Copyright is a very confusing field. In the United Kingdom, this confusion is exacerbated by a common phrase. In British English, Public Domain is commonly used to refer to things are known to the public and has no bearing to the protected status of a concept or piece of media.
There are many examples I can choose from, so I've picked the most recent. On the BBC iPlayer there is a documentary series on the July 2005 bombings, commonly known in the UK as the 7/7 bombings, as thankfully the second round of bombings on the 21st of July all failed. During the documentary, a senior anti-terrorism officer for the Metropolitan police used the phrase public domain. He's not talking about fair use or copyright, he's referring to a press conference and the disclosures of his superior Ian Blair (no relation to Tony Blair). The reason he's using that term is to shield himself from potential criticism or prosecution under the UK's strict slander and libel laws. By referring to the contentious subject as being in the public domain he's stating that he's comments are based on what was widely available at the time, so if his comments cross the line and a legal challenge was initiated he can fall back on that. It's quite similar to the American way of adding `allegedley` to the end of a serious accusation or criticism. You're not saying it's a hundred percent accurate and true, you're commenting on an existing allegation.
I trust the grounds for confusion are obvious, but it's not completely wrong to use the term in this manner. Using public domain as synonym for publicly available is sort of true in regard to facts and popular opinions. You can cease and desist a video distributor and DMCA music remixers, but you can't make the public `unknow` or `unhear` a fact or opinion. That's the alleged harm that IP owners of academic journals and the image consultants of powerful people allege when unauthorised disclosures happen. By leaking or accidentally sharing the results of a study, you've de facto removed the control or `right` of the legal owners to use it as they wish.
My only issue is that since awareness of copyright and the Public Domain is increasing year-on-year, I'm worried that some people will be confused by the phrase and start using material that's still copyrighted and thus be vulnerable to action. I know that's not an unfounded fear because several years ago I was involved in just such a dispute. After leaving University I struggled to find work, I became a freelancer, mainly writing copy, the odd paid consumer review and photography. It's the latter that concerns us here. After a trip to London with some friends, I uploaded my photos to Facebook. Two days later in the local newspaper I found to my surprise some of those photographs, and even stranger, credited to someone else. I didn't recognise the name, but they were absolutely my photographs.
I contacted the newspaper providing proof of ownership, and they replied with an apology, agreed to print a correction in a later issue and gave me the contact details of the person who submitted them. Turned out is one of my circle of friends, though friends was a bit of a stretch. Annoyed, I emailed them telling them I knew what they did and that I was not happy with them. They didn't take it very well. The one excuse they kept coming back to was that the photos were in the public domain, which they weren't remotely, at the time I was still taking client work so didn't release copyrights on any of my work as I was still building my portfolio. I did occasionally release some works under a creative commons' licence, which specified attribution, but that wasn't the case for those photos. Honestly, it happened so quickly I hadn't had time to decide what I was going to do with them, I just uploaded them to Facebook for my friends to see while I decided if they were worth using for something else.
Still, the incident was quite revealingly, it became clear that the misunderstanding meant he was only concerned about legal consequences. Had I given my photos to the public domain, that wouldn't explain or excuse pretending he had taken them and submitting them for credit*. That's plagiarism and a rotten way to treat someone, especially a friend. My ex-friend's photography adventures ended at that point.
So, what's the solution? Well, I try to switch from public domain to public sphere or some other synonym when it comes up in my life. Currently, I don't know of anyone getting into trouble for the misunderstanding, and if someone is unlucky enough to get dragged through the courts then I think the issue will be resolved pretty quickly.
*I had got to know the photographers for the local paper and they confirmed no money changed hands.
.jpeg)
