4 ms·

The classic answer to ultra-short copyright terms, and one that I think has some legitimacy, is that short really decreases the cost of just waiting you out. L

The classic answer to ultra-short copyright terms, and one that I think has some legitimacy, is that short really decreases the cost of just waiting you out. Let's say you write something brilliant, the next Harry Potter in financial terms. You shop it around but none of the big publishers will touch it, of course they're all owned by 2 or 3 companies. You self publish and it sells a couple hundred copies; 5 years later, bang, a major Hollywood blockbuster and media blitz. No need to pay you a cent.

benj111 4y ago
We've just had a thing with Sherlock Holmes. 2 films, the Sherlock and elementary series and now enola Holmes, despite Sherlock Holmes being near (in copyright terms) the end of copyright. So that would tend to disprove the thesis. Plus it suggests that having the author on board is valueless. Would you want to pay the author a fee and get them on board, or do you want them bad mouthing your new film? Further, any author that writes a book with any legitimate expectation that it's going to be made in to a film is probably successful enough already. JK Rowling probably wasn't expecting a film deal. She wrote the books without that expectation. I'm interested in a copyright that encourages and allows her to write books, not make her into a multimillionaire. If anything her success means she can write less books. Is that a good thing? I'm not in favour of keeping her in penury, but copyright should be about allowing them to work, not make it so they can stop.
- astrange 4y ago
  > 2 films, the Sherlock and elementary series and now enola Holmes, despite Sherlock Holmes being near (in copyright terms) the end of copyright. He was already mostly public domain, with only a few stories still copyrighted. (And his estate claims that some character traits like "having emotions" are part of those stories.)
  - benj111 4y ago
    Some companies at least have paid for the rights recently though, which still argues against your stance. Then there's the seven percent solution which came out shortly before Sherlock Holmes went public domain.
    - astrange 4y ago
      The price doesn't matter much vs the annoyance of them suing you for putting emotions in your show.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

benj111 4y ago

We've just had a thing with Sherlock Holmes. 2 films, the Sherlock and elementary series and now enola Holmes, despite Sherlock Holmes being near (in copyright terms) the end of copyright. So that would tend to disprove the thesis. Plus it suggests that having the author on board is valueless. Would you want to pay the author a fee and get them on board, or do you want them bad mouthing your new film? Further, any author that writes a book with any legitimate expectation that it's going to be made in to a film is probably successful enough already. JK Rowling probably wasn't expecting a film deal. She wrote the books without that expectation. I'm interested in a copyright that encourages and allows her to write books, not make her into a multimillionaire. If anything her success means she can write less books. Is that a good thing? I'm not in favour of keeping her in penury, but copyright should be about allowing them to work, not make it so they can stop.

astrange 4y ago
> 2 films, the Sherlock and elementary series and now enola Holmes, despite Sherlock Holmes being near (in copyright terms) the end of copyright. He was already mostly public domain, with only a few stories still copyrighted. (And his estate claims that some character traits like "having emotions" are part of those stories.)
- benj111 4y ago
  Some companies at least have paid for the rights recently though, which still argues against your stance. Then there's the seven percent solution which came out shortly before Sherlock Holmes went public domain.
  - astrange 4y ago
    The price doesn't matter much vs the annoyance of them suing you for putting emotions in your show.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]