4 ms·

Is there a sensible way to extend copyright on "active" IP that is still being used in new content, while allowing copyright to expire on "dormant" IP that has

Is there a sensible way to extend copyright on "active" IP that is still being used in new content, while allowing copyright to expire on "dormant" IP that has been left untouched for years? I don't think it's unreasonable for Disney to still hold copyright on Mickey Mouse (that might be the nostalgia talking), but there are plenty of creations from much more recent times that have long overstayed their welcome in the copyright protected realm.

greglindahl 13y ago
One way is to go back to the old US system, whereby you had to actively renew copyrights, and it costs enough that only active authors or publishers will do so. In reality, it was pretty messy, and there's a lot of arguing about whether a magazine copyright that wasn't renewed causes a story published in multiple places to have a lapsed copyright, etc etc. It was also extremely painful to search for renewals until all of the renewal records were digitized by the Project Gutenberg Distributed Proofreaders. Now it's just moderately painful, because you have to be alert for variations in titles and author names.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> Is there a sensible way to extend copyright on "active" IP that is still being used in new content, while allowing copyright to expire on "dormant" IP that has been left untouched for years? Periodic -- say, every 7 years -- renewals with exponentially increasing costs to renew.
- AmirS2 13y ago
  Why bother with exponentially increasing costs? Even a token fee would ensure that copyright expires on abandoned/orphaned works.
  - rmc 13y ago
    You need increasing fees to prevent big business from automatically renewing all the time. Make them think if they want to renew it all. Otherwise they'll decide the just renew it all.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Why bother with exponentially increasing costs? Even a token fee would ensure that copyright expires on abandoned/orphaned works. A token fee would do that for abandoned works, but it wouldn't do it for works which weren't being actively used but which the owner also didn't want others to use -- an escalating fee would be better than a token fee to discourage such buried works.
- danielweber 13y ago
  The problem is deciding what unit to which you need to apply the renewal costs. A photographer may make hundreds of very creative works a year, while an author may make only one.
mullingitover 13y ago
Disney holds a trademark on Mickey Mouse in perpetuity, so your nostalgia is covered. I'd be happy with a copyright system where the fee is $5 for the first year of government-protected monopoly, $10, for the second, $20 for the third, and on and on at the rate of $5*2^n for as long as they like. Note that at the fifteen-year mark, the renewal fee for another year of copyright enforcement would be over $30 million, which seems appropriate. edit: math
- notimetorelax 13y ago
  Did you mean 5$, 25$, 125$,... ?
  - maemilius 13y ago
    I think he meant $5 * 2^n
    - mullingitover 13y ago
      Fixed. Math is hard :P
- officemonkey 13y ago
  This. Whenever people talk about Mickey Mouse entering the public domain like it's the end of the world, I point to the Fleischer Studio Superman Cartoons that were made in the 1940s. Those cartoons are in the public domain and people may copy or sell them as much as they want. However, since DC Comics still holds a trademark on Superman, you can't use Superman for anything else. In fact, when I bought a VHS tape of the Superman cartoons back in the 90s, the manufacturer was careful to use an actual Public Domain image of Superman on the box. If they created a new image, the Superman trademark would have applied.
  - pbhjpbhj 13y ago
    >If they created a new image, the Superman trademark would have applied. // Trademarks indicate origins of goods/services. Unless they used the trademark in a way as to convince people that the video originated with DC Comics then they're supposedly fine. It's a notional consideration but after the lapse of a copyright the "man in the street" should be expected to be aware that the copyright has lapsed and so to be able to buy previously restricted works from any company. Images adapted from a PD work then should be allowed, provided there is no effort made to use that image in an otherwise infringing way. Of course you can be sued for anything and DC Comics would most likely enact a very expensive lawsuit - in a sane legal system however they should probably lose, especially if they were attempting to use their trademark to prevent the release of material which would have been copyright infringing before the lapse of the copyright term. If the estate of a creator of a work can use TM law to prevent PD works from being adapated and used then that cancels the deal made in copyright between the state and the creator whereby the works have a presumption of fully entering the public domain. [Does anyone know of any caselaw covering situations where a major element of once copyrighted - but now PD - works is also a valid trademark?]
rmc 13y ago
I think all copyright is treated legally the same, regardless of how much it's used now. That's one of my big problems with current copyright systems.
gabemart 13y ago
I've done quite a bit of work with public domain text. While more flexible copyright terms do have some advantages, it becomes a nightmare to work out whether or not a given text is still in copyright, especially for the large majority of work that falls into obscurity. Copyright covers an enormous range of output. Keeping a central ledger that tracked the copyright status of hundreds of millions of items would be a massive undertaking.

greglindahl 13y ago

One way is to go back to the old US system, whereby you had to actively renew copyrights, and it costs enough that only active authors or publishers will do so. In reality, it was pretty messy, and there's a lot of arguing about whether a magazine copyright that wasn't renewed causes a story published in multiple places to have a lapsed copyright, etc etc. It was also extremely painful to search for renewals until all of the renewal records were digitized by the Project Gutenberg Distributed Proofreaders. Now it's just moderately painful, because you have to be alert for variations in titles and author names.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> Is there a sensible way to extend copyright on "active" IP that is still being used in new content, while allowing copyright to expire on "dormant" IP that has been left untouched for years? Periodic -- say, every 7 years -- renewals with exponentially increasing costs to renew.

AmirS2 13y ago
Why bother with exponentially increasing costs? Even a token fee would ensure that copyright expires on abandoned/orphaned works.
- rmc 13y ago
  You need increasing fees to prevent big business from automatically renewing all the time. Make them think if they want to renew it all. Otherwise they'll decide the just renew it all.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Why bother with exponentially increasing costs? Even a token fee would ensure that copyright expires on abandoned/orphaned works. A token fee would do that for abandoned works, but it wouldn't do it for works which weren't being actively used but which the owner also didn't want others to use -- an escalating fee would be better than a token fee to discourage such buried works.
danielweber 13y ago
The problem is deciding what unit to which you need to apply the renewal costs. A photographer may make hundreds of very creative works a year, while an author may make only one.

mullingitover 13y ago

Disney holds a trademark on Mickey Mouse in perpetuity, so your nostalgia is covered. I'd be happy with a copyright system where the fee is $5 for the first year of government-protected monopoly, $10, for the second, $20 for the third, and on and on at the rate of $5*2^n for as long as they like. Note that at the fifteen-year mark, the renewal fee for another year of copyright enforcement would be over $30 million, which seems appropriate. edit: math

notimetorelax 13y ago
Did you mean 5$, 25$, 125$,... ?
- maemilius 13y ago
  I think he meant $5 * 2^n
  - mullingitover 13y ago
    Fixed. Math is hard :P
officemonkey 13y ago
This. Whenever people talk about Mickey Mouse entering the public domain like it's the end of the world, I point to the Fleischer Studio Superman Cartoons that were made in the 1940s. Those cartoons are in the public domain and people may copy or sell them as much as they want. However, since DC Comics still holds a trademark on Superman, you can't use Superman for anything else. In fact, when I bought a VHS tape of the Superman cartoons back in the 90s, the manufacturer was careful to use an actual Public Domain image of Superman on the box. If they created a new image, the Superman trademark would have applied.
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago
  >If they created a new image, the Superman trademark would have applied. // Trademarks indicate origins of goods/services. Unless they used the trademark in a way as to convince people that the video originated with DC Comics then they're supposedly fine. It's a notional consideration but after the lapse of a copyright the "man in the street" should be expected to be aware that the copyright has lapsed and so to be able to buy previously restricted works from any company. Images adapted from a PD work then should be allowed, provided there is no effort made to use that image in an otherwise infringing way. Of course you can be sued for anything and DC Comics would most likely enact a very expensive lawsuit - in a sane legal system however they should probably lose, especially if they were attempting to use their trademark to prevent the release of material which would have been copyright infringing before the lapse of the copyright term. If the estate of a creator of a work can use TM law to prevent PD works from being adapated and used then that cancels the deal made in copyright between the state and the creator whereby the works have a presumption of fully entering the public domain. [Does anyone know of any caselaw covering situations where a major element of once copyrighted - but now PD - works is also a valid trademark?]

rmc 13y ago

I think all copyright is treated legally the same, regardless of how much it's used now. That's one of my big problems with current copyright systems.

gabemart 13y ago

I've done quite a bit of work with public domain text. While more flexible copyright terms do have some advantages, it becomes a nightmare to work out whether or not a given text is still in copyright, especially for the large majority of work that falls into obscurity. Copyright covers an enormous range of output. Keeping a central ledger that tracked the copyright status of hundreds of millions of items would be a massive undertaking.