6 ms·

That means losing out exclusivity on endless remakes, reboots and sequels. Since that's the majority of Hollywood money, I sincerely doubt it will change.

vmception 5y ago
Many legislative opportunities just require shining a light on it. Disney lobbied for copyright lengths and other protections because nobody else cared. And didn't ask for more over recent years because people cared. You can do the same thing. There are many neglected and unused regulations because markets never formed around them. Congress or a regulatory body thought they were doing something useful but werent.
- fuzzer37 5y ago
  Yeah, because any of us have the same power as Disney.
  - vmception 5y ago
    Right, you don't. I think people are overestimating the pushback they'll get from other lobbyists, and also overestimating the amounts that motivate elected officials.
kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
Trademarks would prevent derivative works after expiration.
WorldMaker 5y ago
Remakes/reboots/sequels keep the brand fresh (add new copyrighted elements) and keep trademarkable items relevant and trademarked, so even if copyright terms were shrunk again, it wouldn't mean fewer remakes/reboots/sequels, nor would it reduce "exclusivity" of them, given the trademark moat. It would probably mean more remakes/reboots/sequels at standard intervals to "refresh" copyright/trademarks and keep the moat full. (Even Disney has publicly recognized to their shareholders their mistake in backing the previous copyright extension act and have no further reason to back more extensions because they've proven the trademark and trade dress moat is plenty sufficient. Seriously, try to make a commercial Steamboat Willy derivative all you want without using Mickey characters or concepts from later shorts/movies/pop culture. Try to do it without violating Disney's long held trademark on Mickey's general head shape. Or to use a different huge empire's with a giant moat of properties, some of the earliest Batman stories just finally entered the public domain, but there's almost no way to commercially create a new Batman story without accidentally using later still copyrighted ideas/characters [early Batman used a gun, feels sometimes unrecognizable to modern expectations; most of his favorite rogues didn't show up for decades later] and without violating extensive trademarks on Bat emblems and the cowl shape, etc.)

vmception 5y ago

Many legislative opportunities just require shining a light on it. Disney lobbied for copyright lengths and other protections because nobody else cared. And didn't ask for more over recent years because people cared. You can do the same thing. There are many neglected and unused regulations because markets never formed around them. Congress or a regulatory body thought they were doing something useful but werent.

fuzzer37 5y ago
Yeah, because any of us have the same power as Disney.
- vmception 5y ago
  Right, you don't. I think people are overestimating the pushback they'll get from other lobbyists, and also overestimating the amounts that motivate elected officials.

kevin_thibedeau 5y ago

Trademarks would prevent derivative works after expiration.

WorldMaker 5y ago

Remakes/reboots/sequels keep the brand fresh (add new copyrighted elements) and keep trademarkable items relevant and trademarked, so even if copyright terms were shrunk again, it wouldn't mean fewer remakes/reboots/sequels, nor would it reduce "exclusivity" of them, given the trademark moat. It would probably mean more remakes/reboots/sequels at standard intervals to "refresh" copyright/trademarks and keep the moat full. (Even Disney has publicly recognized to their shareholders their mistake in backing the previous copyright extension act and have no further reason to back more extensions because they've proven the trademark and trade dress moat is plenty sufficient. Seriously, try to make a commercial Steamboat Willy derivative all you want without using Mickey characters or concepts from later shorts/movies/pop culture. Try to do it without violating Disney's long held trademark on Mickey's general head shape. Or to use a different huge empire's with a giant moat of properties, some of the earliest Batman stories just finally entered the public domain, but there's almost no way to commercially create a new Batman story without accidentally using later still copyrighted ideas/characters [early Batman used a gun, feels sometimes unrecognizable to modern expectations; most of his favorite rogues didn't show up for decades later] and without violating extensive trademarks on Bat emblems and the cowl shape, etc.)