50

I read in another answer that Fox produced the film I, Robot because they had just acquired the rights to the Asimov collection and wanted to get a big budget movie out of it. I would have thought his books are old enough to already be in the public domain, but obviously I'm not very familiar with the law. When does the copyright expire on his various works?

Z. Cochrane
  • 6,378
  • 4
  • 36
  • 61
  • 26
    The movie I, Robot was so different from the book I'm surprised they even needed the rights to the book to make it. – Azor Ahai -him- Oct 24 '18 at 21:26
  • 4
    @AzorAhai - there are enough similarities that permission would have been required, eg the existence of the character Susan Calvin (albeit with a somewhat different time line). – Jules Oct 24 '18 at 22:36
  • 15
    They probably could have done a robots movie without acquiring the rights, but the success was probably much more guaranteed by promoting the movie as being an adaptation of the Asimov books. – Evariste Oct 25 '18 at 07:53
  • 1
    @AzorAhai they needed the rights to the name and the names of the characters and places. The story is indeed grossly different from that in the book or the story of the same name. – jwenting Oct 25 '18 at 09:25
  • 5
    @AzorAhai Being able to slap that name on the movie legally prevents any future lawsuits about being too similar AND it likely increases viewers. Worst case scenario they paid some money and nothing changes, best case is their profits increase by much more than the cost of the license. – Kevin Oct 25 '18 at 17:13
  • 2
    @Jules how about the Three Laws themselves? I'd say their importance outweighs the existence of this or that character by a factor of, what, one hundred million billion? or more? say "Three Laws of Robotics" and immediately the name Asimov comes to mind. Calvin? Who's that? – Will Ness Oct 26 '18 at 07:54
  • 1
    @jwenting the central character of Asimov's stories is (sic) the Three Laws of Robotics, not any human. Same with the movie. – Will Ness Oct 26 '18 at 07:55
  • 1
    @WillNess - the Three Laws are an interesting case, and I wouldn't really be sure about whether or not they could reasonably be subject to copyright or trade mark. They are concepts with a functional interpretation, which traditional understanding states aren't copyrightable, and have been widely used outside of Asimov's work, which may mean that any trade mark on them has fallen into public domain. I think, but wouldn't want to guarantee, that you could publish a 3 laws movie without permission and successfully defend any law suit over it. – Jules Oct 26 '18 at 08:08
  • @Jules interesting, thanks. That it is his central invention, was my line of thought. But maybe it has become so well known and part of our culture that it's not applying anymore... – Will Ness Oct 26 '18 at 08:21
  • What country are you asking about? These rules differ by country – nl-x Oct 26 '18 at 19:25
  • 1
    In addition to the correct answer already given, there is also the popular Mickey Mouse theory, which basically states that nothing published after Mickey Mouse will ever enter the Public Domain, because there will always be a copyright extension just before it would. – Tom Oct 27 '18 at 05:00
  • @WillNess The original script, Hardwired, had no Three Laws. The Three Laws were a later addition to the movie, and then they needed Asimov's copyright. But had they stayed true to the original movie -- which had nothing to do with Asimov -- they could have made an action movie about robots without any ties to Asimov. And it probably would have been better received, too. Who doesn't like action and robots? – Andres F. Nov 21 '23 at 19:05

3 Answers3

96

There are various terms for US copyright and when the works published in that situation nominally expire.

However, since the 1980s every 20 years a new copyright extension act that includes all works published in a range including 1928 has been passed by the US congress.

This is because Steamboat Willy was published in 1928, the first appearance of Mickey Mouse. Disney forcefully lobbies for a 20 year extension every 20 years.

The next due date is 2023, so we should expect a new copyright extension act to miraculously appear and pass the US house and senate in the next 5 years.

As all of Dr Asimov's works where published after Steamboat Willy, we should expect his works to remain under copyright (at least in the USA) indefinitely, regardless of what the current law states.

Outside of the USA, it is a regular demand of the USA in trade treaties to include copyright extension on the part of the other party. Historically there have been gaps, but they haven't been commercially significant.

As the expiery of century-old works is not a hot button issue for people who don't own century-old works, it is very difficult to defeat the concentrated lobbying power and regulatory capture.

See this article for a more in-depth take on the issue.

Under current law, it lasts 95 years from date of publishing or 70 years from death. Which, as noted, doesn't mean anything of substance.

Yakk
  • 5,333
  • 2
  • 17
  • 18
  • 9
    This seems to be more like a rant about copyright law than a serious attempt to answer the question based on the available publishing dates of Asimov's works – Valorum Oct 24 '18 at 21:23
  • 72
    @Valorum It is an attempt, as accurately as possible, let the OP know when Asimov's works will fall out of copyright? Quoting expiration dates when those dates reliably extend 20 years every 20 years doesn't give an accurate result. The "rant" portion is just giving evidence why you should expect it to happen again. "When will I grow taller than my older brother" should take into account the fact that your older brother is growing as well. – Yakk Oct 24 '18 at 21:29
  • 64
    @Valorum If I asked "When will this pub run out of beer?", the answer needs to not just consider the rate of consumption of my friends, but also the fact that the owner can ring the brewery to get more barrels delivered... – Graham Oct 24 '18 at 23:08
  • @Graham Different kind of question; Yakk's answer relies on the assumption that a law will be changed to accommodate it. – TylerH Oct 25 '18 at 13:42
  • 12
    @TylerH I don't assume the law will be changed: I provide a rational argument why it is extremely likely the duration of copyright will be changed long before any of Dr Asimov's work fall out of copyright. – Yakk Oct 25 '18 at 13:50
  • @Yakk That's just a long-winded way of saying "we should assume the law will change". – TylerH Oct 25 '18 at 13:55
  • 10
    @TylerH No different than me noticing the sun has risen every morning for at least 19,000 days in a row and assuming that it will do so tomorrow. It's not guaranteed that the law will change, but there's a strong likelihood based on past experience. – TripeHound Oct 25 '18 at 13:59
  • 3
    @TylerH So, the word assumption carries with it the connotation "without proof/evidence". Providing proof/evidence isn't "just a long-winded way" to state an assumption; the accumulation of evidence is the difference between an assumption and not-an-assumption. For example, Am I assuming people in this comment thread are speaking English? I have lots of evidence they are (they keep on forming reasonably well formed English sentences, which is unlikely if they are just monkeys banging away at keys). Saying my belief that people are talking English is an assumption is pretty inaccurate. – Yakk Oct 25 '18 at 14:06
  • 3
    How is assuming the law won't change any less (or more) of an assumption than assuming it will? At least one side has presented an argument that the existing pattern might continue... where is your argument that it won't? – Bill K Oct 25 '18 at 16:35
  • 1
    @TylerH We should assume that previous patterns will continue unless there are valid reasons to believe they won't. So it's exactly the same question. The brewery will continue to supply the pub with beer in exchange for remuneration, and representatives will continue to supply law changes in exchange for remuneration. We have evidence of this already. – Graham Oct 25 '18 at 16:49
  • 1
    This is a rant about copyright law but I quite enjoyed it. (remind me to check back in 5 years...) – Z. Cochrane Oct 25 '18 at 19:46
  • This is the only correct answer. – Harper - Reinstate Monica Oct 26 '18 at 07:43
  • 3
    The irony of the USA's "Disney rule" for copyright is that the entire publishing industry of the USA was built by completely ignoring international copyright law in the 18th and 19th centuries, until they were eventually forced to accept that such a thing as "international copyright" even existed. – alephzero Oct 26 '18 at 08:46
  • 2
    "Every 20 years since the 1980s" is a very scary-sounding way of saying "once in the 1980s and once in the 2000s." I've been born once every fifty years since the 1970s! – David Richerby Oct 26 '18 at 17:46
  • @alephzero It's not a coincidence, they know what benefits you can get from this and dont want others to repeat that. – joojaa Oct 26 '18 at 18:21
  • 1
    As of today, this answer is wrong. All works published in 1923 just entered the public domain as their copyrights expired in the US, so Disney has already missed the deadline for "a 20-year extension every 20 years." – Kevin Jan 01 '19 at 15:05
  • 1
    @kevin Did you read down to paragraph 4? I'm pretty explicitly clear I'm predicting an extension by 2023, not an extension by Jan 1 2019 (just over 2 months after I posted this answer). – Yakk Jan 01 '19 at 18:45
  • @Yakk: I don't care about paragraph 4. I care about the "every 20 years" line, which wasn't even true in 2018 (one in 1976, one in 1998). – Kevin Jan 01 '19 at 18:49
  • 2
    @kevin I understand your position, and am uninterested in it. Thanks for your input. – Yakk Jan 01 '19 at 18:54
  • Surprisingly, it looks like US copyright terms will not be extended again, and ‘Steamboat Willie’ will revert to the public domain on 2024-01-01, as Republican lawmakers have vowed to oppose any further extensions (apparently for political reasons relating to Disney opposing the ‘Don't Say Gay’ law). (However, Disney will continue to hold trademark protection on the character.) – gidds Jul 26 '23 at 14:17
  • @gidds They managed to save the red pants as yet. – Yakk Jul 26 '23 at 14:20
79

This question is covered by the Asimov FAQ:

All of Asimov's work, fiction and non-fiction, was under copyright at the time of the Good Doctor's death. Under current U.S. law, the copyrights for his works published before 1978 will not expire until 95 years after the copyrights were obtained, and those published from 1978 onward will remain in effect for 70 years after his death. Thus these copyrights will remain in effect until dates ranging from 2034 (for his first story published in 1939), through 2072 (for works published in 1977), and works published from 1978 onward will remain under copyright until 2062, although the relevant laws may change between now and then.

(emphasis is mine)

Addendum: User Thunderforge correctly pointed out that the OP specifically mentioned I, Robot, so here is some additional information. As mentioned by Thunderforge, I, Robot was published in 1950, which implies a copyright until 2045. However, most of the stories in this collection were first published a few years before they were collected, so their copyright expires a few years earlier:

Story                    First published  Copyrighted until
=======================  ===============  ================= 
Robbie                   1940             2035
Runaround                1941             2036
Reason                   1941             2036
Catch That Rabbit        1944             2039
Liar!                    1941             2036
Little Lost Robot        1947             2042
Escape!                  1944             2039
Evidence                 1946             2041
The Evitable Conflict    1950             2045
(I, Robot frame story)   1950             2045
Ubik
  • 10,644
  • 2
  • 45
  • 51
  • 1
    Are the stories sorted by the order they appear in I, Robot? – Thunderforge Oct 24 '18 at 22:01
  • 3
    Yes, this is the order how they appear in I, Robot. – Ubik Oct 24 '18 at 22:02
  • 82
    "until 95 years after the copyrights were obtained" - It used to be ~50, but that number keeps going up because Disney has a lot of money, so the actual answer is likely to be "never" – BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft Oct 25 '18 at 08:05
  • 20
    @BlueRaja Then again, people care far more about copyright today, thanks largely to the internet, than they did in the 90s when it was last extended. Disney does have a lot of money, but they will have much more resistance than they used to. We’ll find out what happens as Steamboat Willie approaches copyright expiration in 2023. – Thunderforge Oct 25 '18 at 13:42
  • 2
    Looks like I'll be waiting a long time for a "Foundation" movie series :( – MindS1 Oct 25 '18 at 16:18
  • 4
    @MindS1 Apple announced 6 months ago that they reached a deal with the Asimov estate to produce a TV series. https://deadline.com/2018/04/apple-isaac-asimov-foundation-tv-series-david-goyer-josh-friedman-skydance-1202361072/ There have also been several attempt to make a movie, so the rights don't seem to be the bottleneck. – Barmar Oct 25 '18 at 19:20
  • 1
    @Barmar If you have enough money to pay-off the rights-holders, it usually isn't a bottleneck, no. – Mast Oct 27 '18 at 12:54
  • @Mast "buy off"? It's just the normal process of paying for rights. It happens all the time when novels are turned into movies or TV shows. Producers don't generally wait for stories to fall into the public domain. – Barmar Oct 28 '18 at 01:44
  • @Thunderforge There haven't been any further copyright extensions, so Steamboat Willie is due to enter the public domain on 2024-01-01 — less than 4 weeks off as I write.  (It's claimed that Republican lawmakers decided not to extend copyright, as a reaction to Disney's opposition to the 2022 Florida ‘Don't Say Gay’ law…)  So the projected dates in this answer still stand. – gidds Dec 08 '23 at 23:48
6

In his autobiography Asimov specifically mentions making sure to renew the copyright on each of his works as the expiration date came up, and how this became more and more of an chore as his body of work increased. If I recall correctly, he has more than 500 books credited to have written or edited.

I don't know, but I would assume that his estate (probably his daughter?) makes a point of looking after copyright renewals, and that you should not expect any of his works to end up in the public domain any time soon.

MickeyfAgain_BeforeExitOfSO
  • 161
  • 2
  • 9
    This answer would be better if you edited in the quote from the autobiography and also if you could add in anything that states his estate are renewing the copyrights. Of course if the latter is just educated speculation that is fine too. – TheLethalCarrot Oct 25 '18 at 11:51
  • 1
    Yes, agreed - I don't have the book at hand, but will add later (assuming I can find it in x hundred pages!). And yes, about the estate is speculation at this point. – MickeyfAgain_BeforeExitOfSO Oct 25 '18 at 13:45
  • 9
    Copyright renewal is no longer necessary. It was only required before the US joined the Berne Convention in 1988. – Jules Oct 26 '18 at 09:21
  • I looked through volume 2 of his autobiography where I remembered seeing this. However, with no general index and nearly 800+ pages, I did not find the reference. Presumably it would have been in the late 50's or early 60's, when the first of his published works were coming up to 20 years old. Caring very much about ownerships of his works would be totally in character. He had a delightfully high opinion of himself. ("Asimovian Immodesties") If I do stumble across it I'll add it in. – MickeyfAgain_BeforeExitOfSO Oct 26 '18 at 13:17
  • @Jules True, but nearly everything Asimov wrote was written before 1988. – David Richerby Oct 26 '18 at 17:48
  • @Brythan Asimov complained that he had to spend a lot of time dealing with renewals. The point that I'm making (obviously too obliquely) is that the change in 1988 didn't affect Asimov, personally, very much because it only saved him a few years of dealing with renewals. – David Richerby Oct 27 '18 at 19:19
  • @DavidRicherby It seems something of a non-sequitur. You're responding to a comment pointing out (perhaps too obliquely) that Asimov's estate never had to deal with renewals (a claim made in this answer and in the two comments before that) by pointing out that he did, something that no one disputed. It's especially confusing since you talk about 1988, but the law affected works as early as 1964. I.e. all his works from 1964 on were affected by the law, not just those copyrighted after 1988. – Brythan Oct 27 '18 at 19:50
  • I don't quite "get" the reference to 1988. US copyright law changed in 1978: Asimov's books which were first published prior to 1978 are treated differently to those which were first published after that date. What's this 1988 business? Also, books first published before 1978 are granted a statutory (i.e. automatic) extension, giving each a copyright term of 95 years in all: there is no necessity for Asimov's estate to take any action, because no further renewal nor extension is required or allowed. – Ed999 Oct 29 '18 at 02:56