5 ms·
So under your system, big blockbuster productions would have the longest copyright term. I'd like to try exactly the opposite: when a work has been seen by a m
by waqf 8y ago
So under your system, big blockbuster productions would have the longest copyright term.
I'd like to try exactly the opposite: when a work has been seen by a million people, it becomes public domain — whether that takes one year or 100 years.
Why? Because when you make a derivative work of Harry Potter or Star Wars you are not thinking that you can hoodwink your audience into believing that yours is the original, rather you're writing for a cultural context that assumes that people know the original. And to me that's exactly the underlying idea behind fair use.
- true_religion 8y agoI think it's done this way as a compromise to the current copyright holders. Disney can and will easily pay 100,000 per year for all their productions in the vault, so no change in the status quo there. However, most sci-fi books from the 70s which are already out of print, will become public domain, and you can now write "fan-fiction" for it and get paid without having to seek out the original copyright holders (if they still even exist). It's questionable if Asimov's estate will pay 100,000 per year for each of his short stories, and lots of those make fantastic premises. If we didn't have eternal copyright, they'd make up a part of our literary landscape like Romeo and Juliet, or fairy tales do---something that can be freely alluded to, or redone.
- baldfat 8y agoThe Monster (Short Story) would make an unbelievably great movie. It was written in 1948 70 YEARS AGO and is still under copyright. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monster_(short_story) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monster_(short_story) Now that I thought about it. The Monster is the best story of the century and it can't be touched.