Tintin, Popeye Enter Public Domain as 1929 Works Released (duke.edu) 109
Thousands of copyrighted works from 1929, including Mickey Mouse's first speaking appearance and original versions of comic characters Popeye and Tintin, entered the U.S. public domain on January 1, 2025, as their 95-year copyright terms expired.
Popeye debuted in E.C. Segar's "Thimble Theatre" comic strip, while Tintin first appeared in Georges Remi's "Les Aventures de Tintin." These original character versions can now be freely used without permission or fees. Literary classics joining the public domain include William Faulkner's "The Sound and the Fury," Ernest Hemingway's "A Farewell to Arms," and Virginia Woolf's "A Room of One's Own."
Musical compositions entering the public domain include George Gershwin's "An American in Paris," Maurice Ravel's "Bolero," and Fats Waller's "Ain't Misbehavin'." The original 1929 recordings remain protected until 2030 under separate copyright rules.
Notable films becoming public domain include the Marx Brothers' first feature "The Cocoanuts," Alfred Hitchcock's first sound film "Blackmail," and several Mickey Mouse animations where the character debuts his white gloves and speaks his first words. Sound recordings from 1924, including performances by Marian Anderson and George Gershwin, also entered the public domain under the Music Modernization Act's 100-year term for historical recordings.
Popeye debuted in E.C. Segar's "Thimble Theatre" comic strip, while Tintin first appeared in Georges Remi's "Les Aventures de Tintin." These original character versions can now be freely used without permission or fees. Literary classics joining the public domain include William Faulkner's "The Sound and the Fury," Ernest Hemingway's "A Farewell to Arms," and Virginia Woolf's "A Room of One's Own."
Musical compositions entering the public domain include George Gershwin's "An American in Paris," Maurice Ravel's "Bolero," and Fats Waller's "Ain't Misbehavin'." The original 1929 recordings remain protected until 2030 under separate copyright rules.
Notable films becoming public domain include the Marx Brothers' first feature "The Cocoanuts," Alfred Hitchcock's first sound film "Blackmail," and several Mickey Mouse animations where the character debuts his white gloves and speaks his first words. Sound recordings from 1924, including performances by Marian Anderson and George Gershwin, also entered the public domain under the Music Modernization Act's 100-year term for historical recordings.
Mille Milliard de Mille Sabords ! (Score:5, Funny)
Can't be.
Re: Mille Milliard de Mille Sabords ! (Score:2)
Where are my mod points when I need them?!
Your mod points entered public domain. (Score:3)
Your mod points entered public domain.
trivia (Score:3)
The name under which Tintin books were released, "Herge," is just the author's initials, pronounced in French.
Re:trivia (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
In reverse: Rémi Georges.
Put all this together (Score:2)
And it could ber a very interesting fan fiction which can't be DMCA'd down.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Rule 34 will be on full display.
Re: (Score:2)
They're gonna make a bad Popeye horror film, and maybe bring in Winnie the Pooh cuz why not?
Re: (Score:2)
They're gonna make a bad Popeye horror film, and maybe bring in Winnie the Pooh cuz why not?
I look forward to the Popeye vs. Winnie movie. It'll probably top the Freddy vs. Jason movie!
Re: (Score:2)
Thimble Theater has already covered all possible plots.
Popeye (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Popeye (Score:4, Informative)
Popeye was phased out of afternoon cartoons in my youth, so not many do know. Many were also astonishingly racist, sexist, and body-shaming by today's "enlightened" standards, even if they were entertaining as heck at the time.
Re: (Score:2)
All that I noticed about the old Popeye was how violent it was. He solved every problem by fighting. The opening scene showed him walking down the street just randomly destroying stuff with his fists
Re: (Score:2)
He was mostly just one out of a large ensemble, but then he became the more popular one, and when the cinema cartoons came out he got the title. But originally it was mostly about all the a variety of odd people, Ham Gravy, Castor Oyl, Olive Oyl, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
In 90% of the popeye cartoons I have seen, Bluto steals something or assaults popeye, kidnaps olive oyl and then a popeye who has been hammered into the ground like a railway spike, eats some spinach and goes and gets back what is his or rescues Olive Oyl.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think that bad, look up some of the "Tijuana Bible" versions of Popeye and Olive Oyl
Re: (Score:2)
Popeye was phased out of afternoon cartoons in my youth, so not many do know. Many were also astonishingly racist, sexist, and body-shaming by today's "enlightened" standards, even if they were entertaining as heck at the time.
Olive Oyle fits Hollywood's body style to a tee.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I do. Why? Cos I eats my spinach.
Re: (Score:2)
That Popeye that gets his strength from spinach won't be public domain until 2026. That's now how the original comic strip worked.
Re:Popeye (Score:5, Insightful)
There was that PG-rated 1980 Popeye film which would put the age of knowing who Popeye is at least somewhere close to 60 years. I recall seeing the film many years after 1980 on satellite TV so there's potential for a younger audience.
Wikipedia tells me there was a Popeye animated series in the 1980s that I vaguely remember, again this was likely also in reruns when I saw it. Then is a TV series from 2001 to 2003 that showed the old black and white animations to a new audience, with some kind of commentary between segments and with a bit of digital editing to make up for lost footage, damaged film, and (if I'm reading that right) edit some images that would not be politically correct today.
There was apparently a Popeye web series in 2018. This was apparently geared to a young audience as Bluto would be trying to steal Popeye's spinach than trying to steal his girlfriend, the violence was toned down (again, if I'm reading that right), and other changes to reach "modern audiences".
It seems to me that the point of copyrights to expire is so that old creative works that influenced popular culture don't fall into some "memory hole". We want to be able to preserve this for the future, and allow derivations, re-showings, and so on, without being tied up in copyright hell. This would be especially relevant with 100 years passing, there could be disputes on who owns the copyrights any more as people have died off, intellectual property bought and sold, and all kinds of other lines that could be blurred in time.
Re: Popeye (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
40 and I definitely remember Popeye.
Re: Popeye (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Please tell your 9 year old that I applaud his dietary choices and would like to subscribe to his newsletter.
And if he understands THAT, I will be very worried for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My daughter is 11 and she knows Popeye
Re: (Score:1)
Does anyone under 60 know or care who Popeye is?
Guess that's why no one understands me when I say "I Yam what I yam".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Leapin, lizards!" Now, how many of you kiddies recognize that one without looking it up?
Gee whiskers! That one's less about age and more about whether your newspaper carried the strip, and whether you liked it enough to read it and see/remember the catchphrase. Well, I suppose whether you read comics in the newspaper is somewhat of an indicator of age, but not a strong one.
Re: (Score:2)
Popeye's great, and they're still making the comic strip. Nancy's gotten pretty good again. Little Orphan Annie eventually got canceled, but man, it was just insane after around 2000 or so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean I'm still old but well under 60 (43) and I remember watching Popeye a lot as a kid. And that spinach marketing stuff hella worked on me as I always wanted spinach when we went grocery shopping (the Popeye's brand specifically).
it's too little too late, our cultural paywall (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly, the corruption pf copyright laws has resulted in the commercialization of our own culture, we must now pay the upper class for access to it, this is what classism looks like, remember, slaves own nothing.
Re:it's too little too late, our cultural paywall (Score:5, Insightful)
Ultimately it's just one tiny symptom of end-stage capitalism.
Find a way to force wealth to be recycled, and put a cap on individual wealth, or wealth will continue to concentrate until there are masters, overseers, slaves, and the entirely unwanted. And as robotics improve, those middle two classes will join the last one.
Re:it's too little too late, our cultural paywall (Score:5, Funny)
Ahh. Downvoted by a temporarily embarrassed billionaire.
Re:it's too little too late, our cultural paywall (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think its a tiny part, its a major part you can own physical assets as much as you want but if you can stop people using ideas that is real control. Ideas don't need maintenance, you buy up an idea and just collect money for doing nothing. The reason we are still not living in caves and throwing sticks at prey is because of sharing of knowledge and the rich have managed convince people that somehow it is their right to own that knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
this isn't capitalism, capitalism requires capital
when 85% of all our capital is being hoarded by the upper class, tat only leaves 15% of all capital for the rest of us to manage with
that's not enough capital, which is why the vast majority of us are undercapitalized
what we have is a corrupt and classist economy controlled by a plutocracy / corporatocracy
Re: it's too little too late, our cultural paywall (Score:2)
Capitalism means that capital controls the means of production, it doesn't mean we all have capital.
This is the natural end of capitalism. For reference, play Monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
monopoly is a game, capitalism means people using capital as a means of exchange, your definition is rhetorical and typical 'pseudo-scientific' economics
Re: (Score:2)
The definition is accurate because there are many kinds of capitalism, and that is the only thing they all have in common.
Monopoly is an illustrative game based on reality and intended to teach a lesson you seem to have failed to understand: Capital accrues capital. Of course the system is much more complicated than that board game, but that doesn't make its lesson unapt.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand perfectly, you're in denial about classism and corruption and you will say anything to deny the reality that the upper class is hoarding all the capital, just like in monopoly, they have a monopoly, that's the lesson of the game of Monopoly. Capitalism is a word, words like economic slavery are much more realistic descriptions of our current economic reality.
notice how the complicit refuse to acknowledge or accept how unfair and unethical 'our' economy really is
Re: (Score:2)
The definition is accurate because there are many kinds of capitalism, and that is the only thing they all have in common.
Monopoly is an illustrative game based on reality and intended to teach a lesson you seem to have failed to understand: Capital accrues capital. Of course the system is much more complicated than that board game, but that doesn't make its lesson unapt.
The history of Monopoly can be traced back to 1903,[1][7] when American anti-monopolist Lizzie Magie created a game called The Landlord's Game that she hoped would explain the single-tax theory of Henry George as laid out in his book Progress and Poverty. It was intended as an educational tool to illustrate the negative aspects of concentrating land in private monopolies. She took out a patent in 1904. Her game was self-published beginning in 1906. ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
You don't even understan
Re:it's too little too late, our cultural paywall (Score:5, Funny)
remember, slaves own nothing.
And pirates pay nothing, so the value proposition is spot on. Arrr.
Re: (Score:2)
there would be little or no need for piracy in a world with fair prices and with reasonable copyright terms
online piracy is more about using technology to circumvent classism, injustice and inequality
95 years. That is an outrage. (Score:5, Insightful)
95 years of big publishers cashing in - and stifling creativity - is an international DISGRACE.
Re: (Score:3)
I would argue that copyright should belong to the creator only and be limited to their lifetime
Re: (Score:2)
I would argue that copyright should belong to the creator only and be limited to their lifetime
That could be complicated if a corporation owns the copyright.
And what if the creator dies unexpectedly at a young age? Would you have the creator's estate forfeit any benefit? The creator might have a young family with children that depends on the income.
Sounds like you're saying someone can't sell their rights to a creation. Maybe that's worth a discussion, but it would certainly change the status quo.
Re: 95 years. That is an outrage. (Score:2)
Copyright is to encourage creation by the creator.
*That* is why we the people *give it* to creators.
To prevent copies long enough to encourage people to make stuff.
Not as a guaranteed income source for x years.
95 years works against creativity - AGAINST THE WHOLE FUCKING PURPOSE OF COPYRIGHT.
Re: (Score:2)
Define "guaranteed income" and explain how copyright enables it.
Re: (Score:2)
Much of the problem with copyright could be fixed by having the automatic copyright period only last ten years. Then you could extend it to the current 90+ years by paying a small registration fee once every ten years. The effect of this would be to push all of the non-commercially viable works into the public domain much more rapidly. This would also create an accurate database of what is and isn't copyrighted and then who actually owns that copyright.
Re: (Score:1)
In many cases, the creator created the work to benefit their partner and children. The revenue from the work is effectively deferred income. Why wouldn’t that be part of their estate?
Re: 95 years. That is an outrage. (Score:5, Informative)
Copyright is to discourage theft of intellectual property.
False. Copyright exists explicitly "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
In many cases, the creator created the work to benefit their partner and children
So what?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, before that, the first modern copyright act's long title was
An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned.
More commonly known as the Statute of Anne from 1710
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright is, in part, to ensure that the creator is reasonably paid for the time the creation took. You don't normally write a book in a week; it can take months or even years, so if it could be freely copied after eg. a single year far fewer potential authors (good as well as terribly bad) would look at the potential earnings and go nope, not worth the risk to create this piece of art.
As such, yes - a young author may have spent five years writing a book, only to step in front of a bus on the day the book
Re: (Score:1)
NO.
Copyright is to encourage creativity.
It always has been: "for the Encouragement of Learned Men to Compose and Write useful Books".
We, the people, give the author a limited-term copyright to encourage more, useful creations.
That. Is It.
Wishy washy worrying about the sudden death of authors, or the production of more in a series of books, or any others silliness is IRRELEVANT.
We give creators copyright, so we get more stuff created.
And five years is ENOUGH.
Re: (Score:2)
Way to split hairs. Copyright encourages creativity by ensuring that you can put food on the table by being creative.
Re: (Score:1)
That means you are in favour of 95+ year copyright terms because that encourages creativity by ensuring that you can put food on the table and your childrens' tables and their childrens' tables by being creative.
And you are wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that is you putting a different intent into my words so they fit your world view.
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright is, in part, to ensure that the creator is reasonably paid for the time the creation took.
No, it's not. This is, no pun intended, patently obvious -- look at all of the unsuccessful artists out there, who will never be successful by virtue of their art even if the copyright lasted a billion years.
Copyright gives people a shot at success, but ensures nothing. Most works are, with regard to copyright-derived income, total flops. Most artists don't get reasonably paid from their copyrights.
It's a lot more like a lottery ticket; lots of people try their luck, and all but a handful lose. The tiny nu
Re: (Score:2)
And what if the creator dies unexpectedly at a young age? Would you have the creator's estate forfeit any benefit? The creator might have a young family with children that depends on the income.
So what if instead there is an auto mechanic who dies unexpectedly at a young age, and who left behind a young family with children that had depended on their income? Do they get a royalty on the cars he fixed, or do you say fuck his family, he should've been a successful artist.
No reason for there to be a special solution that only benefits young, dead, successful authors and their surviving families. Everyone dies, and plenty of people die young or otherwise leave their family in dire straits. And the va
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this question only applicable to authors? Other folks also have young families who will be up the creek if they die unexpectedly. Perhaps we need a safety net for all such cases, and then the author's family won't need special treatment?
Re: (Score:3)
You missed my point, which is that corporations could, in theory, live forever, and their copyrights would never expire because they wouldn't. Look back at MpVpRb's proposal that copyright protection should "be limited to their lifetime."
Re: (Score:3)
I would argue that copyright should belong to the creator only and be limited to their lifetime
That's easy enough for a work created by a single person but what of some creative work from a large corporation? Anything from Marvel, Disney, or whatever is the result of potentially thousands of people making some creative input.
I could argue that 100 years is a meaningful limit on copyright as that's a time period that few would be able to argue there's some surviving contributor that is due something from any performance, reproduction, etc. of a given work.
Another argument is to keep it much shorter,
Re:95 years. That is an outrage. (Score:5, Interesting)
A more reasonable proposal was to limit copyright to 20 years, and allow a one-time renewal for another 20 years, for a very hefty fee. So if your work turns out to remain rather profitable, paying the fee will be worth your while. But you can't sit on "IP" just to block others from copying or remixing it, not for free. And with that said, I think moral rights should expire after 20 years as well, with no option for renewal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It should be noted that as soon as copyrights expire, the work will be taken up by hollywood who just wants to make a quick buck without compensating the original author. That can't be good, either.
No, that's fine. Remember, it's not just Hollywood that does that; everyone can and does. For example, the Wicked movie just came out, which is the film adaptation of a musical adaptation of a novel which came out in 1995, which in turn was a derivative work based on the novel The Wonderful Wizard of Oz from 1900 which has been in the public domain since 1956. (Although Gregory Maguire, the author of Wicked, did put in a few elements from the still-copyrighted 1939 film, but little enough as to not matter
Re:95 years. That is an outrage. (Score:5, Interesting)
Why? Should someone be able to paid for their entire lifetime of a single piece of work? If you are a plumber do you get paid every time someone uses a tap that you installed? No, you should get paid a reasonable amount of money for the work that you did, there is no logical reason it should be for the rest of your life. There should be a period in which you get paid since you are not paid upfront but it should be limited, all business venture have an element of risk, so yes sometimes you won't make money, if not get better or find another job.
Re: (Score:2)
I would argue that copyright should belong to the creator only and be limited to their lifetime
So... if they won't license the movie rights you call Guido, and he takes care of your little problem for you.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be rough on the majority of creators, who tend to work for hire. It would also be rough on collaborations and projects too big for a single person.
Re: 95 years. That is an outrage. (Score:1)
20-years fixed better (Score:2)
5 years is a reasonable term for the copyright privilege WE give to CREATORS.
I agree with the idea of a fixed-term regardless of life but 5-years is too short. There would be a strong motivation to pay nothing and just wait for copyright to expire plus word of mouth can take a while to make some thing popular. Something like 20-years, but still a fixed term, would be a more reasonable balance between allowing creators to profit but also encouraging them to create more.
With a short, fixed term like that I would also extend a "character-right" for the life of the author i.e. give
Re: (Score:1)
I do not think that is a case for longer copyright:
If the original author's new works, released after 5 years, are better than derived works published after 5 years, they will sell better than the derived works ( for 5 years at least ) and make money for the original creator, encourage their creativity a
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with the idea of a fixed-term regardless of life but 5-years is too short.
My proposal has been requiring authors to take affirmative steps to get a copyright (it's not automatic or free, though the fee is nominal), so that we only have to worry about the works the author specifically wants to protect, and that the terms would be 1-year with renewals. The number of renewals would depend on the type of work, but in no event would be all that long.
There was a study [rufuspollock.com] some years ago that suggested that 15 years was optimal in general. I'd like to see more investigation of that.
With a short, fixed term like that I would also extend a "character-right" for the life of the author i.e. give them exclusive rights to author more books set in the same setting/universe with the same characters so that only they, or those they authorize, can write sequels to their works while they live.
Strong
Re: (Score:2)
What would be reasonable is about the same duration as patents.
The patents much shorter protection time is an incentive to make inventions public.
There's no need of such an incentive for culture as the way to monetize it is to make it public.
Re: (Score:2)
Patents keep getting longer too. They used to be 14 years long, and now they're 20.
Re: (Score:2)
5 years is a reasonable term for the copyright privilege WE give to CREATORS.
95 years of big publishers cashing in - and stifling creativity - is an international DISGRACE.
I'd go with the system of:
- 5 years initial term (free or a nominal fee).
- Up to 15 years additional for a yearly fee (up to a total of 20).
- The fee doubles each year.
- At the first year of non payment the material must be released into the public domain.
- Copyrights belong to the creator and cannot be transferred.
- Copyrights cannot be owned or held by a corporation.
Let face it, for 90% or more of the media released today (for decades really) has a lifespan measured in months, if not weeks... Giv
Re: (Score:2)
Here is Gunn’s insta describing how Krypton came to be in the movie.
https://www.instagram.com/jame... [instagram.com]
TLDR: You’re wrong.
Public domain only in the USA (Score:5, Informative)
In the rest of the world, works will be protected by the Berne convention for the life of the author, with a minimum 50 years extension, most often 70 years.
Most Popeye works were public domain by the 1990s (Score:5, Interesting)
Most Popeye works had their copyrights expire in the 1990s. I have a pile of $5 SLP VHS tapes with hours and hours of public domain Popeye episodes we bought in the 1990s.
Re:Most Popeye works were public domain by the 199 (Score:5, Interesting)
Guess the movie companies (Score:2)
Meanwhile, those of us who don't want to wait (Score:4, Interesting)
a century to enjoy more contemporary works simply disregard the corrupt copyright laws.
Re: Meanwhile, those of us who don't want to wait (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The Legend of Bolero (Score:2)
Tintin is still under copyright (Score:4, Informative)
I was just told because of the Berne convention, non-American authors are protected until the year of their death plus 50 years. In the EU, it is 70.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't the US lobby hard for the copyright laws and treaties in the rest of the world?
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't the US lobby hard for the copyright laws and treaties in the rest of the world?
No, the US has mostly been a follower with respect to copyright.
Historically, the US preferred to undercut and ignore the rest of the world's copyrights for most of its existence, mostly because very little was produced in the US. So for a long time the US had minimal copyright protection compared to the rest, and in the 18th and 19th centuries actively violated foreign copyrights. Of course, in the 20th century the US became a major producer of content, and our interests changed.
So although the Berne
Standard Ebooks already has a number of these. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Not all Popeye and TinTin... (Score:2)
Note the later works are not out of copyright, so anything introduced later is still protected
e.g. Popeye eating Spinach to get his strength
Censored Soundtracks (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)