What the US Supreme Court decision ACTUALLY means for "public domain" works.

Quoted from ladiesmakingcomics:

I’m sorry, I have to do this, because it seems like everywhere I turn people are going “Did you hear the Supreme Court took some stuff out of the public domain and put it back under copyright??? CORPORATIONS WILL SOON OWN ALL OF CULTURE ARGLEBARGLE!!”

That is not what has happened.

The Supreme Court has interpreted an international copyright treaty to enforce copyright on foreign works that are still under copyright in their own countries, but that were in the public domain in the U.S. only due to the U.S.’s own jumbled copyright history.

Is there a risk of U.S. works being taken out of the public domain? Yes, but only by an act of Congress—which is not very likely. I know everyone is worried about SOPA and PIPA and ACTA and think that every aspect of free expression is under attack, but unlike Internet law, copyright law has about 225 years of precedent in the U.S. and even further back in English law from which the American legal system descends. The only direct effect I can see this case having on any American works is probably going to be Margaret Mitchell’s estate running to Australia to get Gone With the Wind put back under copyright there.

Here’s the thing— those media conglomerates that poured millions into SOPA/PIPA/ACTA? They have little interest in touching the current public domain. All those Sherlock Holmes movies and TV shows, all those Jane Austen adaptations, all those high school comedies based on Shakespeare that they make means that they benefit from the public domain as much as anyone.

So, stay vigilant about future copyright legislation, but the Supreme Court made a good decision in this case.

TL;DR version: Stop freaking out about Golan v. Holder. Take action to stop ACTA instead.

And asdfghjkl;asdfghjkl; the misleading reporting about Golan v. Holder from major news outlets that should know better has been driving me up the wall.