4 ms·

I wonder what would have happened if copyright was somehow structured differently. To be clear: I find all current IP law overly broad, including copyright.

I wonder what would have happened if copyright was somehow structured differently. To be clear: I find all current IP law overly broad, including copyright. This being said, I have no problem with Disney still 'owning' Mickey Mouse. I also understand the investment made by Disney will cause them to fight to keep it, and the power imbalance will, in the current copyright setup, extend terms forever. But how to balance this with a copyright that protects forgotten works for 75 years after the author's death. I'd like to see some form of short copyright, that easily extends as long as the owner is known and still actively expanding the series. So e.g. abandonware becomes public domain fast. The Disney Vault and other types of artificial scarcity should become illegal. Pratchett is now dead for a few years, and his works should become public about now. But Disney is still expanding the Mickey universe, and they can do so without worries.

vilhanova 4y ago
kevinmchugh 4y ago
Copyright expiry getting tied to the author's death doesn't make a ton of sense to me? The economic value of an author's work is, if anything, improved by the author's death, but if copyright expires at death or somewhat shortly after, the ability to capture that value disappears. There are contractual ways to structure this such that authors hurt as much as the publisher, but no way to prevent the publisher from losing out when all their competitors can print a book very suddenly. I also can't think of any justification for copyright privileging running series over standalone works. There's already trademark to protect that.
- zeroonetwothree 4y ago
  The goal of copyright is to encourage creating works. If you are dead you don’t really accrue the benefit anymore so it’s not motivating you any longer.
  - kevinmchugh 4y ago
    Should a 90 year old be less encouraged to create new works than a 30 year old? Some authors die with works finished but unpublished - why should the reward for bringing those to market be treated any different than the works published while they were alive?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
dchftcs 4y ago
Generally, all art is derivative one way or another. Many artists don't want to admit it but their work is often the product of the times and they drew inspiration from existing work. This is what underlies "Great artists steal". People can use great art from the past to create even better art. For example, much of modern media borrows heavily from mythology to help them build intriguing fictional worlds. If creators had a stranglehold on every single idea they produced, art would have advanced at a much slower pace. Allowing derivative works would lower the barrier of creating great work, much like open source helps software solve people's problems. Mickey Mouse's copyright expiry allows people to create characters that look like Mickey Mouse without getting sued. I'm not sure how important that itself is (given I'm no fan), but I see no reason why it should be granted an exception.

vilhanova 4y ago

kevinmchugh 4y ago

Copyright expiry getting tied to the author's death doesn't make a ton of sense to me? The economic value of an author's work is, if anything, improved by the author's death, but if copyright expires at death or somewhat shortly after, the ability to capture that value disappears. There are contractual ways to structure this such that authors hurt as much as the publisher, but no way to prevent the publisher from losing out when all their competitors can print a book very suddenly. I also can't think of any justification for copyright privileging running series over standalone works. There's already trademark to protect that.

zeroonetwothree 4y ago
The goal of copyright is to encourage creating works. If you are dead you don’t really accrue the benefit anymore so it’s not motivating you any longer.
- kevinmchugh 4y ago
  Should a 90 year old be less encouraged to create new works than a 30 year old? Some authors die with works finished but unpublished - why should the reward for bringing those to market be treated any different than the works published while they were alive?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

dchftcs 4y ago

Generally, all art is derivative one way or another. Many artists don't want to admit it but their work is often the product of the times and they drew inspiration from existing work. This is what underlies "Great artists steal". People can use great art from the past to create even better art. For example, much of modern media borrows heavily from mythology to help them build intriguing fictional worlds. If creators had a stranglehold on every single idea they produced, art would have advanced at a much slower pace. Allowing derivative works would lower the barrier of creating great work, much like open source helps software solve people's problems. Mickey Mouse's copyright expiry allows people to create characters that look like Mickey Mouse without getting sued. I'm not sure how important that itself is (given I'm no fan), but I see no reason why it should be granted an exception.