4 ms·

I can see a difference between being allowed to publish an expired work as-is, and profit from it, vs reusing the characters for a completely different story.

by mongol 2y ago

Gormo 2y ago
What you're seeing might be a smudge on your glasses. Legally, there is no such difference.
- oharapj 2y ago
  And legal differences are the only differences that exist, right?
  - Gormo 2y ago
    In relation to something that is entirely a legal construct (i.e. copyright) in the first place? Yes.
    - oharapj 2y ago
      Just because there's currently no legal basis for something does not mean that the perspective that it shouldn't happen is invalid
      - airstrike 2y ago
        But you haven't presented a first-principles argument for why that perspective is valid, other than saying that you can see a difference.
        oharapj 2y ago
        Actually, I didn't even state that I can see a difference
        airstrike 2y ago
        OP did, sorry. Didn't realize different folks.
      - Gormo 2y ago
        Copyright is a legal construct in its entirety. The perspective that there is a difference between which use cases are "allowed" for public-domain works absolutely is invalid. If you are proposing some creating some new framework distinct from copyright for restricting the way people may adapt ideas originated by others to their own use cases, that calls for a great deal more explanation and argumentation than you've yet offered.
        oharapj 2y ago
        I fear you're failing to understand the distinction between having a perspective that something is wrong with the current system, and having all the legal answers about how to successfully encode such distinction into law. OP's comment was that that people shouldn't want there to be a legal difference. You're also failing to understand that I am not even making a claim that there should be a difference, I'm merely pointing out that your dismissal of the artists that wish to prevent Tin-Tin from being gentrified is shallow and essentially amounts to 'that's the way things are'. When people ask 'why is x wrong' the answer isn't usually 'because it's against the law'. This is a boring statement and sheds no real light.
        Gormo 2y ago
        > I fear you're failing to understand the distinction between having a perspective that something is wrong with the current system The problem with that perspective is that the concept of copyright originates from and only exists within that system. Copyright itself is a legal contrivance. If you want to propose some other way of doing things, you need to argue from first principles and articulate the normative assumptions that you are starting from. > I'm merely pointing out that your dismissal of the artists that wish to prevent Tin-Tin from being gentrified is shallow and essentially amounts to 'that's the way things are'. And I'd like to merely point out that entire concept of a cartoon being 'gentrified' is something that you and/or the people you're attributing these opinions to have just made up out of thin air, and what you're actually implicitly arguing for is creating a new type of copyright that restricts what other people are allowed to do, without offering any justification for that additional system of restrictions in any meaningful way. Copyright, at least in the US, stems from a pragmatic desire to "promote the progress of science and useful arts", and not out of some normative notion that ideas ought to be treated like rivalrous property simply because some people have emotional attachments to them. If that latter proposition is what you're bringing into the discussion, you need to explicitly argue your case for it, and not just sneak it in like it's something everyone already understands and accepts.
    - bazoom42 2y ago
      Some jurisdiction have the concept of “moral rights”.
toss1 2y ago
Right, so by that rule, someone could stage a theater production or movie of the exact text of one of Doyle's Sherlock Holmes books, but could not make anything similar to the characters and relationships of Holmes and Watson. Forever. And exactly how similar must the new production be? Can there be any deviation from the exact words written by Doyle? It seems your rule would certainly ban the excellent BBC production of Sherlock [0] What about Shakespeare? It seems this would ban the entire writing and production of West Side Story (of course a 1950's riff on Romeo and Juilet) [1,2]. That sounds like a permanent extension of copyright, with a limited media exception. [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b018ttws https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b018ttws [1] https://www.westsidestory.com/ https://www.westsidestory.com/ [2] https://www.folger.edu/blogs/shakespeare-and-beyond/west-side-story-2021-film-romeo-and-juliet/ https://www.folger.edu/blogs/shakespeare-and-beyond/west-sid...
- cryptonector 2y ago
  We have tons and tons of derivative works not remotely faithful to the original. The list of examples is very long. What about Roxane? What about A Fifth of Beethoven? What about all those novels with biblical inspiration? The works of H. G. Wells, and Jules Verne, and many others have been adapted endlessly. Derivatives have to be allowed to differ markedly from the original, even offensively. As you point out, the definitions problems that arise in trying to control derivatives are intractable / inherently political rather than legalistic.
  - toss1 2y ago
    Gawd yes, the list is ENDLESS! All of culture is new riffs on old stuff. The GP just wants to shut all that down. —Yikes!— if you don't like the new stuff, don't watch it, just re-watch and appreciate the old... There is plenty of old art that I deeply appreciate, and see most new copy and riffing attempts as lame at best, but some are just brilliant. I don't think even the idea of shutting it down after the copyright period makes sense, even beyond the utter impossibility of drawing sensible boundaries that would not be endlessly argued...
cryptonector 2y ago
No, people have to be able to derive works from other works, especially when the latter are in the public domain. Up-thread I sardonically said to burn Picasso's Las Meninas, and I repeat that here because I think it's a good example, and I think you can probably think of many more on your own. E.g., A Fith of Beethoven vs. Beethoven's Fith Symphony -- good or bad?

I can see a difference between being allowed to publish an expired work as-is, and profit from it, vs reusing the characters for a completely different story.

by mongol 2y ago

I can see a difference between being allowed to publish an expired work as-is, and profit from it, vs reusing the characters for a completely different story.

Gormo 2y ago

What you're seeing might be a smudge on your glasses. Legally, there is no such difference.

oharapj 2y ago
And legal differences are the only differences that exist, right?
- Gormo 2y ago
  In relation to something that is entirely a legal construct (i.e. copyright) in the first place? Yes.
  - oharapj 2y ago
    Just because there's currently no legal basis for something does not mean that the perspective that it shouldn't happen is invalid
    - airstrike 2y ago
      But you haven't presented a first-principles argument for why that perspective is valid, other than saying that you can see a difference.
      - oharapj 2y ago
        Actually, I didn't even state that I can see a difference
        airstrike 2y ago
        OP did, sorry. Didn't realize different folks.
    - Gormo 2y ago
      Copyright is a legal construct in its entirety. The perspective that there is a difference between which use cases are "allowed" for public-domain works absolutely is invalid. If you are proposing some creating some new framework distinct from copyright for restricting the way people may adapt ideas originated by others to their own use cases, that calls for a great deal more explanation and argumentation than you've yet offered.
      - oharapj 2y ago
        I fear you're failing to understand the distinction between having a perspective that something is wrong with the current system, and having all the legal answers about how to successfully encode such distinction into law. OP's comment was that that people shouldn't want there to be a legal difference. You're also failing to understand that I am not even making a claim that there should be a difference, I'm merely pointing out that your dismissal of the artists that wish to prevent Tin-Tin from being gentrified is shallow and essentially amounts to 'that's the way things are'. When people ask 'why is x wrong' the answer isn't usually 'because it's against the law'. This is a boring statement and sheds no real light.
        Gormo 2y ago
        > I fear you're failing to understand the distinction between having a perspective that something is wrong with the current system The problem with that perspective is that the concept of copyright originates from and only exists within that system. Copyright itself is a legal contrivance. If you want to propose some other way of doing things, you need to argue from first principles and articulate the normative assumptions that you are starting from. > I'm merely pointing out that your dismissal of the artists that wish to prevent Tin-Tin from being gentrified is shallow and essentially amounts to 'that's the way things are'. And I'd like to merely point out that entire concept of a cartoon being 'gentrified' is something that you and/or the people you're attributing these opinions to have just made up out of thin air, and what you're actually implicitly arguing for is creating a new type of copyright that restricts what other people are allowed to do, without offering any justification for that additional system of restrictions in any meaningful way. Copyright, at least in the US, stems from a pragmatic desire to "promote the progress of science and useful arts", and not out of some normative notion that ideas ought to be treated like rivalrous property simply because some people have emotional attachments to them. If that latter proposition is what you're bringing into the discussion, you need to explicitly argue your case for it, and not just sneak it in like it's something everyone already understands and accepts.
  - bazoom42 2y ago
    Some jurisdiction have the concept of “moral rights”.

toss1 2y ago

Right, so by that rule, someone could stage a theater production or movie of the exact text of one of Doyle's Sherlock Holmes books, but could not make anything similar to the characters and relationships of Holmes and Watson. Forever. And exactly how similar must the new production be? Can there be any deviation from the exact words written by Doyle? It seems your rule would certainly ban the excellent BBC production of Sherlock [0] What about Shakespeare? It seems this would ban the entire writing and production of West Side Story (of course a 1950's riff on Romeo and Juilet) [1,2]. That sounds like a permanent extension of copyright, with a limited media exception. [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b018ttws https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b018ttws [1] https://www.westsidestory.com/ https://www.westsidestory.com/ [2] https://www.folger.edu/blogs/shakespeare-and-beyond/west-side-story-2021-film-romeo-and-juliet/ https://www.folger.edu/blogs/shakespeare-and-beyond/west-sid...

cryptonector 2y ago
We have tons and tons of derivative works not remotely faithful to the original. The list of examples is very long. What about Roxane? What about A Fifth of Beethoven? What about all those novels with biblical inspiration? The works of H. G. Wells, and Jules Verne, and many others have been adapted endlessly. Derivatives have to be allowed to differ markedly from the original, even offensively. As you point out, the definitions problems that arise in trying to control derivatives are intractable / inherently political rather than legalistic.
- toss1 2y ago
  Gawd yes, the list is ENDLESS! All of culture is new riffs on old stuff. The GP just wants to shut all that down. —Yikes!— if you don't like the new stuff, don't watch it, just re-watch and appreciate the old... There is plenty of old art that I deeply appreciate, and see most new copy and riffing attempts as lame at best, but some are just brilliant. I don't think even the idea of shutting it down after the copyright period makes sense, even beyond the utter impossibility of drawing sensible boundaries that would not be endlessly argued...

cryptonector 2y ago

No, people have to be able to derive works from other works, especially when the latter are in the public domain. Up-thread I sardonically said to burn Picasso's Las Meninas, and I repeat that here because I think it's a good example, and I think you can probably think of many more on your own. E.g., A Fith of Beethoven vs. Beethoven's Fith Symphony -- good or bad?