3 ms·

Why should I on the death of an author be able to reproduce their work and sell it? Why should that be the case after 28 years or 75 years after the death of t

Why should I on the death of an author be able to reproduce their work and sell it? Why should that be the case after 28 years or 75 years after the death of the creator be able to take their work and profit from it? >So if you were an author, you would not write a book because royalties would cease coming in to your grandchildren X years after your death? The chilling effect on work is not a result of the author, but the company who pays for the work that allows the author to work on the book for years. Why would a company give advance an author, spend money promoting/printing/distributing a book if they can not make royalties on it x years after the author dies? >People and companies should be able to "own" their ideas for a reasonable period of time. You tell me what is a reasonable time? 28 years, 28 years + 28 years, life time of the creator, lifetime +75 years? >Allowing companies to own the Mickey Mouse story in the year 2213 does nothing to promote that. What purpose does that serve? That serves the purpose of Disney spending billions on theme parks to further develop the brand, to further invest in their brand, establish their brand all over the world which creates jobs fueling the global economy. That is less likely if their work can be diluted by any joe schmo creating independent subpar works creating confusion in the market place in terms of origin.

cafard 13y ago
Copyright has always been for a limited term. Defining that limited term is a political judgment call, and I believe that the judgment is at this point wrong, erring in favor of unduly long copyright. It is a safe bet that any book of 1957 still remembered (definitely Atlas Shrugged and On the Road, believe it or not The Anatomy of Criticism, probably not some of the others) has long since paid back the publisher's investment beyond expectations.
aestra 13y ago
It isn't just about "stealing." Allowing works to enter the public domain actually encourages more works to be created. People are free to remake and remix works in the public domain. Think: A REAL lot of old Disney movies (Alice and Wonderland, Jungle Book, Pinocchio...) Pride and Prejudice with Zombies That Romeo and Juliet movie with Leonardo DiCaprio and guns. A Christmas Carol in play form (it lends itself really well to live theater, I suggest seeing it!) West Side Story (inspired by Romeo and Juliet) Clueless (based on Jane Austen's 1815 novel Emma) The anime/manga Lupin III was inspired by the French gentleman thief Arsène Lupin, created by Maurice Leblanc. Japan didn't enforce copyright at the time of its creation but the Leblanc estate got mad once Lupin started being sold in North America. Some foreign releases changed his name as a result. In 2012, Leblanc's original Arsène Lupin entered the public domain in France See this video for a different perspective: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4 Also read the copyright clause in the Constitution! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the United States Congress: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" is the goal and purpose of copyright, as written by the founding fathers, not "financially benefit" especially not forever.
- will_brown 13y ago
  Your post is very helpful because of the examples. Lets take the Disney example. Lets assume the non-disney original Snow White had a Copyright and was not in the public domain. That does not mean Disney's version violates the copyright, it is very likely there was enough change in Disney's version from the original that Disney would not be found to infringe. Pride and Prejudice with Zombies: Assuming the creator of Pride and Prejudice had a valid copyright, without being familiar with either work I can almost guarantee this would not be Copyright infringement because it would be valid under the satirical exemption to Copyright infringement. The Clueless and West Side Story examples are more difficult because I am not familiar with the works and the verbiage "inspired by" "based on" is all I am going off of. But this was my whole point regarding the OP that there is an assumption of copyright infringement. Just because a work is "inspired by" or "based on" does legally mean there is infringement. These individual examples would need to be analyzed on a case by case basis to determine if they violate copyright law or not. All I advocate for is extension of the term of a copyright not an expansion of the right itself. In which case I would argue most of your examples would not rely on the underlying works being in the public domain, because they were changed enough to not constitute infringement as opposed to say a 1 on 1 copy of the original work.
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    Are you willing to put you interpretation of copyright to the test? Why don't you write a modern retelling of Cinderella based on Disney's version and see how far you get. Next try a remix between Cinderella, Harry Potter, and the leaked Windows source code and see what happens.
    - will_brown 13y ago
      With a quick search I found 37 different film versions of Cinderella, I did not look at them individually to confirm, but it would be safe to say Disney did not create 37 versions of Cinderella. So a serious derivative work can be made that does not violate any Disney copyright, but I can certainly say I could create a zombie themed Cinderella that would fall under satire and not constitute a infringement. I should also note that I am an attorney, and have handled both trademark and copyright infringement cases (for plaintiffs and defendants). That is in addition to successfully registering both and in some cases over objections of the examining USPTO attorney or third parties. Edit: I don't know why I am being down voted but in the instance it sounds like I am saying I must be right bc I'm an attorney, I am the first to acknowledge disagreement between practitioners, jurisdictions, and Judge's/justices. For what its worth I noted it as a sign of good faith that I am not blowing smoke of my interpretation of copyright law
logfromblammo 13y ago
I think that the reasonable upper boundary one can place upon encouraging an artist to create new works is the death of the artist. To my knowledge, people simply do not go on creating things after they have died. But since that might create a perverse incentive to murder artists or to name one's children as co-creators, it would be better to apply a fixed term instead--one well within the natural lifespan of a human. An automatic 20 years, renewable for additional 10 year intervals only as long as the primary author still lives and holds the copyrights--that seems reasonable. Works-for-hire would thus be a fixed 20 years with no possible renewal. In contrast, patronage could be worth more to the patron in the long run, so long as the author remains satisfied. Under such a system, I imagine it would be typical for novices to create works for hire for some time to build reputation, then graduate to patronage in exchange for exclusive licensing terms, and then finally move on to complete self-management, where the fanbase is able to fully support the artist.
- will_brown 13y ago
  >I think that the reasonable upper boundary one can place upon encouraging an artist to create new works is the death of the artist. To my knowledge, people simply do not go on creating things after they have died. I will use funny examples here just to illustrate a point. Biggie Smalls has generated more money from his work after his death than during his lifetime. 2-Pac has published more music after his death than during his life time (obviously the music was recorded but not released). There are many examples of painters who's work only became famous after their death. It is my belief their work should not lose protection and be entered in the public domain because of their death. People can still make derivative works so long as they do not infringe, but 1 to 1 copying would, and what I argue is should, be protected. As it relates to work with greater investment, $200M+ movies for example, yes I believe (and I think what most people do not agree with me about) is those would disappear if they entered public domain after 20 years (using your term as an example).
Spooky23 13y ago
> Why should I on the death of an author be able to reproduce their work and sell it? Why should that be the case after 28 years or 75 years after the death of the creator be able to take their work and profit from it? Because information truly wants to be free, and should be. Copyright is a legal construct that exists to make it financially viable to create. Creation and innovation drives society forward. > The chilling effect on work is not a result of the author, but the company who pays for the work that allows the author to work on the book for years. Why would a company give advance an author, spend money promoting/printing/distributing a book if they can not make royalties on it x years after the author dies? They do already. There are 220,000 books published in the United States annually. What fraction will still be in print in a decade? 50 years? 100? > That serves the purpose of Disney spending billions on theme parks to further develop the brand, to further invest in their brand, establish their brand all over the world which creates jobs fueling the global economy. Letting works slide into the public domain doesn't prevent that. Disney still retains the ability to evolve the story (ie. create). Let Mickey and Minnie have kids, and make that part of the Mickey Mouse canon. Two hundred years from now, Disney can and should evolve their brand, including their theme parks.
zobzu 13y ago
youre confusing brand (trademark) and public domain here. personally i think theres no such thing as IP and lifetime+0 is plenty nice enough. using you principle we should probably pay fees just to write words, thats if IP had been a thing 3000y ago.

cafard 13y ago

Copyright has always been for a limited term. Defining that limited term is a political judgment call, and I believe that the judgment is at this point wrong, erring in favor of unduly long copyright. It is a safe bet that any book of 1957 still remembered (definitely Atlas Shrugged and On the Road, believe it or not The Anatomy of Criticism, probably not some of the others) has long since paid back the publisher's investment beyond expectations.

aestra 13y ago

It isn't just about "stealing." Allowing works to enter the public domain actually encourages more works to be created. People are free to remake and remix works in the public domain. Think: A REAL lot of old Disney movies (Alice and Wonderland, Jungle Book, Pinocchio...) Pride and Prejudice with Zombies That Romeo and Juliet movie with Leonardo DiCaprio and guns. A Christmas Carol in play form (it lends itself really well to live theater, I suggest seeing it!) West Side Story (inspired by Romeo and Juliet) Clueless (based on Jane Austen's 1815 novel Emma) The anime/manga Lupin III was inspired by the French gentleman thief Arsène Lupin, created by Maurice Leblanc. Japan didn't enforce copyright at the time of its creation but the Leblanc estate got mad once Lupin started being sold in North America. Some foreign releases changed his name as a result. In 2012, Leblanc's original Arsène Lupin entered the public domain in France See this video for a different perspective: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4 Also read the copyright clause in the Constitution! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the United States Congress: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" is the goal and purpose of copyright, as written by the founding fathers, not "financially benefit" especially not forever.

will_brown 13y ago
Your post is very helpful because of the examples. Lets take the Disney example. Lets assume the non-disney original Snow White had a Copyright and was not in the public domain. That does not mean Disney's version violates the copyright, it is very likely there was enough change in Disney's version from the original that Disney would not be found to infringe. Pride and Prejudice with Zombies: Assuming the creator of Pride and Prejudice had a valid copyright, without being familiar with either work I can almost guarantee this would not be Copyright infringement because it would be valid under the satirical exemption to Copyright infringement. The Clueless and West Side Story examples are more difficult because I am not familiar with the works and the verbiage "inspired by" "based on" is all I am going off of. But this was my whole point regarding the OP that there is an assumption of copyright infringement. Just because a work is "inspired by" or "based on" does legally mean there is infringement. These individual examples would need to be analyzed on a case by case basis to determine if they violate copyright law or not. All I advocate for is extension of the term of a copyright not an expansion of the right itself. In which case I would argue most of your examples would not rely on the underlying works being in the public domain, because they were changed enough to not constitute infringement as opposed to say a 1 on 1 copy of the original work.
- nitrogen 13y ago
  Are you willing to put you interpretation of copyright to the test? Why don't you write a modern retelling of Cinderella based on Disney's version and see how far you get. Next try a remix between Cinderella, Harry Potter, and the leaked Windows source code and see what happens.
  - will_brown 13y ago
    With a quick search I found 37 different film versions of Cinderella, I did not look at them individually to confirm, but it would be safe to say Disney did not create 37 versions of Cinderella. So a serious derivative work can be made that does not violate any Disney copyright, but I can certainly say I could create a zombie themed Cinderella that would fall under satire and not constitute a infringement. I should also note that I am an attorney, and have handled both trademark and copyright infringement cases (for plaintiffs and defendants). That is in addition to successfully registering both and in some cases over objections of the examining USPTO attorney or third parties. Edit: I don't know why I am being down voted but in the instance it sounds like I am saying I must be right bc I'm an attorney, I am the first to acknowledge disagreement between practitioners, jurisdictions, and Judge's/justices. For what its worth I noted it as a sign of good faith that I am not blowing smoke of my interpretation of copyright law

logfromblammo 13y ago

I think that the reasonable upper boundary one can place upon encouraging an artist to create new works is the death of the artist. To my knowledge, people simply do not go on creating things after they have died. But since that might create a perverse incentive to murder artists or to name one's children as co-creators, it would be better to apply a fixed term instead--one well within the natural lifespan of a human. An automatic 20 years, renewable for additional 10 year intervals only as long as the primary author still lives and holds the copyrights--that seems reasonable. Works-for-hire would thus be a fixed 20 years with no possible renewal. In contrast, patronage could be worth more to the patron in the long run, so long as the author remains satisfied. Under such a system, I imagine it would be typical for novices to create works for hire for some time to build reputation, then graduate to patronage in exchange for exclusive licensing terms, and then finally move on to complete self-management, where the fanbase is able to fully support the artist.

will_brown 13y ago
>I think that the reasonable upper boundary one can place upon encouraging an artist to create new works is the death of the artist. To my knowledge, people simply do not go on creating things after they have died. I will use funny examples here just to illustrate a point. Biggie Smalls has generated more money from his work after his death than during his lifetime. 2-Pac has published more music after his death than during his life time (obviously the music was recorded but not released). There are many examples of painters who's work only became famous after their death. It is my belief their work should not lose protection and be entered in the public domain because of their death. People can still make derivative works so long as they do not infringe, but 1 to 1 copying would, and what I argue is should, be protected. As it relates to work with greater investment, $200M+ movies for example, yes I believe (and I think what most people do not agree with me about) is those would disappear if they entered public domain after 20 years (using your term as an example).

Spooky23 13y ago

> Why should I on the death of an author be able to reproduce their work and sell it? Why should that be the case after 28 years or 75 years after the death of the creator be able to take their work and profit from it? Because information truly wants to be free, and should be. Copyright is a legal construct that exists to make it financially viable to create. Creation and innovation drives society forward. > The chilling effect on work is not a result of the author, but the company who pays for the work that allows the author to work on the book for years. Why would a company give advance an author, spend money promoting/printing/distributing a book if they can not make royalties on it x years after the author dies? They do already. There are 220,000 books published in the United States annually. What fraction will still be in print in a decade? 50 years? 100? > That serves the purpose of Disney spending billions on theme parks to further develop the brand, to further invest in their brand, establish their brand all over the world which creates jobs fueling the global economy. Letting works slide into the public domain doesn't prevent that. Disney still retains the ability to evolve the story (ie. create). Let Mickey and Minnie have kids, and make that part of the Mickey Mouse canon. Two hundred years from now, Disney can and should evolve their brand, including their theme parks.

zobzu 13y ago

youre confusing brand (trademark) and public domain here. personally i think theres no such thing as IP and lifetime+0 is plenty nice enough. using you principle we should probably pay fees just to write words, thats if IP had been a thing 3000y ago.