Talk:CLASSICS Act

100 years

It says "Recordings made before 1923 entered the public domain after a 3-year period on January 1, 2022". The "3 year period" bit is confusing, what does that mean? Needs clarification or rewriting.

Also, according to the LOC, "Recordings first published between 1923-1946 are protected for 100 years." Ok if a music recording is copyright 1922, it will be protected for 100 years. 1922+100 = 2022. Thus, it will enter the PD in January 2023. That is, it remains in copyright for 100 years after it was published. Our article states it enters the PD in 2022. I'm confused (again). -- GreenC 16:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

It was mentioned at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Music_recording_copyright_in_the_USA that a work enters the PD "the year after the copyright expires". So if a work becomes 100 years old on June 1 1923, it enters the PD on January 1, 2024 ie. the year after its 100th birthday. GreenC 21:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@GreenC: As the Library of Congress source you linked says, there are multiple possible term lengths depending on the publication date. Every recording published before 1923 expired in January 2022, regardless of what its term length would be. 1923–1946 publications have 100-year terms (as you said, they end the year after), 1947–1956 publications have 110-year terms, and all other recordings made before February 15, 1972, have their terms end on February 15, 2067.

However, that's not what's in the article right now, which says all 1923–1956 publications have 100-year terms. The current source for that paragraph doesn't really specify either way. The paragraph could be revised to match and cite the LOC source (either separately or in addition to the EFF source), or it could conform to just the EFF source. I prefer the former, since the LOC source is more detailed. Coolclawcat (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Coolclawcat: Neither the LOC or EFF source say they enter the PD on Jan 1 of the following year (after they turn 100). That is the problem I ran into, not understanding, it was the key fact missing. I tried to correct it in this article, but admit it's not sourced. I checked the legal document for the Music Modernization Act where this bill was consolidated, and searched on "January 1", and found results, that looks like it is supported? I'm not a lawyer. Amazing how indecipherable it is. -- GreenC 04:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@GreenC: Thanks for pointing out the problem with the expire-at-the-end-of-the-year part. I think it's best to mention it in a footnote if we mention it at all. Still, the other sourcing problems also need to be fixed. Would something like The Music Modernization Act was revised to allow older songs to enter the public domain. All recordings published before 1923 entered the public domain on January 1, 2022. Recordings published 1923–1946 have 100-year copyright terms, and those published 1947–1956 have 110-year terms. All other recordings created before February 15, 1972, have their terms end on February 15, 2067. be an acceptable wording to you? I don't think the footnote needs a source unless it is challenged. Coolclawcat (talk) 07:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

It needs to mentioned, otherwise nothing makes sense in the LOC and EFF sources, because work's do not enter the PD after 100 years. It's 100 years +. This offset to Jan 1 appears to be standard methodology for all PD works falling into the PD not just those of the modern music act. -- GreenC 15:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Apparently, all U.S. Copyright, by law, extends to the end of the year, regardless of the date of publication within the year. Thus something published February 1 is protected for 80 years (or whatever) + an additional 11 months. -- GreenC 19:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@GreenC: I've implemented my suggested edit with the footnote and an in-text mention of the terms expiring on January 1. I tried to integrate your additions into the new text, but if you find that it still has issues, please fix or revert my edit. Coolclawcat (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

To be legally accurate, the copyright term for works published before 1923 is 95 years with a 3 year grace period (98 years total). For those published after 1922 it is a 95 year copyright term with a 5 year grace period (100 years total). And for those published after 1956, it is a 95 year term with a 15 year grace period (110 year total). Source, cntrl-f and search on "1923" takes you to the relevant section. IMO this is minutia detail that might also be relegated to a footnote. -- GreenC 02:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I replied in the #1922 oddity section on this earlier, but my reasoning as to why the grace period for pre-1923 recordings (probably) isn't just 95+3 years is that the length of the grace period is tied to the enactment date of the law. This is why everything pre-1923 had their terms expire on one date (if it was tied to the 95-year term instead, 1920 recordings would have entered the public domain in January 2019, for example). Coolclawcat (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

1922 oddity

Doing the math, how many years a hypothetical work published on June 1 would have been under copyright. The assumption is all works published prior to 1923 went into the public domain on January 1, 2022. And that copyright terms extend to the end of the year.

etc...

• June 1, 1918: 103 years + 6 months
• June 1, 1919: 102 years + 6 months
• June 1, 1920: 101 years + 6 months
• June 1, 1921: 100 years + 6 months
• June 1, 1922: 99 years + 6 months
• June 1, 1923: 100 years + 6 months
• June 1, 1924: 100 years + 6 months

etc..

Thus, works published in 1922 did not receive a full 100 year term, even though the law says works must have a 100 year term. IMO this was either a mistake made by the law makers OR an intentional slip-up made by one side and not caught by the other OR it was negotiation term. It could have been easily resolved by saying "All works published before 1922 go into the public domain on January 1, 2022. But they said before 1923. Is before 2023 what the law actually said, or a mistake made by secondary sources when reporting the law? -- GreenC 20:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I read the legal document for the act, and the requirement for works published prior to 1923 is they be in copyright for 98 years, not 100 years like those published after 1922. Likewise for those published after 1956, they be in copyright for 110 years. Thus, after 2057 there will be a 10 year gap when no works enter the public domain again until 2067. -- GreenC 22:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Reading the document more closely, the pre-1923 works have a 95 year term, with a 3 year grace period. So 1922+95 means they remain in copyright through 2017 and enter January 1, 2018. The three year grace period extends it to January 2021, effectively 98 years. But it was actually Jan 2022 - the math doesn't work, still off by 1 year. -- GreenC 23:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

From what I can tell based on the final text of the Music Modernization Act, for some reason the lawmakers chose to pin the pre-1923 grace period end date (not total duration) to the date the law is enacted (not the end of the 95-year period). I have no idea why they did it that way, but it does match up with the timeline: since it was signed into law in October 2018, the grace period would have ended on December 31 of the year (2018+3 =) 2021, so a June 1922 recording would expire in January 2022, and 2023 would be a gap year. If you're confused by all these weird exceptions-within-exceptions, I was too! Coolclawcat (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm still confused. I'll have to look at this more closely when my brain can logic better like soon after I wake up. It's trivial but I feel like there is something important here, in a general sense about how copyright laws are written and work. -- GreenC 02:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)