3 ms·

I used to be very gung-ho about short copyright periods but my thinking has gotten a bit confused for two reasons: 1. I think there's virtue in limiting the mo

I used to be very gung-ho about short copyright periods but my thinking has gotten a bit confused for two reasons: 1. I think there's virtue in limiting the modification --as opposed to the reproduction-- of works for some time after the death of the author. There's something distasteful about thinking of (to the use OP's example) Winnie the Pooh merchandise at Target, or The Winnie Pooh Movie having nothing to do with the "real" Winnie The Pooh. There is some value to the "sanctity" of a work IMHO, for some time. In other words, avoiding the "dracula-ization" or "frankenstein-ization" (read: "gross commercialization") of works for some time. That being said, it makes sense for the original, unmodified work, to enter the public domain. I think this is a distinction worth exploring. 2. More controversially, there are some works where there's a credible argument that the author is a "corporation." An example here is the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Each movie has the imprimatur of the director, but in the aggregate they feel very much "MCU" in style. If anything, the authors seem to be Kevin Feige, Louis D'esposito, and Victoria Alonso. The characters were originally created by Stan Lee et al, but if Marvel Studios were to create a new character (and make that character a flagship one, etc) that character would genuinely be a corporate creation. Would love a discussion on these topics.

behringer 5y ago
The first problem to solve would be the abolition of the corporation.
password1 5y ago
I don't agree with 2. If you look at any great work of art in movies or videogames it's easy to pin-point to one or just a few people that heavily influenced specific creative aspects of the final product. For a character to be memorable enough that a corporation decides to invest to make it a flagship one, you can rest assured there will be some great mind behind it that influenced it heavily to make it stand out in the crowd. If you were to take an committee of execs/businesspeople and make them create the "perfect MCU character" it would be either a copycat of something existing, or something so bland and safe that fans would forget in one second. That's why they still hire screenwriters and directors. I would also argue that tasking a team of creatives of coming up with a brand new superhero that: 1) fits the "MCU style" 2) it's safe and family friendly 3) is original enough to stand out 4) is likable 5) fits the current zeitgeist without feeling like a PR stunt. - would be an extremely daunting task for even the most experienced creative team. They might manage to do it and create a new flagship character for the MCU owned entirely by Disney, but it wouldn't be a "corporate character" and the real authors' influences and creativity would be extremely apparent in the character.
- elbasti 5y ago
  > and the real authors' influences and creativity would be extremely apparent in the character. Is this true? The character of Phil Coulson is exactly this kind of character--created by the studio--and now a "mainstay" (if not a "VIP") of the MCU. from wikipedia: > Agent Phil Coulson was created by Mark Fergus, Hawk Ostby, Art Marcum and Matt Holloway for Iron Man, the first feature film in the MCU.
anjbe 5y ago
With respect to 1, it cuts both ways. Sometimes an author can change a work for the worse, and then use his monopoly to (largely) erase the original. Remember the Star Wars Special Editions? All the fan restorations and rescans floating around are effectively bootlegs. There was one official release on DVD in 2006, but no indication it will ever happen again.

behringer 5y ago

The first problem to solve would be the abolition of the corporation.

password1 5y ago

I don't agree with 2. If you look at any great work of art in movies or videogames it's easy to pin-point to one or just a few people that heavily influenced specific creative aspects of the final product. For a character to be memorable enough that a corporation decides to invest to make it a flagship one, you can rest assured there will be some great mind behind it that influenced it heavily to make it stand out in the crowd. If you were to take an committee of execs/businesspeople and make them create the "perfect MCU character" it would be either a copycat of something existing, or something so bland and safe that fans would forget in one second. That's why they still hire screenwriters and directors. I would also argue that tasking a team of creatives of coming up with a brand new superhero that: 1) fits the "MCU style" 2) it's safe and family friendly 3) is original enough to stand out 4) is likable 5) fits the current zeitgeist without feeling like a PR stunt. - would be an extremely daunting task for even the most experienced creative team. They might manage to do it and create a new flagship character for the MCU owned entirely by Disney, but it wouldn't be a "corporate character" and the real authors' influences and creativity would be extremely apparent in the character.

elbasti 5y ago
> and the real authors' influences and creativity would be extremely apparent in the character. Is this true? The character of Phil Coulson is exactly this kind of character--created by the studio--and now a "mainstay" (if not a "VIP") of the MCU. from wikipedia: > Agent Phil Coulson was created by Mark Fergus, Hawk Ostby, Art Marcum and Matt Holloway for Iron Man, the first feature film in the MCU.

anjbe 5y ago

With respect to 1, it cuts both ways. Sometimes an author can change a work for the worse, and then use his monopoly to (largely) erase the original. Remember the Star Wars Special Editions? All the fan restorations and rescans floating around are effectively bootlegs. There was one official release on DVD in 2006, but no indication it will ever happen again.