7 ms·

The only part that feels weird about a shorter duration like that is tv/movie adaptations of books. The game of thrones show came out 15 years after the first b

by plopz 2y ago

The only part that feels weird about a shorter duration like that is tv/movie adaptations of books. The game of thrones show came out 15 years after the first book, does that mean they would have been able to make it without licensing it from the author?

echelon 2y ago
This is a remarkably salient point. It can take a long time for certain works to find their wings or true market potential, especially books and music. Some examples of music: "Take On Me", "Running Up That Hill", "Bohemian Rhapsody", or even bands, like Neutral Milk Hotel
- jhbadger 2y ago
  You may have a point with a cult band like Neutral Milk Hotel, but songs like Take On Me and Running Up That Hill were incredibly popular when they were new -- it's just that both got a second wave of popularity decades later when they were used on soundtracks of films/shows.
  - echelon 2y ago
    > Running Up That Hill were incredibly popular when they were new It was far more popular in the recent revival!
ronsor 2y ago
It does mean that, and I think that's just something that would have to be accepted. Disney's empire is built on adaptations of public domain stories, after all.
- echelon 2y ago
  Disney is about to be faced with a landscape where anybody can make Pixar films from home. They're in for a world of hurt in the new regime where thought moves faster than IP. Film studios only existed because (1) distribution used to be hard and (2) films were financially and logistically difficult to make. Netflix and YouTube slayed the first challenge, and now GenAI will fell the latter and give indie directors the same kind of platform that indie game and indie music folks currently have: true one person studios.
  - fwip 2y ago
    Unlikely. Generative AI is foul and unpleasant to perceive.
    - ronsor 2y ago
      It is not inherently, but people are very effective at using it to produce foul, unpleasant output, which is a temporary problem. Like almost all things, people will not actually care how they're made if the final product is good.
    - echelon 2y ago
      As someone who spends 100 hours a week working in this space, it's so weird seeing such pervasive negative attitudes everywhere I look. I know the work I'm doing is valuable and that this field is the future. I'm sure it'll click for more folks soon.
      - ronsor 2y ago
        People repeat "generative AI is all evil garbage" because that's what the media (which is very afraid of AI, might I add) has told them. It's also funny to see AI turn people who normally dislike copyright into die-hard copyright lovers.
        fwip 2y ago
        I didn't say that? It is foul and unpleasant to behold, based on my experience of viewing it repeatedly over the last 5+ years. It would be nice if you didn't assume that anybody who doesn't share your opinion is mindlessly regurgitating slop.
        ronsor 2y ago
        I was speaking in response to most of the general "pervasive negative attitudes" mentioned, not you specifically. Although I'm curious where you viewed generative AI content repeatedly 5 years ago; it was effectively non-existent outside research circles then.
furyofantares 2y ago
Hm, also at 10 years out how likely is the author to be able to convince someone to do a TV adaptation, knowing that by the time they're done someone else will be able to release their own versions (sans royalty even)?
- ronsor 2y ago
  Many things are only popular for a relatively short period of time. If someone wants to wait until the copyright period is over to do an adaptation, the source material may no longer be that popular, and the adaptation, even without having paid a single royalty, will be unprofitable.
  - longdustytrail 2y ago
    Ok but you’re gonna have a hard time convincing me that (morally) HBO should have been able to make game of thrones without cutting a check to the guy who created it
    - ronsor 2y ago
      I'm not saying it'd be good for HBO to do that, only that they could. Regardless of whether or not they should, edge cases like GoT's success should not control the outcome for everyone and everything else.
      - Mindwipe 2y ago
        GoT isn't an edge case - it's actually quite quick for an adaptation.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - account42 2y ago
      What about the lord of the rings movies? Tolkien didn't get paid from that, his heirs did. What about Shakespeare. What about the Brothers Grimm. Should Disnay have to pay for those fairy tales? In the end every creative work stands on the shoulders of giants. We should reward creators for contributing to our culture but this notion that they should be able to own their creations way past when they become popular is absurd.
gosub100 2y ago
> does that mean they would have been able to make it without licensing it from the author? yes and it's possible someone could have done it even better, had they not been required to convince investors to purchase copyright. GoT was a masterpiece, don't get me wrong, but it's a fallacy to think it couldn't have been better, or that other book adaptations could have been as good or better, without copyright being in the way. It's a minor issue in the grand scheme, but my pet peeve is with "synch licenses" (not sure if that's even the right term), but where sitcoms can't go to home video because of stupid disputes about shitty songs that happened to be included. Did anyone watch "Married With Children" because of Frank Sinatra's song "Love and Marriage" in the intro? It's a catchy song, and I'm sure it lured people in who might have otherwise changed the channel, so yes it has value. But it should only be a tiny fraction of the royalties for a full performance of the song. doubly so for home video releases. Would anyone buy even 1 season of MWC just to hear the Sinatra song? I say no. And therefore should not be required to pay any royalties. I am watching "Murphy Brown" reruns from pirateflix because apparently it never went to home video because of license disputes about the 60's soul songs in the intro. They add character to the show, for sure. But they're not why I watch the show. I watch it for the story and the acting. In this case, actors (who worked extremely hard over 10 seasons of that show!) are being wrongfully deprived of royalties because record execs can't be reasonable about how much 10 seconds of a 60 -year-old song is worth.
- plopz 2y ago
  Yeah, thats a big problem with shows that work really well with the music, like Scrubs. I'm glad we have piracy to be able to keep the original works with the intended tracks intact.
thisislife2 2y ago
That can be fixed by limiting copyright to a certain duration per medium. You write a book - you have copyright on paper based books for 15 years. You publish it as Ebooks for desktop and mobile devices - get 15 years on that medium. Convert to visuals on Television &/or Films - 15 years on that medium. Virtual reality - another 15 years and so on ...
- radlad 2y ago
  Are you suggesting that if you release only a book, anyone could take the story and produce a film based on it, because you didn't publish a film?
  - thisislife2 2y ago
    No. I am suggesting that short copyright terms should be tied to the medium of delivery. If someone writes a book, copyright will begin when they publish the book and the 10-15 years copyright expiration would only be applicable for paper book medium. After the copyright for the paper book medium expires, anybody can republish it. But, only the original copyright owner can "recreate" the work again in another medium - like Games, TV/ Films, Virtual reality etc. Even if that happens after the expiration of copyright on the first medium it originally appeared on. With the Game of Thrones example, with short copyrights, Martin would lose the copyright on the books (the first original medium it was published on) in 10-15 years. But he would retain the copyright on his work for other medium. So if 20 years down the lane, HBO wanted to recreate his work for TV, they would still have to get his permissions to do so. Once Martin's gives HBO the rights to his work for TV, HBO would own it only for the 10-15 years, and after that, anybody could use it freely too, but only for paper book and TV medium. This means if Meta or Apple want to recreate Game of Thrones as a virtual reality show, they would again have to approach Martin to get his permission. If they do, then they own the copyright to his work, on virtual reality medium, till it expires in 10-15 years. In this kind of system, the original author would continue to retain the future rights for any new future medium of delivery too.
    - tmtvl 2y ago

by plopz 2y ago

echelon 2y ago

This is a remarkably salient point. It can take a long time for certain works to find their wings or true market potential, especially books and music. Some examples of music: "Take On Me", "Running Up That Hill", "Bohemian Rhapsody", or even bands, like Neutral Milk Hotel

jhbadger 2y ago
You may have a point with a cult band like Neutral Milk Hotel, but songs like Take On Me and Running Up That Hill were incredibly popular when they were new -- it's just that both got a second wave of popularity decades later when they were used on soundtracks of films/shows.
- echelon 2y ago
  > Running Up That Hill were incredibly popular when they were new It was far more popular in the recent revival!

ronsor 2y ago

It does mean that, and I think that's just something that would have to be accepted. Disney's empire is built on adaptations of public domain stories, after all.

echelon 2y ago
Disney is about to be faced with a landscape where anybody can make Pixar films from home. They're in for a world of hurt in the new regime where thought moves faster than IP. Film studios only existed because (1) distribution used to be hard and (2) films were financially and logistically difficult to make. Netflix and YouTube slayed the first challenge, and now GenAI will fell the latter and give indie directors the same kind of platform that indie game and indie music folks currently have: true one person studios.
- fwip 2y ago
  Unlikely. Generative AI is foul and unpleasant to perceive.
  - ronsor 2y ago
    It is not inherently, but people are very effective at using it to produce foul, unpleasant output, which is a temporary problem. Like almost all things, people will not actually care how they're made if the final product is good.
  - echelon 2y ago
    As someone who spends 100 hours a week working in this space, it's so weird seeing such pervasive negative attitudes everywhere I look. I know the work I'm doing is valuable and that this field is the future. I'm sure it'll click for more folks soon.
    - ronsor 2y ago
      People repeat "generative AI is all evil garbage" because that's what the media (which is very afraid of AI, might I add) has told them. It's also funny to see AI turn people who normally dislike copyright into die-hard copyright lovers.
      - fwip 2y ago
        I didn't say that? It is foul and unpleasant to behold, based on my experience of viewing it repeatedly over the last 5+ years. It would be nice if you didn't assume that anybody who doesn't share your opinion is mindlessly regurgitating slop.
        ronsor 2y ago
        I was speaking in response to most of the general "pervasive negative attitudes" mentioned, not you specifically. Although I'm curious where you viewed generative AI content repeatedly 5 years ago; it was effectively non-existent outside research circles then.

furyofantares 2y ago

Hm, also at 10 years out how likely is the author to be able to convince someone to do a TV adaptation, knowing that by the time they're done someone else will be able to release their own versions (sans royalty even)?

ronsor 2y ago
Many things are only popular for a relatively short period of time. If someone wants to wait until the copyright period is over to do an adaptation, the source material may no longer be that popular, and the adaptation, even without having paid a single royalty, will be unprofitable.
- longdustytrail 2y ago
  Ok but you’re gonna have a hard time convincing me that (morally) HBO should have been able to make game of thrones without cutting a check to the guy who created it
  - ronsor 2y ago
    I'm not saying it'd be good for HBO to do that, only that they could. Regardless of whether or not they should, edge cases like GoT's success should not control the outcome for everyone and everything else.
    - Mindwipe 2y ago
      GoT isn't an edge case - it's actually quite quick for an adaptation.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - account42 2y ago
    What about the lord of the rings movies? Tolkien didn't get paid from that, his heirs did. What about Shakespeare. What about the Brothers Grimm. Should Disnay have to pay for those fairy tales? In the end every creative work stands on the shoulders of giants. We should reward creators for contributing to our culture but this notion that they should be able to own their creations way past when they become popular is absurd.

gosub100 2y ago

> does that mean they would have been able to make it without licensing it from the author? yes and it's possible someone could have done it even better, had they not been required to convince investors to purchase copyright. GoT was a masterpiece, don't get me wrong, but it's a fallacy to think it couldn't have been better, or that other book adaptations could have been as good or better, without copyright being in the way. It's a minor issue in the grand scheme, but my pet peeve is with "synch licenses" (not sure if that's even the right term), but where sitcoms can't go to home video because of stupid disputes about shitty songs that happened to be included. Did anyone watch "Married With Children" because of Frank Sinatra's song "Love and Marriage" in the intro? It's a catchy song, and I'm sure it lured people in who might have otherwise changed the channel, so yes it has value. But it should only be a tiny fraction of the royalties for a full performance of the song. doubly so for home video releases. Would anyone buy even 1 season of MWC just to hear the Sinatra song? I say no. And therefore should not be required to pay any royalties. I am watching "Murphy Brown" reruns from pirateflix because apparently it never went to home video because of license disputes about the 60's soul songs in the intro. They add character to the show, for sure. But they're not why I watch the show. I watch it for the story and the acting. In this case, actors (who worked extremely hard over 10 seasons of that show!) are being wrongfully deprived of royalties because record execs can't be reasonable about how much 10 seconds of a 60 -year-old song is worth.

plopz 2y ago
Yeah, thats a big problem with shows that work really well with the music, like Scrubs. I'm glad we have piracy to be able to keep the original works with the intended tracks intact.

thisislife2 2y ago

That can be fixed by limiting copyright to a certain duration per medium. You write a book - you have copyright on paper based books for 15 years. You publish it as Ebooks for desktop and mobile devices - get 15 years on that medium. Convert to visuals on Television &/or Films - 15 years on that medium. Virtual reality - another 15 years and so on ...

radlad 2y ago
Are you suggesting that if you release only a book, anyone could take the story and produce a film based on it, because you didn't publish a film?
- thisislife2 2y ago
  No. I am suggesting that short copyright terms should be tied to the medium of delivery. If someone writes a book, copyright will begin when they publish the book and the 10-15 years copyright expiration would only be applicable for paper book medium. After the copyright for the paper book medium expires, anybody can republish it. But, only the original copyright owner can "recreate" the work again in another medium - like Games, TV/ Films, Virtual reality etc. Even if that happens after the expiration of copyright on the first medium it originally appeared on. With the Game of Thrones example, with short copyrights, Martin would lose the copyright on the books (the first original medium it was published on) in 10-15 years. But he would retain the copyright on his work for other medium. So if 20 years down the lane, HBO wanted to recreate his work for TV, they would still have to get his permissions to do so. Once Martin's gives HBO the rights to his work for TV, HBO would own it only for the 10-15 years, and after that, anybody could use it freely too, but only for paper book and TV medium. This means if Meta or Apple want to recreate Game of Thrones as a virtual reality show, they would again have to approach Martin to get his permission. If they do, then they own the copyright to his work, on virtual reality medium, till it expires in 10-15 years. In this kind of system, the original author would continue to retain the future rights for any new future medium of delivery too.
  - tmtvl 2y ago