6 ms·

I believe Mickey Mouse law must be curtailed. Copyright is retained for no more than 20 years after movie is released, then it transitions to public domain. In

I believe Mickey Mouse law must be curtailed. Copyright is retained for no more than 20 years after movie is released, then it transitions to public domain. In return, I can agree for a copyright for different merchandise to last indefinitely. Then, there are books. I don't really know what to do with them. Since books are work of a much smaller group of people (most often, 1 person), maybe it's ok for them to retain rights till their deaths.

lazulicurio 7y ago
That's pretty much the position that I've come to concerning copyright. Individual works last 20 years or until the first author's death, whichever is greater. The rights are assignable but non-transferable. Corporate works last 20 years. The rights are transferable. Then patents, NDAs, and non-competes are a whole other issue to resolve.
jimhefferon 7y ago
> till their deaths When you want to use some work it can be a hardship to tell if the author is dead. Fixed expiration time is much better.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  I've never understood what the creator's death has to do with copyright anyway. You've already written the work; why should it matter to copyright law if you were young or old when you did so, or whether or not you got really unlucky immediately afterwards in getting run over by a bus?
  - JKCalhoun 7y ago
    Probably something to do with making a living off the fruits of your genuis/labor?
  - lidHanteyk 7y ago
    Because copyright is artificial, and the only reason that we grant it to artists is so that the artists may make money and thus more art. The interest of the public domain far outweighs any imagined right of relatives of the artist to make money; it's not like they're automatically artists themselves.
    - simonh 7y ago
      This strikes me as a particularly mean and grasping attitude I’m afraid. My children aren’t IT engineers, but they still benefit from my savings, life insurance and the proceeds of my investments. The property rights you exercise over the things you own are artificial. It’s in the interests of the public to encourage the production and publication of new ideas and art. The vast majority of authors make very little for their efforts, and the majority of the benefit to society is gained simply by its publication and broad distribution. The additional benefit from derived works IMHO is much lower.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - lidHanteyk 7y ago
        Look at your mewling phrasing. You're "afraid" that I'm "mean"? My viewpoint is not a "grasping attitude". To quote the relevant part of the USA's Constitution [0]: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Copyright is not for your children. It is a limited right given specifically to you, the author or inventor. How did you confuse it with property rights? You are free to invest the earnings that you make from exercise of your copyright, and to give those investments and savings to your progeny; you are not free to so invest your works, because upon your passing, they are no longer yours, but enter the public domain. You chose to share those works with the public, taking their money with the understanding that the money would support you in your artistic efforts; the public, in turn, has a shared cultural knowledge which incorporates your art. Your second paragraph is a bland restatement of the basic reason why copyright exists: Copying is easy, art is hard, so copyright is necessary to ensure that artists get paid enough to live on and create more art. However, art only happens within a cultural context, so it's also necessary to have a large and robust public domain. This balance between copyright and the public domain is reflected in the legislative history of copyright [1] around the time of the drafting of the Constitution. To paraphrase a popular lyric, when you go knockin' on heaven's door, please leave your tools; you won't need 'em anymore. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne
topkai22 7y ago
I think a major issue is the lack of distinction between individual works and derivative works. I don’t have a great answer, but I think derivative works need to have a policy closer to trademark (indefinite but very narrow and bounded by continuous use) while copyright should retain its current core properties and but be shorter (I’d say 20 years, but renewable for up to 60 or 80 with registration and escalating fees.) I find out entirely reasonable for Disney to retain control of Mickey Mouse or DC to retain control of Batman as they’ve been continuously using and improving those ideas for almost 100 years. Otherwise unused aspects of culture need to be allowed to emerge (if after 30 years no one has put Mara Jade on film someone should be allowed to do it.) Of course the Berne convention makes all this way more difficult than even normal law making, but c’est la vie
- anoncake 7y ago
  > Otherwise unused aspects of culture need to be allowed to emerge (if after 30 years no one has put Mara Jade on film someone should be allowed to do it.) Nice idea in principle, but how are you going to prevent the Mara Jade et al. Trademark mmMintenance Holiday Special – directed by our janitor, starring a bum off the street? > Of course the Berne convention makes all this way more difficult than even normal law making, but c’est la vie Dress up as Mr. Duck and tell Mr. Trump that you're the better Donald. He'll get angry at Disney and resign from the Berne convention. Alternatively elect someone that actually wants to renegotiate it. The USA doesn't have to take international treaties as decided by the powers that be, it's part of them. That would be less fun though.
  - topkai22 7y ago
    As for the “fantastic four” solution, you don’t prevent that- as long as it’s actually distributed and available to interested parties for consumption. Creating and distributing a “keep the IP alive” production is still a significantly higher barrier then we have today. As for the US abandoning the Berne convention- it was ratified by the senate, so the President, even this reality tv drama of an administration, can’t just drop out (unless their is some detail of the ratification instrument I’m unaware of.) I thankfully still believe there is enough left of the constitutional apparatus that there remain some bounds on Presidential power, even when the president might be doing what I want.
philwelch 7y ago
I’d be in favor of renewable copyrights if each renewal/extension was for 5 years and the cost of renewal doubled every time.
twic 7y ago
I propose a different approach: the copyright owner can retain copyright indefinitely, as long as they make the work available, in a reasonably practical way, and for a reasonable price. I can't tell you exactly what reasonable means here, but it isn't beyond the wit of man to make some sensible rules about that. So, as soon as they lock it away like this, they lose any rights to it. Whereas if they keep making it available, they can keep those rights forever!
specialist 7y ago
One proposal I once read: Copyrights are renewable with a nominal fee. Say $1 per entry. Feels like a renewable lease. I'd like someone try this, or model it, and report back. It just now occurred to me that maybe trademark might be a better form of (long term IP) protection for stuff like Mickey Mouse. I'm okay with Disney owning Mickey Mouse (and so forth) forever. I'm not okay with the toxic side effects of them hacking legal protections to serve their own narrow use cases.

lazulicurio 7y ago

That's pretty much the position that I've come to concerning copyright. Individual works last 20 years or until the first author's death, whichever is greater. The rights are assignable but non-transferable. Corporate works last 20 years. The rights are transferable. Then patents, NDAs, and non-competes are a whole other issue to resolve.

jimhefferon 7y ago

> till their deaths When you want to use some work it can be a hardship to tell if the author is dead. Fixed expiration time is much better.

CydeWeys 7y ago
I've never understood what the creator's death has to do with copyright anyway. You've already written the work; why should it matter to copyright law if you were young or old when you did so, or whether or not you got really unlucky immediately afterwards in getting run over by a bus?
- JKCalhoun 7y ago
  Probably something to do with making a living off the fruits of your genuis/labor?
- lidHanteyk 7y ago
  Because copyright is artificial, and the only reason that we grant it to artists is so that the artists may make money and thus more art. The interest of the public domain far outweighs any imagined right of relatives of the artist to make money; it's not like they're automatically artists themselves.
  - simonh 7y ago
    This strikes me as a particularly mean and grasping attitude I’m afraid. My children aren’t IT engineers, but they still benefit from my savings, life insurance and the proceeds of my investments. The property rights you exercise over the things you own are artificial. It’s in the interests of the public to encourage the production and publication of new ideas and art. The vast majority of authors make very little for their efforts, and the majority of the benefit to society is gained simply by its publication and broad distribution. The additional benefit from derived works IMHO is much lower.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - lidHanteyk 7y ago
      Look at your mewling phrasing. You're "afraid" that I'm "mean"? My viewpoint is not a "grasping attitude". To quote the relevant part of the USA's Constitution [0]: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Copyright is not for your children. It is a limited right given specifically to you, the author or inventor. How did you confuse it with property rights? You are free to invest the earnings that you make from exercise of your copyright, and to give those investments and savings to your progeny; you are not free to so invest your works, because upon your passing, they are no longer yours, but enter the public domain. You chose to share those works with the public, taking their money with the understanding that the money would support you in your artistic efforts; the public, in turn, has a shared cultural knowledge which incorporates your art. Your second paragraph is a bland restatement of the basic reason why copyright exists: Copying is easy, art is hard, so copyright is necessary to ensure that artists get paid enough to live on and create more art. However, art only happens within a cultural context, so it's also necessary to have a large and robust public domain. This balance between copyright and the public domain is reflected in the legislative history of copyright [1] around the time of the drafting of the Constitution. To paraphrase a popular lyric, when you go knockin' on heaven's door, please leave your tools; you won't need 'em anymore. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne

topkai22 7y ago

I think a major issue is the lack of distinction between individual works and derivative works. I don’t have a great answer, but I think derivative works need to have a policy closer to trademark (indefinite but very narrow and bounded by continuous use) while copyright should retain its current core properties and but be shorter (I’d say 20 years, but renewable for up to 60 or 80 with registration and escalating fees.) I find out entirely reasonable for Disney to retain control of Mickey Mouse or DC to retain control of Batman as they’ve been continuously using and improving those ideas for almost 100 years. Otherwise unused aspects of culture need to be allowed to emerge (if after 30 years no one has put Mara Jade on film someone should be allowed to do it.) Of course the Berne convention makes all this way more difficult than even normal law making, but c’est la vie

anoncake 7y ago
> Otherwise unused aspects of culture need to be allowed to emerge (if after 30 years no one has put Mara Jade on film someone should be allowed to do it.) Nice idea in principle, but how are you going to prevent the Mara Jade et al. Trademark mmMintenance Holiday Special – directed by our janitor, starring a bum off the street? > Of course the Berne convention makes all this way more difficult than even normal law making, but c’est la vie Dress up as Mr. Duck and tell Mr. Trump that you're the better Donald. He'll get angry at Disney and resign from the Berne convention. Alternatively elect someone that actually wants to renegotiate it. The USA doesn't have to take international treaties as decided by the powers that be, it's part of them. That would be less fun though.
- topkai22 7y ago
  As for the “fantastic four” solution, you don’t prevent that- as long as it’s actually distributed and available to interested parties for consumption. Creating and distributing a “keep the IP alive” production is still a significantly higher barrier then we have today. As for the US abandoning the Berne convention- it was ratified by the senate, so the President, even this reality tv drama of an administration, can’t just drop out (unless their is some detail of the ratification instrument I’m unaware of.) I thankfully still believe there is enough left of the constitutional apparatus that there remain some bounds on Presidential power, even when the president might be doing what I want.

philwelch 7y ago

I’d be in favor of renewable copyrights if each renewal/extension was for 5 years and the cost of renewal doubled every time.

twic 7y ago

I propose a different approach: the copyright owner can retain copyright indefinitely, as long as they make the work available, in a reasonably practical way, and for a reasonable price. I can't tell you exactly what reasonable means here, but it isn't beyond the wit of man to make some sensible rules about that. So, as soon as they lock it away like this, they lose any rights to it. Whereas if they keep making it available, they can keep those rights forever!

specialist 7y ago

One proposal I once read: Copyrights are renewable with a nominal fee. Say $1 per entry. Feels like a renewable lease. I'd like someone try this, or model it, and report back. It just now occurred to me that maybe trademark might be a better form of (long term IP) protection for stuff like Mickey Mouse. I'm okay with Disney owning Mickey Mouse (and so forth) forever. I'm not okay with the toxic side effects of them hacking legal protections to serve their own narrow use cases.