George Orwell is out of copyright. What happens now?(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
George Orwell is out of copyright. What happens now?
https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2021/jan/01/george-orwell-is-out-of-copyright-what-happens-now
104 comments
I think you might be misunderstanding the point of the article. They're talking about the hurdles you have to jump in order to reprint or adapt his writings, not just read them.
That makes me wonder why Russia would be interested in spreading Orwell's ideas.
I think you're overthinking this. it probably would be just a Russian hobbyist who's interested in archiving Orwell's works. (Also since these are in the public domain in Russian territory)
This makes me wonder if people really accept the Western media's point of view that a population of 150 million act in unison as a singular being named "Russia".
The "Russia" he referenced isn't the general population. It's the political party that's in power, influencing the media and allowing/forbidding things to be associated with it.
Almost all nations actively shape their image, Russia is one of them. (Just as the usa)
Almost all nations actively shape their image, Russia is one of them. (Just as the usa)
In which case the remark doesn't make sense, as orwell.ru isn't run by Russian government/ruling party (presumably).
You think putin is personally hosting that site? The insane lunacy when it comes to putin, xi, trump, erdogan or whichever boogeyman the media/propagandists decides to scaremonger with.
I think this is an example of the kind of armchair international relations pareidolia that shaves off much of the nuance of the real world. It tends to be mixed with main character syndrome.
It reminds me of a friend I knew who was terrified that the Chinese would search all his belongings and files once he landed in Beijing. Of course, once he got there he soon realized most people did not give a shit about what a random foreigner was up to
It reminds me of a friend I knew who was terrified that the Chinese would search all his belongings and files once he landed in Beijing. Of course, once he got there he soon realized most people did not give a shit about what a random foreigner was up to
I feel like it's being overlooked in this thread that mostly anyone can buy a .ru or .us domain, in fact ru domains are really affordable. A lot of country TLDs are available to non-citizens.
Note that while this applies to the UK [edit: not US, thanks boomboomsubban] (and some other life+70 countries), the copyright on his work has already expired in some countries.
In Canada, the copyright term is life + 50 rather than life + 70, the minimum under the Berne Convention. In Australia, only authors who died after 1955 (Orwell died in 1950) get life + 70; authors such as Orwell are "grandfathered in" to life + 50.
IIRC (although I can't find a source now), this confusing patchwork of copyright was the root cause behind the infamous deletion of some copies of 1984 from Kindles:
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18am...
In Canada, the copyright term is life + 50 rather than life + 70, the minimum under the Berne Convention. In Australia, only authors who died after 1955 (Orwell died in 1950) get life + 70; authors such as Orwell are "grandfathered in" to life + 50.
IIRC (although I can't find a source now), this confusing patchwork of copyright was the root cause behind the infamous deletion of some copies of 1984 from Kindles:
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18am...
Why is life+70 so standard? Even life+50 seems excessive. I can understand life, I can understand protecting copyright for a number of years after death so something written just before an author's death still benefits their family. But to preserver the copyright of works written when they were young, for literal generations after their death, that's just plain ridiculous.
Also, life shouldn't even matter once the copyright is not in the hands of the original author anymore. Just give copyright a set length from time of publication (30, 50, or even 70 if necessary), unless it's held by the original author, in which case it's the maximum of life or that number. That already seems way more than necessary. Anything more than that is just monopolisation of culture and has nothing to do with protecting the interests of the author or the initial publisher.
Also, life shouldn't even matter once the copyright is not in the hands of the original author anymore. Just give copyright a set length from time of publication (30, 50, or even 70 if necessary), unless it's held by the original author, in which case it's the maximum of life or that number. That already seems way more than necessary. Anything more than that is just monopolisation of culture and has nothing to do with protecting the interests of the author or the initial publisher.
laugh in Disney copyrigths...
>Note that while this applies to the US
It doesn't. His books are still covered under whatever law set up 95 years since publication, so it's a decade until his earliest releases enter public domain and ~25 for 1984.
It doesn't. His books are still covered under whatever law set up 95 years since publication, so it's a decade until his earliest releases enter public domain and ~25 for 1984.
You're right, thanks. I've edited it.
Do you know how this interacts with NAFTA 2.0? If a work can be used for profit in Canada and not in the US...
That would be the 'Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
Thanks, that explains why Such Such Were The Joys is available on an australian site, yet the TFA seemed to say it was still tied up.
(I wonder to what degree my heterodox take on 1984 is due to the fact that I read SSWtJ, in combination with The Spike and other essays, well before having read 1984 itself?)
(I wonder to what degree my heterodox take on 1984 is due to the fact that I read SSWtJ, in combination with The Spike and other essays, well before having read 1984 itself?)
> In Canada, the copyright term is life + 50
Not for long, trump pressured us to change to life+70 which is probably coming sometime next year. :(
Not for long, trump pressured us to change to life+70 which is probably coming sometime next year. :(
I look forward to some interesting Disney adaptations. Wonder how they will portray the Eastasia princess.
I think a Disney version of Animal Farm is more likely. Animated talking animals are Disney's wheelhouse. I can see Napoleon and Snowball singing a duet as the opening song.
It’s been done: https://youtu.be/2b-CMtKhTl0
Though I suppose we’re not above remakes.
Though I suppose we’re not above remakes.
Right, there’s still the photorealistic CGI version to be made.
This version if I recall retains the horror aspect? What worries me is when they change the ending for some disturbing kind of happy ever after, the kind I can't imagine. Like what they did to the Little Mermaid. Next they'll be making a version of the Happy Prince (Hans Christian Anderson) where he remains a gold statue and keeps his jewels.
Did the Watership Down remake get sanitized? I never watched it, having been part of a generation of Australians who all got taken as school children to see it and scarred for life. It was just assumed animations are for kids. It must have been hell for the teachers, dealing with a class of traumatized 6 year olds in a cinema.
Yes it was completely more like the the book, the new animated remake. It was beautiful but far less brutal. Easier for the younger child, certainly. As a fan of the book since a child, I also found the original movie very intense and wasn't keen to revisit it.
It's not exactly a kids' movie, but it does end with Benjamin rallying the other animals to overthrow the pigs' rule.
It later came to light that the movie had been financed by a CIA project to promote anti-communist art.
It later came to light that the movie had been financed by a CIA project to promote anti-communist art.
At this point it should be required annual training material for members of Congress.
The "A cartoon movie of life under Marxist-Socialist Communism." subtitle is wrong.
That's absolutely not what the book is about, in George Orwell's words it was "un conte satirique contre Staline" (a satiric tale against Stalin), he didn't like the cult of personality that Staling created, it was against him, not against Marxism in general.
When he wrote the book UK and USSR (Stalin) were allied against nazi germans and Stalin was kept in high esteem from British politicians, a fact that Orwell hated.
That's absolutely not what the book is about, in George Orwell's words it was "un conte satirique contre Staline" (a satiric tale against Stalin), he didn't like the cult of personality that Staling created, it was against him, not against Marxism in general.
When he wrote the book UK and USSR (Stalin) were allied against nazi germans and Stalin was kept in high esteem from British politicians, a fact that Orwell hated.
Orwell was strictly against totalitarianism (state > people) and in favor of liberalism (people > state). He considered himself an anarchist, before settling with the social-liberal-democrats.
In schools he is often represented as "anti-soviets" but that is a simplification. He was a very political intellectual who cared far more about the patterns of government and the structures of society in general. Sure, he did despised stalinism, but he did so, because it was a tyrannical, totalitarian system. In the long run it is wiser to read the fable and consider if your own government is run by power hungry pigs.
In schools he is often represented as "anti-soviets" but that is a simplification. He was a very political intellectual who cared far more about the patterns of government and the structures of society in general. Sure, he did despised stalinism, but he did so, because it was a tyrannical, totalitarian system. In the long run it is wiser to read the fable and consider if your own government is run by power hungry pigs.
A differentiation socialists love. In reality, all explicitly Marxists regimes are well represented by the book pretty well, whatever Orwell own believes. Marx himself was incredibly authoritarian as acted in his own movement and what he was willing to tolerate to achieve his vision. Bakunin and others had pointed that out already before any real Marxist regime ever existed.
I honestly don't understand your point.
Other than the usual boring "all socialists are equal, also Bakunin" that brings me back to when I was in school 30 years ago (I wore patches of Gaetano Bresci back then)
Engels, Bakunin, Marx, were alle right on something and completely wrong on other things.
For example Bakunin was against private property and for equal mandatory work for everyone.
He theorised the abolition of money and collectivisation of the means of production.
Exactly like Marx, so why they disagreed?
Because Bakunin didn't believe in the democratic process and the universal suffrage.
He thought that "the State, any State, even the most democratic one governed by the most leftist idealists in the World, can ever give the people what they need" because he didn't believe in the institute of representation (that includes liberal democracies)
He obviously did not believe in "no taxation without representation"
Today he would put every western State in the same "totalitarian oppression of the people" ballpark.
But was this the point of my post?
No, it wasn't.
Orwell himself wrote in letters and other books (for example "Why I write") what story he wanted to tell in Animal Farm and it's not "how is life in Marxism-communism"
The book became a metaphor for every modern political system, where corruption and the betrayal of early ideals of a revolting community are the way to get the power.
Today Animal Farm describes USA or Italy as well as it did 80 years ago about Stalin and the UK politicians that first admired Mussolini in Italy and then Stalin in USSR, because the way they ruled their empire wasn't dissimilar.
So a better description of the video would be "Animal Farm - a contemporary political satire"
Other than the usual boring "all socialists are equal, also Bakunin" that brings me back to when I was in school 30 years ago (I wore patches of Gaetano Bresci back then)
Engels, Bakunin, Marx, were alle right on something and completely wrong on other things.
For example Bakunin was against private property and for equal mandatory work for everyone.
He theorised the abolition of money and collectivisation of the means of production.
Exactly like Marx, so why they disagreed?
Because Bakunin didn't believe in the democratic process and the universal suffrage.
He thought that "the State, any State, even the most democratic one governed by the most leftist idealists in the World, can ever give the people what they need" because he didn't believe in the institute of representation (that includes liberal democracies)
He obviously did not believe in "no taxation without representation"
Today he would put every western State in the same "totalitarian oppression of the people" ballpark.
But was this the point of my post?
No, it wasn't.
Orwell himself wrote in letters and other books (for example "Why I write") what story he wanted to tell in Animal Farm and it's not "how is life in Marxism-communism"
The book became a metaphor for every modern political system, where corruption and the betrayal of early ideals of a revolting community are the way to get the power.
Today Animal Farm describes USA or Italy as well as it did 80 years ago about Stalin and the UK politicians that first admired Mussolini in Italy and then Stalin in USSR, because the way they ruled their empire wasn't dissimilar.
So a better description of the video would be "Animal Farm - a contemporary political satire"
[deleted]
I hope they make a modern version of 1984 where Winston is forced learn a lot of new pronouns.
It needs to be a woke version where Julia is the strong female lead sent to root out corrupt officials like Winston.
Copyright lasts way too long.
Agree. A year seems a lot more reasonable.
Are you sure about that?
Myself, I think that copyright today has been grotesquely distorted away from its original intent; the furthering of the arts. Especially in the U.S. and E.U., the media oligopoly has had enormous success in transforming (cough perverting) copyright into a mechanism that benefits the copyright holder to the detriment of anyone else.
But we see that copyright can also be an effective tool for protection of the arts and sciences; see copyleft. Here we have an ingenious way of turning copyright on it's head, by protecting the rights of all involved parties. (Stallman might be a nutcase, but if that's the case, he's a genius nutcase.)
So I think it's fair to have 'longer' copyright periods. Longer than a year, I mean. The duration we have in patent law (~20 years) seems rather fair to me. Enough to turn (some) profit, not enough to rob four generations of the stories and characters that were an important part of their childhood's culture.
Myself, I think that copyright today has been grotesquely distorted away from its original intent; the furthering of the arts. Especially in the U.S. and E.U., the media oligopoly has had enormous success in transforming (cough perverting) copyright into a mechanism that benefits the copyright holder to the detriment of anyone else.
But we see that copyright can also be an effective tool for protection of the arts and sciences; see copyleft. Here we have an ingenious way of turning copyright on it's head, by protecting the rights of all involved parties. (Stallman might be a nutcase, but if that's the case, he's a genius nutcase.)
So I think it's fair to have 'longer' copyright periods. Longer than a year, I mean. The duration we have in patent law (~20 years) seems rather fair to me. Enough to turn (some) profit, not enough to rob four generations of the stories and characters that were an important part of their childhood's culture.
I was being somewhat glib. I guess I should’ve included some kind of sarcmark. I agree of course that it’s noble to find less pathological ways to protect the people who truly create. I don’t know if copyright is the right solution (or if it’s not), or what kind of timeframe would bring the most benefit with the least harm. But I certainly think the current implementation is so absurd as to be worth challenging.
> But I certainly think the current implementation is so absurd as to be worth challenging.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
For the record, German Wikipedia has a page with creators who died 70 years ago [1]. I couldn't find a corresponding page in the English Wikipedia but as it's a list it doesn't matter too much (apart from the links to the respective WP articles).
[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_Domain_Day/20...
[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_Domain_Day/20...
He was so far ahead of his time.
I just started reading “Burmese Days” which reflects his life as a policeman in the British Empire, experiences that affected his views on life.
I just started reading “Burmese Days” which reflects his life as a policeman in the British Empire, experiences that affected his views on life.
I strongly recommend down and out in London and Paris as well. He decides to live as realistically similar to a poor person for a while in a gonzo-like journalism experiment with a lot of interesting scenes and observations
His "As I please" lectures, particularly on the practice of calling people fascists, could've been written tomorrow they're so prescient.
I recently pimped an Orwell biography in a different thread¹, but I'll do so again. Dorian Lynskey's The Ministry of Truth is a really well written and thoroughly researched treatise on Orwell.
I found the passage of his life from Eton through Spain to his final books far more interesting than his actual writings(with the possible exception of Road to Wigan Pier).
¹ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25474279
I found the passage of his life from Eton through Spain to his final books far more interesting than his actual writings(with the possible exception of Road to Wigan Pier).
¹ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25474279
That is why every gov is trying to copy 1984 in this dramatic and catastrophic covid19 epidemia. They dont have to pay any fee to the original author.
Can you elaborate? At least here in the USA the government responses have been so spotty, inconsistently enforced, and half hearted that we seem to have the worst of all outcomes. (Elevated death rate, recurring lockdowns, ongoing community spread of the virus.)
I like that this story examples how creativity can ramp up, when copyright gets out of the way.
And how the copyright monopoly robs our culture. With some of David Bowie's contribution to Art being denied and forever lost.
"a robot from 1984"
Isn't that a reference to a robot dancing style popularised around the time period of the year 1984.
Not robots dancing in the book 1984?
Yes. The actual lyric is "dancing to electropop like a robot from 1984" and it does, indeed, refer to a robotic dance style done to electronic pop music. A dance style that is always more effective when aided by strobe lights.
Also, there were no robots in the book "1984".
Also, there were no robots in the book "1984".
So someone could publish a version of 1984 that had certain characters completely expunged from the text, and others added.
>> So someone could publish a version of 1984 that had certain characters completely expunged from the text, and others added.
No real need to publish anything, we're living a variant of it every day. Without much creativity, we could map so many day-to-day things in 2020 to items in 1984.
No real need to publish anything, we're living a variant of it every day. Without much creativity, we could map so many day-to-day things in 2020 to items in 1984.
We are much closer the Brave New World than 1984.
Are we? Where do we find characters like Mustapha Mond? Instead we got the likes of Bezos, Musk and Zuckerberg. No opinion about David Shaw and Jim Simons.
as can be seen by the caste system created due to abandoning natural birth in favor of genetically engineered babies being made at scale in factories.
Your comment reminded me of this web comic comparison https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/biblioklept.org/2013/06/08/hu...
Ungoogled link: https://biblioklept.org/2013/06/08/huxley-vs-orwell-the-webc...
I've seen this a few times. I'll say what I said last time:
If many people are substantially harmed by wasting their time and energy on distractions, then those who waste less time will outcompete them. Whether the mechanism is common wisdom analogous to "don't drink alone or before the evening", parents teaching their kids in certain ways, religions that consider much "wasteful" entertainment to be sinful, or genes that contribute to conditions perhaps resembling autism where colorful flashy video registers as annoying or even painful, the problem seems likely to create its own solutions.
One of the premises of "Brave New World" is that all children are raised by the State, and are forcibly (a) oxygen-deprived in the womb to limit their intelligence and (b) subjected throughout childhood to indoctrination and hypnotherapy to make them say "I'm happy and content with my life, and my only desire is to chase consumer goods". I'm not sure why so many people seem to forget this.
If many people are substantially harmed by wasting their time and energy on distractions, then those who waste less time will outcompete them. Whether the mechanism is common wisdom analogous to "don't drink alone or before the evening", parents teaching their kids in certain ways, religions that consider much "wasteful" entertainment to be sinful, or genes that contribute to conditions perhaps resembling autism where colorful flashy video registers as annoying or even painful, the problem seems likely to create its own solutions.
One of the premises of "Brave New World" is that all children are raised by the State, and are forcibly (a) oxygen-deprived in the womb to limit their intelligence and (b) subjected throughout childhood to indoctrination and hypnotherapy to make them say "I'm happy and content with my life, and my only desire is to chase consumer goods". I'm not sure why so many people seem to forget this.
> I'm happy and content with my life, and my only desire is to chase consumer goods
Seems a pretty good summary of the whole wellness/"gratitude"/mindfulness culture that now exists and seems to think that an epidemic of mental ill-health can be fixed through breathing exercises and meditation apps for one's smartphone.
Seems a pretty good summary of the whole wellness/"gratitude"/mindfulness culture that now exists and seems to think that an epidemic of mental ill-health can be fixed through breathing exercises and meditation apps for one's smartphone.
Ironic considering Orwell plagiarized the plot of 1984 in the first place.
Plagiarized of what by who?
He may be talking about the underrated Swastika Nights. A new world, after memory of the old one has been erased is part of the plot, as is a secret manuscript.
That said, stories and plots have been retold ever since the beginning of literature. Here's a lovely article about various versions of the well-known story about the Baalshem being asked to intercede for a sick child: https://brill.com/view/journals/jjtp/22/2/article-p127_2.xml
That said, stories and plots have been retold ever since the beginning of literature. Here's a lovely article about various versions of the well-known story about the Baalshem being asked to intercede for a sick child: https://brill.com/view/journals/jjtp/22/2/article-p127_2.xml
Yevgeny Zamyatin's We. (1921) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_(novel)
Also Jack London's "The Iron Heel": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Iron_Heel
Taking inspiration isn't plagiarism
books of the same genre share motifs and themes
H.G.Wells - The Sleeper Awakens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sleeper_Awakes
He was inspired by C. S. Lewis' that hideous strength.
Interesting, I hadn't heard that, do we know that definitively? (THS was the only one of the Space Trilogy I never read, I should correct that.)
It's a very hard read. It took me several times to get into it.
Orwell reviewed That Hideous Strength and said it had some good points. But it's definitely the weakest in the trilogy, and definitely did not influence 1984 in any obvious way. Still worth reading, though.
Having read both I can't speak for where Orwell drew inspiration, but I never noticed any similarities
I downvoted this, since it's a drive by insult without any kind of support provided.
If plot plagiarism was a crime or even morally reprehensible, half the books in my town library would have to be destroyed.
What used to be fiction now is just news.
What is the difference if a book goes to no-copyright ?
It barely does not affect the price - every dealer still want it's cut and you are stuck to your digital platform provider anyway..so pay up.
And individuals can refer to the books anyway..so what's th point?
Art I understand, it's easy to copy photo or painting and put up a webshop selling a mug with photo of the painting on it.. but again if it's 100 year old painting..isn't there ANY other picture for your cup that is better ?
And individuals can refer to the books anyway..so what's th point?
Art I understand, it's easy to copy photo or painting and put up a webshop selling a mug with photo of the painting on it.. but again if it's 100 year old painting..isn't there ANY other picture for your cup that is better ?
I would expect we can finally release editions with new introductions that address important criticisms of Orwell's privileged perspective, written by people of historically underrepresented groups, use them as a tool for educators to teach young people about the arrogance of male protagonists clinging to ideals of individualism that were artifacts of colonial domination, and without all the problematic representations of institutions of global justice.
Surely.
Surely.
Now they turn 1984 into an instruction pamphlet.
Or a microdot on playing cards distributed to communist countries.. similar to this concept:
https://bicyclecards.com/article/a-map-inside-the-cards/
"New, reformulated George Orwell v2"
(since it's an entirely new product, copyright starts over)
(since it's an entirely new product, copyright starts over)
Reality steals his stories, duh
Governments around the world start copying it like madmen!
I was surprised that Orwell’s work wasn’t under more permissive copyright terms given his democratic socialism. I’m looking forward to his work reaching more people.
in his time copyright was not limiting the spread of knowledge an culture a the time, since distribution of printed books was capped by the logistics. it could easily take 50 years for your book to reach every reader on the planet
[deleted]
HengYeDev(1)
These include "Such, such were the joys", referenced in the Guardian article when it states: "Neither will anyone be allowed to trespass on all the material that came to light post-1950 and which Davison painstakingly assembled in his compendious George Orwell: The Complete Works (1998). This includes Such, Such Were the Joys, the notorious account of his tribulations at a character-forming Sussex prep school, first published in the US in 1952 but not issued in the UK until as late as 1968, for fear of libel proceedings."
That essay is here, and has been for a long time:
https://orwell.ru/library/essays/joys/english/e_joys