded for 1924 in the various serial information pages linked from the inventory.  Come 2020 (just over 6 months from now!) we hope all of those renewed copyrights will expire, and at that point we plan to delete these renewals from our serial copyright JSON files (since the main purpose of those files is to aid with copyright clearance, and renewals for expired copyrights would just get in the way for that).  However, I can imagine that someone doing work in publishing history or literary analysis might be interested in those renewals.  If anyone’s interested in collecting or analysing all the 1924 renewals for serial issues and contributions, let me know and we can discuss ways to best make that data available for you.  (It’ll also be possible to extract them from our copyright data on Github after we do our July data update, and before 2020.)

3. Besides recording all active renewals for 1924 serial contributions, we’ve also recorded renewals for contributions from 1925 and 1926 that were filed before the middle of 1953.  Because Project Gutenberg has searchable  files that record contribution renewals made after mid-1953, and the Copyright Office has a searchable database for contribution renewals made after the dates covered in those files, it is now possible to find all active contribution renewals through text searches, without having to slowly work your way through page scans for some years like you did before.  (You still might have to look through page scans for issue renewals for some years, but those renewals were filed under the titles of the serial, making them relatively easy to find for a given serial you’re interested in.  Contribution renewals were typically filed under author, making it hard to find all the contribution renewals that existed for a particular serial for some years.)  I’ve updated our guide “Determining copyright status of serial issues” to reflect the more streamlined clearance process that’s now possible with these searches.

We’re not the only ones making copyright information easier to find and work with online.  I’m happy to report that the New York Public Library has just received a grant from IMLS to create a database of published books from the US Copyright Office’s Catalog of Copyright Entries as well.  (Disclosure: I’ll be one of the advisers for that project.) Hopefully, I’ll have updates here before long about what this project is making available, and what folks can do with it.

What else is coming up?  Well, for over a year now we’ve had a complete inventory of serials that had renewals filed for them before 1978. But there a lot of older serials of interest are interested in that aren’t in that renewal, either because no renewals were filed for them, or the earliest renewal was filed after 1977.  Having records for more of those serials in our inventory would be useful, to make them easier for libraries to digitize and researchers to use.  I hope to report soon about some ways we can report on large serial sets of particular interest to libraries and researchers from the data in our inventory and elsewhere.  In the meantime, if there’s a serial that published between 1924 and 1963 you’re particularly interested in, and it’s not already in our inventory, let me know about it and I’ll see what I can find out about its copyrights, or lack of them.

I’ve also been getting questions from time to time related to copyrights and public domain determination for serials and other works.  I’ll be starting to answer some of those questions in upcoming blog posts.  Look for the first of these shortly!

 

Posted in copyright, online books, open access, serials | Leave a comment

Public Domain Day 2019: Welcome to 1923!

Early this morning, a full year’s worth of published works were welcomed into the public domain in the United States for the first time since 1998. Hundreds of thousands of works from 1923 either joined the public domain here, or achieved a much more obvious and visible public domain status.

This is not news to anyone who’s been following this blog, which has had a post per day discussing some of the many upcoming additions to the public domain.  I’ve also been posting about Public Domain Day here since 2008, but as an American haven’t had a lot to celebrate here till now.  I now find myself feeling much like I did when the Red Sox broke their World Series drought in 2004, or the Eagles finally won a Super Bowl last year: elation, mixed with thoughts that it’s been a long time coming, and wishes that I could celebrate now with everyone I’ve known who’s waited for it these past 21 years.

One thing I’m very happy to see today is that the public domain now has lots of friends, who are now much more numerous, aware, and organized than they were in 1998, the last time copyright was extended here.  They’ve helped ensure that there wasn’t another serious attempt to extend copyright terms here when the 20-year public domain freeze here ended.  They’ve been spreading the word about the new arrivals to the public domain, and why that’s a good thing.  (In my advent calendar series, I’ve pointed to a few of the articles written about this; Lisa Gold’s blog post today is another such article, which also points to a few others.)

Various groups have also been quick to make works that have newly joined the public domain freely readable online.  HathiTrust opened access to over 40,000 works from 1923 today.  Also today, Project Gutenberg released a transcription of The Prophet they had ready to go for its first day in the US public domain; they’re also releasing other 1923 transcriptions.  At the Penn Libraries, where I work, a team led by Brigitte Burris is digitizing 1923 publications from our collections to share online.  A story by Peter Crimmins at WHYY has more information, and pictures, from our digitization work.

While 1923 may be making the biggest splash today, there’s other work also joining the public domain today in various places.  People in Europe and other countries with “life+70 years” copyright terms get works joining the public domain from authors who died in 1948.  (In the US, we’re also today getting works by authors who died that year that were not published prior to 2003.)  People in Canada and other countries maintaining “life+50 years” terms get works by authors who died in 1968.  Some of the relevant authors whose works are joining the public domain in these countries are mentioned in the Public Domain Review’s Class of 2019 feature.

As for me, here’s what I’m giving the world today:

  • A newly updated Creative Commons licensed guide for identifying public domain serial content.  I discussed this guide, when it was still in draft form, in a blog post last month.   Today’s update, now out of draft status, fixes some awkward sentences, says a little more about government publications, and removes references to 1923 copyrights, since they’ve now expired.  I hope folks find the guide useful, and I’d love to hear what you do with it, or if you have questions about it.
  • A grant to the public domain (via CC0 dedication) of any work I published in 2004 whose copyright is under my sole control.  (I typically do this every year on Public Domain Day for copyrights more than 14 years old, in recognition of the original term of copyright available in the United States.)
  • Links added to the advent calendar posts to online copies of the featured works.  They won’t all be linked today (it may take a while to find them all, and not all of them are online at the moment), but I’ll add the ones I can over the next few days, as well as creating or updating listings where appropriate for The Online Books Page.

And now that I’m done with the advent calendar, here’s a list of all of its posts and featured works:

  1. The Prophet by Kahlil Gibran
  2. ‘Twas the Night Before Christmas Cantata by Frances McCollin
  3. Murder on the Links by Agatha Christie
  4. “The Adventure of the Creeping Man” by Arthur Conan Doyle
  5. The Federal Reporter (1923 publications) by West Publishing
  6. “Barney Google” (fox-trot) by Billy Rose and Con Conrad
  7. New York Tribune (1923 issues)
  8. “Yes! We Have no Bananas” by Frank Silver and Irving Cohn
  9. Tagebücher by Theodor Herzl
  10. “The Road Away From Revolution” by Woodrow Wilson
  11. Washington and its Romance by Thomas Nelson Page
  12. Cane by Jean Toomer
  13. Safety Last! by Hal Roach, Sam Taylor, and Tim Whelan
  14. Tarzan and the Golden Lion by Edgar Rice Burroughs
  15. “Keen” by Edna St. Vincent Millay
  16. Emily of New Moon by Lucy Maud Montgomery
  17. Jeeves by P. G. Wodehouse
  18. The Art Spirit by Robert Henri
  19. Souls for Sale (photoplay) by Rupert Hughes
  20. The Vanishing American by Zane Grey
  21. “Nobody Knows You When You’re Down and Out” by Jimmie Cox
  22. A Son at the Front by Edith Wharton
  23. “Great is Thy Faithfulness” by Thomas Chisholm and William Runyan
  24. The Night Before Christmas (recitation with music and drawings) by Hanna van Vollenhoven and Grace Drayton
  25. “Christmas Day at Sea” by Joseph Conrad
  26. Crystallizing Public Opinion by Edward L. Bernays
  27. “The Invisible Monster” by Sonia Greene
  28. “Parisian Pierrot” by Noël Coward
  29. Success by A. A. Milne
  30. “In the Orchard” by Virginia Woolf
  31. New Hampshire by Robert Frost

Happy Public Domain Day!  We have lots to celebrate this year, and I’m thankful to everyone who’s helped make this celebration possible, and merrier. May we also have lots to celebrate every year hereafter!

 

Posted in copyright, open access, sharing | 2 Comments

Public Domain Day advent calendar #31: New Hampshire by Robert Frost

…for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

So ends “Fire and Ice”, one of the more than forty poems included in Robert Frost‘s 1923 Pulitzer Prize-winning collection New Hampshire.  Frost’s short poem uses ice as a metaphor for hate, though I’ve frequently used ice– or, more precisely, freezing– to describe the stasis in the public domain in the US over the last twenty years, from my first Public Domain Day post in 2008 to more recent Public Domain Day posts like 2016’s “Freezes and Thaws”.

That freeze in the public domain has come with destruction as well.  Sometimes that’s been literal, as film stock, magnetic tapes, and brittle pages deteriorate, or as old publications not kept elsewhere are discarded.  Sometimes that destruction has been of memories and personal connections, as authors and those who knew them or read their newly published works die or fall silent.  Sometimes the destruction has been of creative opportunity, as those who wanted to build on existing works have been stymied by copyright restrictions even long after the authors of those works have passed on.

Not that New Hampshire in itself has been in any danger of disappearing. The famous poems in it, like “Fire and Ice”, “Nothing Gold Can Stay”, and “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening” will be remembered and recited for a long time to come.  But if those are the short hit singles, the collection as a whole is a fascinating double-album or more worth of poetry, with lots of longer, deeper cuts. From the opening title track, an eccentric ode to an eccentric state, to the final poem where birds cheerily occupy a burnt-out and abandoned farmstead, certain patterns recur among his rhythms: the stark landscape of northern New England, the cycles of nature and of human activity, and death, which stalks through many of the poems in both metaphorical and literal forms.

Even as New Hampshire, and collections that include it, stay in print, as a whole the collection hasn’t had the cultural impact that it could have.  Not only are websites prevented from posting many of its poems online (unlike those from his earlier books), but adaptations of its works have also been limited.  In an article on the upcoming arrivals to the US public domain in the January 2019 issue of Smithsonian, Glenn Fleishman notes how Frost’s estate kept Eric Whitacre from releasing a choral adaptation of “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening”.  There have been some authorized musical settings of Frost’s poems, but not many. I’ve enjoyed singing Randall Thompson’s 1959 setting of  “Stopping by Woods…” as part of his Frostiana suite, but I’d love to hear what Whitacre and other 21st-century composers could do with it.  Starting tomorrow, they’ll have their chance.

(A couple of copyright-nerd asides: It’s arguable that “Stopping by Woods…” is already in the public domain.  It was published in the March 7, 1923 issue of The New Republic before it appeared in New Hampshire, there’s no renewal for that magazine issue or that specific contribution, and the renewal for New Hampshire was filed in September 1951, at a time of 28-year copyright terms that were not rounded up to the end of the year. Given that, the book’s renewal may have been too late to cover the poem’s magazine publication.  But I can understand a composer not wanting to get into a long legal battle over this issue.  Also, note that the “January 2019” issue of Smithsonian was published in 2018, requiring Fleishman to remain circumspect about quoting from New Hampshire in his article.  Similarly, many periodical issues with cover dates in early 1924 were actually published in 1923, will end their copyright terms tomorrow with other 1923 publications, and will be eligible for posting online then.)

Twenty years ago, I was moderating a mailing list of people posting texts online who were eagerly awaiting each new year’s worth of books they could post.  The first year of the list included a discussion of copyrights on Frost’s books, misdirected (and later retracted) takedown notices from his rightsholders, and the prospects for posting New Hampshire in 1999.  There were people who had been able to meet Frost in person, and hear him read his poems, while he was still alive.

Many of the people in that conversation are gone now from the Net, or from the world.  Eric Eldred, who challenged 1998’s 20-year copyright extension all the way to the Supreme Court, moved overseas, and eventually his site, where he wanted to post New Hampshire and other works that had been due to enter the public domain, dropped off the Net.  (A mostly-functional snapshot of his site is preserved at Ibiblio.)  David Reed, one of the people who prepared Frost’s early books, and many others, for Project Gutenberg, died in 2009. Michael Hart, who founded Project Gutenberg, and who after the 1998 copyright extensions passed told me he wanted to post Winnie-the-Pooh and Gone With the Wind someday when they reached the public domain, died in 2011.  Before he died, though, he inspired enough interested volunteers to keep Project Gutenberg going and posting new texts. Tomorrow, those volunteers will have full access to the promised land of 1923 that Michael Hart didn’t get to reach.

And God willing, when tomorrow begins, Mary and I will greet the year 2019, and continue work we and others have been doing for more than 20 years, bringing the public domain to light through online publishing and cataloging, shedding light on the hidden public domain of unrenewed materials, and doing our best to ensure that new works keep joining the public domain here not just tomorrow, but every year after that, for many years to come.  And I’ll be thinking of the words Robert Frost published in 1923:

…I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.

See you in the new year.


2019 update: Link to full text of New Hampshire, now in the US public domain, courtesy of HathiTrust.

Posted in adventcalendar | Leave a comment

Public Domain Day advent calendar #30: In the Orchard by Virginia Woolf

“The world broke in two in 1922 or thereabouts,” Willa Cather wrote in a preface to a 1936 collection of essays.  Many read her remark as referring to major changes in literary forms and styles underway in the early 1920s, particularly the rise of modernist and experimental literature.  We’ve already looked at Jean Toomer’s Cane, a 1923 novel using some of those new styles, in a previous calendar entry.  In that same year,  Virginia Woolf published two short stories still read today as key examples of modernist literature, employing stream-of-consciousness techniques to illuminate a slice of their main characters’ lives.  One of those stories will join the US public domain the day after tomorrow.  The other one is already there.

The story already in the public domain is “Mrs. Dalloway in Bond Street”, which relates a shopping trip of the title character and the thoughts and memories she experiences while going out to buy gloves.  Much of what action exists in the story is internal or told in flashback, though the surface narration includes a “violent explosion” at the end whose nature is not made clear in the short story.  Woolf later reworked and expanded this short story into the book Mrs. Dalloway, which was published in 1925, and will remain under copyright in the US for a couple of years longer.

Mrs. Dalloway’s original 1923 short story, however, is already in the public domain.  It was first published in the July 1923 issue of the American literary magazine The Dial, and there was no copyright renewal filed either for the magazine issue or for the story.  (There was a renewal filed in 1953 for the 1925 book, but that renewal is too late to cover the 1923 story.)

“Mrs. Dalloway in Bond Street” takes place over a small portion of a day. “In the Orchard” features an even shorter slice of life: only about a second, when the main character lies in a chair outdoors on the verge of sleep, and then leaps up exclaiming “Oh, I shall be late for tea!” But as in Mrs. Dalloway’s story, the main point is not the outward action, but a depiction of all that goes on around her, and in her own thoughts.  Woolf’s shifts of perspective from Miranda lying in her chair to things happening above her and around her are reminiscent of a wide-scene painting or a cinematic pan and zoom, though the narrative relates a combination of sounds, sights and thoughts that a painting or a film can only partially convey.

“In the Orchard” was first published in the April 1923 issue of The Criterion, a British literary magazine.  Again, there’s no renewal for the magazine issue or for the short story.  But this story, unlike “Mrs. Dalloway in Bond Street” is still under copyright in the US, at least for two more days.

Why the difference?  The reason is a trade agreement that the US made, and enacted into law, to exempt many works first published abroad from copyright formality requirements such as registration, renewal, and notice.  (I alluded to this exemption in a previous calendar entry.)  Eligible works were not only exempted from such requirements, but retroactively brought back into copyright, if they would still be under copyright as registered and renewed works.

The Copyright Office’s Circular 38A describes in detail the rules of eligibility for copyright restoration.  Here’s how they apply to these stories: Virginia Woolf was British, and her works were under copyright protection in Britain in 1996, when the copyright restorations went into effect.  So works of hers that were first published outside the US at least 30 days before their first US publication are eligible for restoration.  As I mentioned, The Criterion, where “In the Orchard” first appeared,  was published in the UK (and not, to my knowledge, in the US).  The first US publication of the story that I’m aware of, in the September 1923 issue of the American magazine Broom,  was more than 30 days after the April 1923 Criterion, so copyright restoration applies.  On the other hand, because “Mrs. Dalloway in Bond Street”, was first published in the US magazine The Dial, that story is not eligible for copyright restoration.

In this case, the difference will be moot in two days, when “In the Orchard” joins “Mrs. Dalloway in Bond Street” in the public domain at the completion of its full 95-year term.  If you haven’t read this story before, or aren’t sure you’d like its style of literature, you’ll have a good opportunity to check out this brief story then, for a little expenditure of time, and no expenditure of money.


We’ve almost reached the end of this Public Domain Day advent calendar.  If you’d like to continue reading about public domain works in the new year, though, I recommend checking out The Public Domain Review.  It regularly publishes essays about all manner of public domain works, both those newly arrived there and those that have been there for a while.  The authors of the essays are generally experts on the works they write about, and can also spend more time discussing the works and their contexts than I do here.  If you’re already a fan of the Public Domain Review, you may want to consider supporting it by buying some of its merchandise or making a donation.

One of that site’s regular features is an annual review of some of what’s coming into the public domain, both in the US and in other countries, in the coming year.  The latest in this series, Class of 2019, has just been posted, and includes a mention of the Woolf story featured in this post.


2019 update: Link to full text of “In the Orchard” as published in the September 1923 issue of Broom, now in the US public domain, courtesy of the Blue Mountain Project

Posted in adventcalendar | Leave a comment

Public Domain Day advent calendar #29: Success by A. A. Milne

I’ve been giving plays somewhat short shrift in this calendar so far. The only ones I’ve mentioned so far were noted in yesterday’s post as not actually joining the public domain in January.  So today I’ll discuss a play from 1923 that is joining the public domain, from a famous playwright of the time.

Many of us nowadays don’t usually think of A. A. Milne as a playwright, but up until 1923, he was largely known for his plays, and for his writing for  Punch.  Milne started contributing to that British humour magazine in 1903, and joined the staff as an assistant editor in 1906.  Before 1923 he had also published a few light novels (including the detective story The Red House Mystery and the satirical fairy tale Once on a Time).  He also wrote well over a dozen plays and screenplays, the main focus of his writing for several years after World War I ended.

Milne’s play Success, first published in 1923, was a more serious piece than some of his earlier work.  There’s a good summary of the play (in its 1926 version) in a 2012 Captive Reader blog post on his collection Four Plays.  The main character is a man who has followed the urgings of people around him into a career that is increasingly successful in the eyes of the world.  But when he meets a friend and a former love from his distant past, he regrets the path he’s taken, and dreams of the life he could have had if he hadn’t pursued the “success” the world recognizes.   The play’s retitling when it opened in New York, Give Me Yesterday, is an apt summation of its emotional focus.  So are lines like this one the main character delivers: “Success! It closes in on you […] I tried to get free – I did try, Sally – but I couldn’t. It had got me. It closes in on you.”

I suspect that Milne in 1923 had no idea that the same thing was about to happen to him and his family, on a much larger scale and more suddenly.  The following year, he published in Punch some poems about his young son Christopher Robin and his stuffed animals.  A book of those poems, titled When We Were Very Young, was published the same year and became an international best-seller, with 50,000 copies sold in its first two months on the market.  Two years later, another book made those stuffed animals the main characters, and that book, Winnie-the-Pooh, quickly became an even bigger best-seller, and remains one of the best-known and best-selling children’s books more than 90 years later.

Like his protagonist in Success, Milne felt like that the success of his children’s books had closed him in, and that he could not escape.  In 2017, Danuta Kean wrote an article in the Guardian on a reissue of Milne’s 1939 memoir, which had been aptly titled It’s Too Late Now.  Kean quotes Milne as saying “I wanted to escape from [children’s books]…  as I have always wanted to escape.  In vain. England expects the writer, like the cobbler, to stick to his last.”  Milne’s ironic fate also affected his son Christopher Robin.  Kean quotes him as saying that his father “had filched from me my good name and had left me with nothing but the empty fame of being his son.”

Personally, I’ll be glad to see Milne’s children’s books join the US public domain over the next few years.  But in the public domain now, readers of Milne will have the chance to focus on the kinds of works that he wanted to be known for, before his wildly successful children’s books overwhelmed him (and his son).  And once Success joins those works in the public domain three days from now, readers may get from it a better sense of the emotional price paid for those later books.


PS:  Alexandra Alter has an informative new article in The New York Times  on the impending new arrivals to the American public domain, and their significance.  It’s good to read yourself, or to share with other people who might not be aware of what all the fuss is about.  (And I’m not just saying that because I’m one of the people mentioned in the article.)  Alter’s article mentions a number of works and authors that are also featured in this calendar, as well as some I won’t have time to discuss this month that you might be interested in as well.


2019 update: Link to full text of Success, now in the US public domain, courtesy of HathiTrust.

Posted in adventcalendar | Leave a comment