Get the top HN stories in your inbox every day.
GeneticGenesis
iterance
Just thought you might want to know - it's "per se" not "per say"/variations thereof.
TeMPOraL
> Now if only HEVC wasn't such a hot patent / licensing mess.
Somehow I suspect HEVC suddenly became a thing in the past few years precisely because AVC patents are expiring.
kmeisthax
Yes, and in fact this is explicitly the business model[0] of ISO MPEG and ITU VCEG. They pay for their basic research by letting participants patent and license the resulting standards-essential inventions[1].
HEVC/H.265 has been in development since 2004, i.e. right after AVC/H.264 was published, and took almost a decade to actually be standardized. There's even an H.266, which started in 2017, a few years after H.265 was released. Though the primary concern of patent holders is not AVC patents expiring. Those patents actually aren't that valuable, because AVC is licensed way too cheap. MPEG-LA had negotiated a very generous free rate for online video[2], in response to MPEG-4 ASP (aka "DivX :-)") basically not getting much use online.
What patent owners want is to go back to the days of MPEG-2 where they were making money hand over fist just for owning a functional codec. They even sacked Leonardo Chiariglione, the founder and head of ISO MPEG, because he was trying to change ISO's patent policy to be more favorable to developing royalty-free codecs.
[0] ISO does not license patents and has no affiliation with MPEG-LA/Access Advance/etc, but Leonardo has gone on record saying this is their 'business model': https://blog.chiariglione.org/a-crisis-the-causes-and-a-solu...
[1] under FRAND licensing
[2] Which is why YouTube's allowed to use H.264 without paying $$$ for it. Before that, they used whatever codec was available in Flash Player. Adobe (and Macromedia before it) used On2 VP6 primarily because it had no patent licensing royalty; before that they'd used H.263.
harshreality
Encoding efficiency for a given perceptual quality is very important when you pay for bandwidth or disk space.
Otherwise there would have been no effort to create vp9 and av1, as everyone on that side of the codec wars would've stuck with vp8.
philistine
That's incredible. With MP3 already completely patent-free as well, we have an extraordinary free set of audio and video codecs for the next couple of decade, at least until HEVC becomes free.
yaomtc
Let's not forget Opus. Not technically patent-free but it practically is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_(audio_format)#Patent_cla...
Also Vorbis has always been patent free.
philistine
Opus and Vorbis are far from useable everywhere. On the other hand, there isn't a piece of software or hardware that won't accept MP3. MP3 is the lingua franca of sound, and should stay that way for a century.
walrus01
One of the primary reasons why AV1 exists is because HEVC is such a hot mess.
TiredOfLife
There are already two patent pools for av1 that want rent.
ZeroGravitas
So 1 less than the 3 HEVC pools, and in HEVC they were all part of the development process so have pretty iron clad claims.
nabakin
Do you think AOM is going to start charging royalties?
bobmcnamara
A tale as old as video codecs.
a1o
In the link it seems the last patent in US go as long as 2027?
If the patents really expire in 2025, is there an already open source library written either in C or C++ one could use for reading h.264?
mtlynch
Cisco published their implementation under BSD license:
extraduder_ire
They also make a reproducible build of it for firefox in order to shield mozilla from patent suits.
gavinsyancey
x264 has been around forever, and it's FOSS.
account42
Dude, FFMPEG has open source decoders for pretty much every codec ever created.
As the sibling points out, for H.264 we even had a high-quality open source encoder for a long time.
Amorymeltzer
It's advent calendar-style, so <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_in_public_domain> might be more informative.
leoc
Red Harvest is in there? You can be sure that number of film and TV writers, and perhaps directors and producers, have set their alarm clocks for that one. https://crimereads.com/the-strange-cinematic-afterlife-of-re...
cxr
You may be interested to know that the story for The Maltese Falcon, not listed, will also be entering public domain because it was published in monthly installments in Black Mask magazine before it was published as a novel. (Any changes between the publication in Black Mask and those made for the novelization, if significant enough, will of course still be under copyright and so the novelization proper still won't be entering public domain for another 13 months.)
We have had difficulty getting our hands on these issues, though (or scans of them).
It's interesting that AMC just launched a series featuring Sam Spade this year, the year before the character goes into the public domain…
bryanrasmussen
Dashiel Hammet died in 1961 so wouldn't that mean the Maltese Falcon will still in PD until 2031 in the EU?
qingcharles
When you say, "we" who do you mean? Are the magazines particularly rare?
account42
Yes. the advent calendar is an odd choice. Do they really expect people to go back to the site every day to find out what the images refer to?
Goodbichon
I guess it is meant to be a bit of fun, creating a sense of a countdown to the "big day". A few people might go back and check each day, but I suppose most will just catch a few days on social media (they do a post every day saying saying what the new window reveal is), or just check back on January 1st, which is public domain day, and when all windows will have been revealed. They do a blogpost on that day too which unrolls the whole selection of highlights. E.g. see this one from PD day of this year: https://publicdomainreview.org/blog/2024/01/public-domain-da.... That's maybe seen as the main thing.
kayge
Or if you want to peek ahead like a kid who's bound for the Naughty list, you can use dev tools and add the 'will-open' class to any of those <button> elements :)
GeoAtreides
No notable wroters, except one: Pär Lagerkvist
clarkmoody
Previous civilizations were able to own their cultural myths. Modern civilization's cultural myths are controlled by giant faceless corporations with legions of lawyers. No one can tell a new story about Han, Luke, and Leia without permission from the House of Mouse.
narski
At least in the case of the Maya, literacy was carefully guarded so that a small class of priests could exercise precisely this kind of control. In fact, this is believed to be one of the reasons why modern Mayan languages are written in the Latin alphabet, even though there's a complete Mayan script that was the most developed writing system in the Americas until the conquest.
bsimpson
I still can't believe that everyone alive in the 21st century has been damned to forego a vibrant public domain because some lawyers were afraid Mickey Mouse might fall out of copyright.
Free Culture by Larry Lessig was an excellent book on the subject. He fought the copyright extension in the Supreme Court and founded the Creative Commons. The experience showed him the degree to which money has corrupted the US political system, so he moved his expertise from intellectual property to election reform. He was briefly a protest candidate for president, who vowed to make his reforms and then resign.
cyost
Here you go, 9360 new stories about Han, Luke, and Leia: https://archiveofourown.org/works?commit=Sort+and+Filter&wor...
ronsor
This is copyright infringement and may be nuked by the Walt Disney Company at any moment.
s1artibartfast
In previous civilizations, it was not uncommon to be killed, disemboweled, or crucified for telling myth.
I dont think that distant kings, state religions, or crusading armies were more faceless.
criddell
> No one can tell a new story about Han, Luke, and Leia without permission from the House of Mouse.
Disney is surprisingly friendly to Star Wars fan fiction.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/movies/star-wars-fan-film...
sigio
Until they are not... it's still permission, instead of 'always allowed'. I'm quite convinced they will not like it if you make a star-wars themed porn-parody (with the character names as-is) and try marketing it ;)
jvan
Lucas was friendly towards fan works, so Disney kind of got that situation handed to them and were smart enough not to go against it. When nerds are your core audience, you have to accept them doing nerd things. WB took down the Hunt for Gollum fan film and ended up reversing course. Would Disney and WB still make a ton of money if they tighten the reins? Probably, but why risk it?
asimpletune
I agree that the way things were along time ago was more natural and definitely more creative. Things today though are way different though. A huge difference is that media wasn’t an industry back then. Most people couldn’t even read. The retelling of myths would mostly happen in the form of poetry or drama performed publicly, and the performance schedule was tightly controlled in the form of contests and festivals to honor various things across the calendar. There’s not really analogue to that now. We are truly in uncharted territory, and that was the case since the printing press. Throw in the invention of the internet and it’s a giant mess. I’m optimistic though that we can resolve it and pave a way forward.
Retric
Storytelling was both a profession and an industry in antiquity. Just as rock concerts and bar bands exist today, amphitheaters weren’t the only way people would watch performances.
immibis
Or a Tor onion service.
cxr
Unfortunately, public domain isn't everything. There are lots of works that we know of and that we should be able to share with one another, but it's hard to come by copies. To give one example:
The novel Red Harvest from 1929 is listed as entering the public domain next month. But the thing is that prior to being published as a novel, it was serialized in Black Mask magazine, and since all installments were published pre-1929, they're all already in the public domain.
The trouble, though, is that despite being public domain, actually getting your hands on these issues, whether in real life or figuratively as scans is something that poses a challenge—we simply don't have easy access to this material.
And that goes for lots of other stuff that we know about but don't have copies at hand.
d3VwsX
Also all the sites that post scans of old books or magazines but claim various usage restrictions or/and copyrights on the scans.
That effectively keeps public domain works copyrighted, for most purposes, for most of us. Most libraries for instance have some EULA that says you can only use scans you order from them for non-commercial purposes, even if they scan from a public domain book. I do not know if that can be enforced in general, but it would not be fun to have to find out in court.
RobotToaster
As far as copyright is concerned, "slavish reproductions" do not pass the threshold of originality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality#Repro...
Suppafly
>Also all the sites that post scans of old books or magazines but claim various usage restrictions or/and copyrights on the scans.
They can try and claim whatever they want, but they have no real power once it's in the public domain.
DoctorOetker
are there any precedents in this regard?
> I do not know if that can be enforced in general, but it would not be fun to have to find out in court.
does the above sentence refer to using EULA-restricted public domain works and asking volunteers to carry the risk of being sued? or does it refer to somehow challenging the enforceability in court?
can it be illegal to merely insinuate EULA's as described above? which laws prohibit intimidation regarding copyright that is not held?
can John Doe intimidate people with EULA's on public domain works?
aspenmayer
If it’s in the public domain, you can make legal derivative works even without the source material, can’t you?
Or can you?
nemomarx
If the serialized one is in the public domain and a book isn't, then your work might be seen as derivative of the book anyway.
For instance the recent Wicked movie (and book, and play, etc) can't use ruby red slippers, because that was a detail only in the relativley more recent movie, so even though the original wizard of oz book has been in the public domain a while, some details are siloed off. I think the Holmes stories had disputes like this for a while too, where if you mentioned certain side characters it might infringe a more recent adaptation or etc.
recursivecaveat
The Holmes situation was even sillier than that: they were arguing that certain personality traits of Sherlock were still under copyright: https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/conan-doyle-estate-sues-net...
aspenmayer
I can see how having the public domain source material might be necessary to defend yourself against claims of infringement of the non-public domain works. That makes sense to me.
pessimizer
What if you just want to read something without a credit card? In the far-off past, it was once normal to buy a book without your purchase registering in dozens of databases, being cross-referenced with your electricity bills and the people you went to high school with, then analyzed for your marketing or terrorist potential. You would go to a bookstore, hand them something called cash, they would give you a book, and your relationship would end.
Now you can only do this through piracy.
I'm honestly not worried about getting zoomer takes on Red Harvest. I'd like to be able to legally send it to somebody I recommend it to without involving hundreds, if not thousands, of other people.
aspenmayer
Secondhand bookstores still exist. I’ve found first editions at them before, so that might not be a bad place to look, actually.
tzs
As is usual there is quite a bit of discussion here on copyright reform, which is mostly just suggestions to change the term of copyright.
I think it would be interesting to consider other reforms.
Note that copyright is not just a single right. It is a bundle of rights. In the US those are the copying right, the derivative work right, the distribution right, the performance right, the display right, and some others. The bundle of rights might be different in other jurisdictions but in most it is similar. In the rest of this comment I'll only be consideringd US copyright.
First, I don't see why all of those rights should all have the same term. I see no reason to believe that the optimal term for say the copying right and the optimal term for the derivative work right would be the same.
Second, how about adding more compulsory licenses? US copyright law already has some compulsory licenses (also called mechanical licenses), such as for cover songs. Briefly, a federal agency called the Copyright Royalty Board sets the terms and rates for these licenses, and anyone can obtain the license according to those rates and terms, regardless of whether or not the copyright owner wants to license the work to them.
For example suppose we made it so that the copying and distribution rights have a three phase lifetime instead of the current two phases (which are an exclusive phase tied to the author's lifetime followed by public domain). The three phase lifetime could be (1) an exclusive phase of a fixed number of years, followed by (2) a compulsory license phase, followed by (3) public domain.
The derivative work right is the hard one. On the one hand a short term allows others to play in an author's universe. I've seen some really good and really well written fan fiction that is not currently technically legal, especially crossover fan fiction that merges the story universes of different authors. Encouraging this would be good.
On the other hand some things would be ruined if they became public domain too quickly. I'm quite pleased that Bill Watterson still gets to decide who can make "Calvin & Hobbes" derivative works. If copyright was only 14 or 21 years (terms people often suggest), I've no doubt that every character from "Calvin & Hobbes" would have started appearing in ads as soon as the copyright expired.
account42
I don't think we need to make copyright terms even more of a clusterfuck than it already is.
Just reduce the term so that people can create derivates of the culture they grew up on (abolishing the mess entirely would be even better). Characters from Calvin & Hobbes being used by others is not any more of a problem than fan fiction is a problem now.
dmonitor
On that last note, perhaps some exceptions should be drawn for advertising in particular.
timpark
In May 1998, before the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act went into effect, there was an amusing Tom the Dancing Bug comic regarding characters falling out of copyright. https://www.gocomics.com/tomthedancingbug/1998/05/17
In that vein, similar to the Mickey Mouse and Winnie the Pooh horror movies that have been released in recent years, Popeye will be entering the public domain next year and people are working on a horror movie based on that.
fred_is_fred
I am curious how the long tail and changing of media consumption habits has devalued many of these characters. Mickey is Mickey and there's an entire company built on it of course, but my kids have literally no clue who Popeye is. They have never seen a Popeye cartoon and probably never will. When I was younger we didn't have nearly as much choice (2-3 channels with limited times for cartoons) - rather than Netflix or Youtube which effectively offers unlimited/fragmented options.
Additionally the main plot line of Popeye is effectively Popeye protecting Olive Oil from being assaulted by Bluto - not exactly modern cartoon material.
timpark
I think some things were a product of their time, and weren't popular/profitable enough to keep marketing or update or modernize. (whether they didn't maintain peoples' attention, or had issues like the Popeye one you mentioned) Another not-as-popular character that's entering the public domain in 2026, for example, is Betty Boop.
On the other hand, Superman and Batman enter the public domain in 2034 and 2035 respectively, so that should be interesting. Though like Mickey Mouse/Steamboat Willie, I expect that it's only the original version/costume that goes public domain.
fred_is_fred
DC Comics has done a good job of keeping Superman relevant through time as well. 40s, 50s, 80s, etc. The whole Death of Superman was a big deal back in the early 90s also even though the cartoons I don't think were as popular. You are spot on in that Betty Boop and Popeye like you said are relics from their time and absolutely don't translate - although anyone around in the early 1990s will remember a brief Betty Boop merch resurgance.
saghm
Even as someone who isn't really into horror much as a genre, it's hard not to appreciate how one of the first instincts we have as a society when freeing some IP is "We should make a creepy version of this!".
Swizec
> it's hard not to appreciate how one of the first instincts we have as a society when freeing some IP is "We should make a creepy version of this!"
Almost certainly rule 34 happens first and just gets less attention in public. There were “bear” posters of Pooh all over SOMA (in SF) almost immediately after the copyright ended.
registeredcorn
What is Soma? I see there is a video game (link)[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soma_(video_game)], but have no idea what it means in this context. Are you saying there is some kind of add-on for that?
ben_w
Rule 34 happens well before copyright expires.
Clopfic, Kirk/Spock, or ask any pile of furries about Robin Hood or Nick Wilde.
swyx
handpicked selection of notables:
- Frida Kahlo
- Henri Matisse
- Alan Turing
i guess the Chrysler Building is public domain now? what can you do with a buidling?
Rebelgecko
Kind of a niche, but the open world Spiderman video games stopped including the Chrysler Building due to licensing issues after it was bought by new owners in ~2019
tas50
The building going into public domain is actually pretty sweet. Here in Portland we have this really cool looking statue in front of our city hall called the Portlandia statue (way before the show). You'd think it would be shown all over in pictures of our city, but the guy that made it owns the copyright and enforces the shit out of it. Because of that it's entirely unknown. No one wants to publish a picture and pay him. When that enters public down in a SUPER long time it will be easily published and folks might actually know it exists.
https://www.wweek.com/archive/2024/03/24/why-the-portlandia-...
Suppafly
The city should take it down, fuck that guy.
Spastche
isn't the new pedestrian from a few years ago the same way? (the one with lights)
diggan
> i guess the Chrysler Building is public domain now? what can you do with a buidling?
I guess maybe the design of the building, if anything? If that will become public domain, expect it to appear in Macau in a year or less, and probably other places :)
jabroni_salad
There was some crank that once C&D'd a minecraft server for reproducing copyrighted buildings. I dont think he had the guts to take it to court though.
shiroiushi
You wouldn't download a building.
poulpy123
I would if I could ! but my 3D printer is a bit to small
flipthefrog
The Eiffel Tower isnt copyrighted, obviously, but the 1985 light design at night is, so you may need permission to use photos of it commercially
GeoAtreides
Also the writer Pär Lagerkvist, nobel award winner
retrac
Thanks to the retroactive extension here in Canada, nothing.
gnulinux
In the US, a random/personal selection of major works that will be public domain are:
* Ernest Hemingway's novel "A Farewell to Arms"
* Ludwig Wittgenstein's essay "Some Remarks on Logical Form"
* The first part of the 14th edition of Encyclopædia Britannica
* William Faulkner's novel "The Sound and the Fury"
* René Magritte's painting "The Treachery of Images"
* Wassily Kandinsky's painting "Upward"
* "Un chien Andalou", directed by Luis Bunuel and cowritten by Salvador Dali
* "The Cocoanuts", the first film of the Marx Brothers
* the first "Silly Symphony" cartoons, including "The Skeleton Dance".
Not a bad year at all!
nottorp
Most are still books in that list. But there is no readable version of it, just photos :)
Next year it will be a link to a tiktok movie?
hoseja
Oh hey look Crowley.
It's fascinating to me that like 95% of what anglos see as "occult" or "magic" is directly descended from that very recent grifter.
Also see vampires and Stoker (though that's not as intentional).
distantsounds
I'd love to know! Too bad this website only gives a small selection of what those items are, despite the entire lists already being published elsewhere! Very useful, thanks Hacker News!
Get the top HN stories in your inbox every day.
I know it's not public domain per-say, but for me, the thing that's most exciting is that in 2025, the last remaining patents on the h.264 (AVC) video codec will expire [1].
Now if only HEVC wasn't such a hot patent / licensing mess.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Have_the_patents_for_H.264_M...