3 ms·

I think you have it exactly backwards. A reasonable length copyright (like 10-20 years) would be awesome for culture. You'd see loads more great new comics, car

I think you have it exactly backwards. A reasonable length copyright (like 10-20 years) would be awesome for culture. You'd see loads more great new comics, cartoons, movies, music books all remixing, reworking and drawing inspiration from an renewed and thriving public domain. Advertisers and branding wouldn't find much use for them because they were public domain. They gain value from these things by limiting the use through exclusive deals enabled by copyright.

tptacek 12y ago
He, quite reasonably I think, doesn't want to see loads more Calvin and Hobbes cartoons. Because they won't be created by Bill Watterson. They'll be created by PepsiCo to sell sugar water.
tzs 12y ago
> Advertisers and branding wouldn't find much use for them because they were public domain. They gain value from these things by limiting the use through exclusive deals enabled by copyright That's one way advertisers can gain value from using a character. Exclusivity strengthens the association between the character and the product being advertised. Without exclusivity, many advertising characters probably would indeed be of little value and advertisers would probably not use them. I think, though, that this would mostly apply to characters that were created for advertising, or that were outside characters that were not very significant to the public. If the Michelin Man were used to pitch donuts, for example, I'd find it weird, because I only associate the Michelin Man with Michelin tires. However, for characters that had significant public interest before they were used in advertising, I don't think exclusivity is very important. For instance, Michael Phelps (yes, I know he is a real person, not a character, but that doesn't change the point) has done ads for Subway Sandwiches and for Speedo, and I don't think either diminishes the other.

tptacek 12y ago

He, quite reasonably I think, doesn't want to see loads more Calvin and Hobbes cartoons. Because they won't be created by Bill Watterson. They'll be created by PepsiCo to sell sugar water.

tzs 12y ago

> Advertisers and branding wouldn't find much use for them because they were public domain. They gain value from these things by limiting the use through exclusive deals enabled by copyright That's one way advertisers can gain value from using a character. Exclusivity strengthens the association between the character and the product being advertised. Without exclusivity, many advertising characters probably would indeed be of little value and advertisers would probably not use them. I think, though, that this would mostly apply to characters that were created for advertising, or that were outside characters that were not very significant to the public. If the Michelin Man were used to pitch donuts, for example, I'd find it weird, because I only associate the Michelin Man with Michelin tires. However, for characters that had significant public interest before they were used in advertising, I don't think exclusivity is very important. For instance, Michael Phelps (yes, I know he is a real person, not a character, but that doesn't change the point) has done ads for Subway Sandwiches and for Speedo, and I don't think either diminishes the other.