Public Domain Day (January 1st) offers a moment to reflect on the true purpose of copyright law release, not perpetual control. Discussing the importance of this momentous day, Sminal Badge examines India’s neglected public domain, tracing how institutional gaps and private gatekeeping undermine access, creativity, education, and emerging AI innovation, and why treating the public domain as a functional legal resource is now imperative. Sminal is a 4th Year Student from Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai. He has a keen academic interest in intellectual property law, real estate law, and competition law. [Long post ahead]
and Flip the Frog from Fiddlesticks– some of the works which got copyright-free in the US this year.
Public Domain Day 2026: What the Entry of Classic Works means for Copyright Law and Creative Freedom
By Sminal Badge
Copyright law is usually discussed as a system of protection. Authors are granted exclusive rights, infringement is penalised, and enforcement is strengthened. What is rarely acknowledged with the same seriousness is that copyright law is also a system of release. Every exclusive right it creates is temporary by design.
The public domain is not an accidental outcome of copyright expiry; it is the destination. Public Domain Day 2026 marks that moment of release. On this day, works whose copyright terms have expired finally return to the public, free from legal control. This transition is not merely symbolic. It is the point at which private monopoly gives way to collective ownership. In theory, this is when society begins to receive its return on the bargain it struck with creators. In India, however, the public domain is treated with indifference. Copyright expiry is acknowledged in statute but rarely operationalised in practice. There is no public celebration, no institutional mechanism to signal that a work is now free, and no serious policy discussion around how these works should be reused. This neglect has consequences.
When the public domain is invisible, copyright quietly becomes perpetual in effect, even if not in law. If copyright is to remain legitimate, the public domain must be treated as a core principle, not an afterthought.
When does Copyright End? And why does that Ending Matters More than we admit?
Under Indian law, copyright does not last forever. Literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works are protected for sixty years after the author’s death. Films and sound recordings are protected for sixty years from publication. These limits are not arbitrary. They are meant to ensure that creative works eventually become common cultural property.
Globally, the trend has been towards longer terms. The US and EU follow a life-plus-seventy regime, largely due to lobbying by major rights-holders rather than evidence of increased creativity. Yet even these jurisdictions accept that copyright must end. There is no serious legal system today that openly defends perpetual copyright. The real issue, therefore, is not duration but what happens after expiry. In India, copyright expiry does not bring clarity. Publishers continue asserting control, platforms impose access restrictions, and users hesitate to rely on public domain status. The result is a system where the law says one thing, but practice reflects another.
For example, even after Rabindranath Tagore’s works were in the public domain, the concerned publisher, in association with ‘Visva Bharati University’ continued to assert control over the publications, fighting for the extension of copyrights, effectively considering that market versions were still in the copyright era. Looking at other countries, we can see that early depictions of iconic characters such as Mickey Mouse and other works have technically entered the U.S. public domain, rights-holders continue to enforce trademark protections and derivative copyrights to limit practical reuse of those and related materials, creating uncertainty about what can be freely used. Moreover, even in well-established public domain cases such as the text of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech, U.S. courts have seen litigation over whether the work entered the public domain through performance or publication, illustrating continuing legal disputes over what is truly free for use.
This gap between law and reality undermines trust in copyright itself. If expiry does not lead to real freedom, copyright begins to look less like a social contract and more like a permanent entitlement.
Public Domain Day 2026: Why these annual transitions deserve attention?
Public Domain Day 2026 marks the moment when a fresh set of creative works legally transitions from private ownership into collective cultural property. In India, this includes works by authors who died in 1965, whose writings, compositions, and artistic expressions are now free from copyright control. Internationally, several early literary and cinematic works have also entered the public domain.
While this transition occurs every year, its legal significance is often underestimated. Copyright expiry is not merely the passage of time; it is the completion of the copyright bargain. Society tolerates temporary monopolies in exchange for the eventual freedom to reuse, reinterpret, and redistribute creative works. When a work enters the public domain, it becomes legally available for reproduction, adaptation, translation, digitisation, and even commercial exploitation, without permission or payment. Despite this, Public Domain Day receives minimal attention in India. There is no official notification, no authoritative list of newly public domain works, and no institutional effort to encourage their reuse. As a result, many works that are legally free remain practically inaccessible. Publishers, platforms, and even public institutions continue to treat these works with caution, often behaving as though copyright protection still subsists. This disconnect matters. When copyright expiry does not translate into real-world freedom, the public domain becomes symbolic rather than functional.
Public Domain Day should operate as a legal reset by clearing rights, restoring public access, and signalling that the law now favours reuse over control. Without such recognition, copyright law risks failing at its most critical juncture: the point where private rights are meant to end.
The Public Domain as the Foundation of Creative Continuity and Educational Access
The public domain is the legal space that allows creativity to remain cumulative rather than closed. No creative work exists in isolation; literature, art, and scholarship constantly draw upon existing ideas and expressions. The public domain ensures that this process can continue without legal barriers once copyright protection expires.
Historically, some of the most influential creative works have been built upon public domain material. Adaptations, reinterpretations, annotated editions, translations, and derivative creations flourish precisely because creators are free to engage with earlier works without fear of infringement. A copyright system that does not meaningfully support the public domain risks turning creativity into a permission-based activity rather than an expressive one. From an educational perspective, the public domain is even more critical. In India, access to educational resources is uneven, and licensing costs often place essential materials beyond the reach of students and public institutions. Public domain works allow universities, libraries, and educators to reproduce and distribute materials freely, lowering costs and expanding access. This aligns with judicial reasoning that copyright law must operate in harmony with public interest and access to knowledge. When public domain works are locked behind uncertainty, contractual restrictions, or institutional inertia, the result is cultural stagnation. Copyright ceases to function as a limited incentive and instead begins to resemble a permanent barrier. A strong public domain is therefore not a threat to authorship; it is the mechanism that ensures copyright continues to serve its social purpose.
Public Domain in the Age of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Control
The rise of Generative AI has given the public domain renewed legal and economic significance. AI systems depend on large volumes of data for training, and public domain works are uniquely suited for this purpose. Because they are free from copyright restrictions, they allow copying, analysis, and transformation without licensing risk. In theory, this should democratise AI development. Startups, researchers, and public institutions should be able to rely on public domain datasets to build and experiment with AI models.
In practice, however, this freedom is increasingly undermined by digital gatekeeping. Many public domain works are accessible only through platforms that impose restrictive terms of service, prohibit scraping, or limit reuse through technological controls. This creates a paradox: works are legally free but practically enclosed. While copyright law no longer applies, access is controlled through private contracts and technical barriers. This phenomenon is often described as the “re-enclosure” of the public domain, which poses a serious challenge to both copyright policy and AI governance. If access to public domain material is effectively monopolised by a few intermediaries, AI innovation risks becoming concentrated in the hands of entities that control proprietary datasets. This undermines competition, stifles smaller innovators, and contradicts the very rationale of copyright expiry. A public domain that exists only on paper offers little value in a data-driven economy.
For AI governance frameworks to be meaningful, they must recognise and protect the public domain not just as a legal concept, but as a practical resource. Without such protection, private ordering will continue to override public law, hollowing out the freedoms that copyright expiry is meant to create.
Moving beyond neglect – How India can actually protect the Public Domain?
If the public domain is to function meaningfully, passive recognition is not enough. India needs deliberate legal and institutional interventions:
- There must be clarity. A publicly accessible, government-backed database identifying public domain works would drastically reduce uncertainty. Such a registry would allow creators, researchers, and AI developers to verify copyright status without costly legal guesswork. Although India has a National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (NDSAP), it is confined to government-generated datasets and does not identify or verify public domain works, leaving copyright expiry governance unaddressed. In practice, this vacuum forces users to rely defensively on Section 52 i.e., fair-dealing exceptions, even where copyright may have expired, distorting doctrine by treating public domain works as conditionally usable. Indian courts have clarified that Section 52 is a narrow exception applicable only where copyright subsists, not a substitute for ownership certainty, underscoring the need for institutional clarity post-expiry. Brazil’s government-run Portal Domínio Público provides free access to thousands of confirmed public domain works, demonstrating institutional feasibility. Emerging initiatives like CommonsDB further reflect the global demand for reliable public domain metadata. Establishing a similar database in India would enhance legal certainty, promote cultural reuse, and reduce dependence on informal intermediaries.
- Rights overreach must be curtailed. Courts have clarified that mere digitisation or formatting does not create new copyright, but these principles need statutory reinforcement to prevent abuse.
- Public access must be guaranteed. When public institutions digitise public domain works using public funds, access should not be restricted through licensing terms that defeat copyright expiry.
- AI policy must explicitly recognise the public domain as a preferred and protected category of training data. Without this, private contracts will continue to override public law.
These are not radical reforms. They are necessary corrections to ensure that copyright law functions as intended.
Conclusion
Public Domain Day 2026 is a reminder that copyright law is not meant to hold on forever. Its legitimacy depends on its willingness to let go. When works enter the public domain, society is supposed to gain freedom; freedom to learn, to create, and to innovate. If that freedom remains theoretical, copyright loses its moral and legal foundation. Protecting the public domain is not anti-author. It is pro-balance. It ensures that creativity remains a shared cultural process rather than a locked asset. A copyright system that remembers how to release control is one that can endure change. One who forgets will eventually be challenged, resisted, and rewritten.
