4 ms·

I don't think companies like Disney lobby to extend copyright endlessly because they can't make money in the first 20 years, but because they can continue makin

by mcintyre1994 9y ago

I don't think companies like Disney lobby to extend copyright endlessly because they can't make money in the first 20 years, but because they can continue making money after 20 years and would prefer to do that than not. Especially with things like Disney cycling availability of older films and stuff, I'm sure they make loads of money on their older material and just want to keep doing that even if it was successful when first released.

foepys 9y ago
This is exactly my point. It only benefits the already big successful cooperations and people. It does nearly nothing for small artists while actively hindering people from enjoying cultural goods. Every song that is being created today will still be under copyright when you die. Meanwhile if someone creates a new way to manufacture a certain product, it's "only" protected for 20 years (which is fine). If Taylor Swift lives until she is 80, her songs will be free in the year 2140 - maybe even later if someone like a composer lives longer. Isn't this just absurd?
- gt_ 9y ago
  When an artistic pursuit is personal, it seems like it could maybe be passed on in a will or something similar. This might be a ridiculous idea, but I guess I find complaining about someone’s artistic endeavors not being free to be absurd in it’s own way.
  - behringer 9y ago
    Tell that to Disney when he made snow white.
    - gt_ 9y ago
      Elaborate
      - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
        Many Disney stories (including Snow White) are copied from earlier works by authors unaffiliated with Disney.
        gt_ 9y ago
        Copied? Snow White was a groundbreaking feat of animation brilliance, a result of tireless effort, craftsmanship and detail that experts widely agree rivals any animation project produced to date. It was literally the first feature-length color animated film with sync audio ever produced, and you’re cutting it down for it’s screenplay being inspired by a fairy tale? This is no weakness. This is consistent with filmmaking tradition and the nature of humanities efforts in general. The line is not a sharp one, but in terms of Snow White, if I understand your accusation correctly, your point is lost. I am open minded but, with all due respect, it appears you might not be aware of some critical truths of how art gets made. Either way, what do you suggest? We probably generally agree on the topic at hand. I am saddened seeing many early films eroding which have yet to be digitized because they are not accessible.
        nurettin 9y ago
        Kinda off-topic here, but as someone who co-authored a thesis on the subject, snow white was indeed ahead of it's time in terms of fluid animations and mood making, but it still featured the passive damsel-in-distress archetype which put it way behind in terms of sociological evolution. Compare it to female counterparts in, say, Hayao Miyazaki cartoons where women are proactive and actually have character development.
        gabemart 9y ago
        >you’re cutting it down for it’s screenplay being inspired by a fairy tale That wasn't my reading of the parent at all. Snow White the animated film wouldn't have been made if copyright was perpetually inherited and some distant Grimm relative refused to give Disney permission to make the film. This is relevant to your original point - that "I find complaining about someone’s artistic endeavors not being free to be absurd in it’s own way." You may find it absurd, but if it were not so, a work you seem to admire might never have been produced. There is a cultural component to art. It draws from the culture and gives back to the culture. Long copyright terms - and I find current copyright terms very long - prevent future artists from drawing on the culture to produce new, transformative works. Disney was able to draw on cultural material from the prior 100 years to make Snow White. But if the current copyright-extension-cycle continues, it seems plausible that Disney films - and all works created in the same period - may never fall into the public domain in the USA, and future artists will not be able to enjoy the same free use of cultural source material as Disney itself has done.
mxfh 9y ago
As long as the company exists, they will always have the trademark, which is independent of the copyright.

foepys 9y ago

This is exactly my point. It only benefits the already big successful cooperations and people. It does nearly nothing for small artists while actively hindering people from enjoying cultural goods. Every song that is being created today will still be under copyright when you die. Meanwhile if someone creates a new way to manufacture a certain product, it's "only" protected for 20 years (which is fine). If Taylor Swift lives until she is 80, her songs will be free in the year 2140 - maybe even later if someone like a composer lives longer. Isn't this just absurd?

gt_ 9y ago
When an artistic pursuit is personal, it seems like it could maybe be passed on in a will or something similar. This might be a ridiculous idea, but I guess I find complaining about someone’s artistic endeavors not being free to be absurd in it’s own way.
- behringer 9y ago
  Tell that to Disney when he made snow white.
  - gt_ 9y ago
    Elaborate
    - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
      Many Disney stories (including Snow White) are copied from earlier works by authors unaffiliated with Disney.
      - gt_ 9y ago
        Copied? Snow White was a groundbreaking feat of animation brilliance, a result of tireless effort, craftsmanship and detail that experts widely agree rivals any animation project produced to date. It was literally the first feature-length color animated film with sync audio ever produced, and you’re cutting it down for it’s screenplay being inspired by a fairy tale? This is no weakness. This is consistent with filmmaking tradition and the nature of humanities efforts in general. The line is not a sharp one, but in terms of Snow White, if I understand your accusation correctly, your point is lost. I am open minded but, with all due respect, it appears you might not be aware of some critical truths of how art gets made. Either way, what do you suggest? We probably generally agree on the topic at hand. I am saddened seeing many early films eroding which have yet to be digitized because they are not accessible.
        nurettin 9y ago
        Kinda off-topic here, but as someone who co-authored a thesis on the subject, snow white was indeed ahead of it's time in terms of fluid animations and mood making, but it still featured the passive damsel-in-distress archetype which put it way behind in terms of sociological evolution. Compare it to female counterparts in, say, Hayao Miyazaki cartoons where women are proactive and actually have character development.
        gabemart 9y ago
        >you’re cutting it down for it’s screenplay being inspired by a fairy tale That wasn't my reading of the parent at all. Snow White the animated film wouldn't have been made if copyright was perpetually inherited and some distant Grimm relative refused to give Disney permission to make the film. This is relevant to your original point - that "I find complaining about someone’s artistic endeavors not being free to be absurd in it’s own way." You may find it absurd, but if it were not so, a work you seem to admire might never have been produced. There is a cultural component to art. It draws from the culture and gives back to the culture. Long copyright terms - and I find current copyright terms very long - prevent future artists from drawing on the culture to produce new, transformative works. Disney was able to draw on cultural material from the prior 100 years to make Snow White. But if the current copyright-extension-cycle continues, it seems plausible that Disney films - and all works created in the same period - may never fall into the public domain in the USA, and future artists will not be able to enjoy the same free use of cultural source material as Disney itself has done.

mxfh 9y ago

As long as the company exists, they will always have the trademark, which is independent of the copyright.