Copyrights

[redmarvel]

I was reading Asimov's Science Fiction magazine's editorial.

Anything published before January 1, 1923 has passed into Public Domain.
Anything published since then you have to wait until 95 years after the item was published or until 70 years after the author has died (whichever is later).

To quote something prior to the date it passed into the Public Domain you need the permission of the author and/or publisher.

I'm not going to go into the rest of the article because I don't want to break the copyright laws, but it's the basis for this poll...

 

[Dangerous]

I think it should differ from subject to case.
You can't just say it should be the same for everything.

 

[maxwell's demon]

other:

Creative Commons

 

[SpiderJerus]

Man, in 15 more years we'll be able to use anything Robert Johnson ever recorded free of charge!!!

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Just like I don't understand why there's a statute of limitations ('cause you're still guilty of the crime, even if you manage to avoid the fuzz for 7 years), I don't understand why copyrights should disappear after a certain ammount of time.

 

[Ronny Shade]

It's gonna be mayhem when Superman and Batman become public domain

 

[maxwell's demon]

Just like I don't understand why there's a statute of limitations ('cause you're still guilty of the crime, even if you manage to avoid the fuzz for 7 years), I don't understand why copyrights should disappear after a certain ammount of time.

because the only reason, the only circumstance, wherein anyone should ever get to retain absolute creative control over any work of art is: if they make it in private and keep it in private.

If they enter the public sphere, especially if they expect renumeration for their creation FROM that public sphere, then they are reliant on that same public sphere and cannot expect to retain absolute control.

you can't have it both ways. that's a recipe for disaster. ESPECIALLY when most of the copyrights are now (And unless the laws change, will increasingly in the future be) held by faceless corporations. not by individual creators.

and corporations are legal persons. and they never die.

 

[redmarvel]

Just like I don't understand why there's a statute of limitations ('cause you're still guilty of the crime, even if you manage to avoid the fuzz for 7 years), I don't understand why copyrights should disappear after a certain ammount of time.

Basically, if you're writing a story you can't have any of your characters quote a current song or even make the Terminator "I'll be back" remark without first getting permission from the owner of the copyright... Which means that your characters are less realistic because they simply CAN'T use the current references we use in everyday conversation. (In the example cited by the Editorial I read, some novelists wanted to quote a song in their book, the first song was by John Lennon, it would have cost them $500 for permission which was half of their advance. So they thought about changing it to a Bowie tune... that would have cost them $1000. They went with a really old song instead)

 

[redmarvel]

It's gonna be mayhem when Superman and Batman become public domain

When Peter Pan was about to enter the public domain, Disney fought it tooth and nail... thankfully they lost.

 

[Ronny Shade]

What about King Kong. There was a big lawsuit with that when Universal wanted to do the remake in the 70s. Something about "it's so popular it needs to be public domain?"

 

[maxwell's demon]

Basically, if you're writing a story you can't have any of your characters quote a current song or even make the Terminator "I'll be back" remark without first getting permission from the owner of the copyright... Which means that your characters are less realistic because they simply CAN'T use the current references we use in everyday conversation. (In the example cited by the Editorial I read, some novelists wanted to quote a song in their book, the first song was by John Lennon, it would have cost them $500 for permission which was half of their advance. So they thought about changing it to a Bowie tune... that would have cost them $1000. They went with a really old song instead)

exactly. and its that sort of hermetic world we're headed towards if copyright law doesnt change, and soon, and drastically. its ridiculous.

You can't expect to be part of the culture and reap the benefits without letting yourself ...be part of the culture (for everyone else).

 

[maxwell's demon]

It's gonna be mayhem when Superman and Batman become public domain

well hell, Marvel and DC already trademarked the WORD "super-hero" and have threatened to sue others who've used it in book titles and the like.

you think they're ever going to truly let those two into the public domain if they can help it?

 

[Erzengel]

I'm going to start copyrighting all my posts so none of you a'holes can use it. ©

 

[maxwell's demon]

.

damnit.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Basically, if you're writing a story you can't have any of your characters quote a current song or even make the Terminator "I'll be back" remark without first getting permission from the owner of the copyright... Which means that your characters are less realistic because they simply CAN'T use the current references we use in everyday conversation.

None of that addresses my question. I don't understand why it's not okay for your character to say "I'll be back." (which is untrue btw, millions of characters say "I'll be back."),.....unless you wait a certain ammount of years, and then suddenly it's A-OK.

But anyway dudes, if I was genius enough to invent a teleporting device, and I sold them for $19.99....I can't believe anyone wouldn't have a problem with someone else buying one, taking it apart, learning how it works, and then producing them and selling them for $15.99...leaving the cool guy who invented a teleporter, after investing (risking) so much time and money to create one, bankrupt.

 

[maxwell's demon]

None of that addresses my question. I don't understand why it's not okay for your character to say "I'll be back." (which is untrue btw, millions of characters say "I'll be back."),.....unless you wait a certain ammount of years, and then suddenly it's A-OK.

But anyway dudes, if I was genius enough to invent a teleporting device, and I sold them for $19.99....I can't believe anyone wouldn't have a problem with someone else buying one, taking it apart, learning how it works, and then producing them and selling them for $15.99...leaving the cool guy who invented a teleporter, after investing (risking) so much time and money to create one, bankrupt.

I can't speak to the particular phrase "i'll be back". But some of redmarvel's other examples illustrate the point.


the point is, YOU created it. And not only that, YOU decided to SHARE that creation with the public sphere. THAT is the point when the absolute control ends. And if YOU died, your heirs should not be allowed to retain 'absolute' control over the creation either.


DO i agree that arbitrary cutoffs are not the answer? yes.

Patents by inventors early on in the century were railroaded by large corporations who were just waiting for them to run out (research the history of Radio and television to see this tactic at work).

SO neither answer (endless copyrights or locked-in cutoff dates) is the "right" answer, because in both cases corporations have already demonstrated the ability to twist the laws to their advantage. same thing with your teleportion example. someone will always be there to take advantage.

It's a difficult subject because the real solution likely cannot be a simple nipe here or tuck there to existing copyright law. it'll take a radical reimagining of how we relate (legally, but socially as well) to the things we create. it involves economics as much as it involves the law.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I can't speak to the particular phrase "i'll be back". But some of redmarvel's other examples illustrate the point.

Lol, Dude, if you're gong to try to describe a world where Disney gets sued if Tim Taylor in "The Santa Clause" is rushing out the door, looks back at his estranged wife and says, "Wait here! I'll be back!" I will chortle audibly.

the point is, YOU created it. And not only that, YOU decided to SHARE that creation with the public sphere. THAT is the point when the absolute control ends. And if YOU died, your heirs should not be allowed to retain 'absolute' control over the creation either.

No, plenty of people create and then decide to SHARE it with the public (pretty much all band's websites now have several free videos.)

Others create and decide to CHARGE the public for enjoying it.
(When I go see "Dungeon Siege", Uwe Boll is not "sharing it with me". He's charging me money to see it, partially to offset the enormous cost of creating it, partially to reward himself for his fine work, via profit. (I know that's a dirty word here, but....)

And as far as I know, Mad magazine can satirize or refer to anything, which is totally different from if I Xeroxed every page of my copy of Stephen King's "The Stand", and then bound it together and sold it at a yard sale.

 

[maxwell's demon]

Lol, Dude, if you're gong to try to describe a world where Disney gets sued if Tim Taylor in "The Santa Clause" is rushing out the door, looks back at his estranged wife and says, "Wait here! I'll be back!" I will chortle audibly.

i thought i pretty clearly stated the opposite?
that i don't know wheter the "i'll be back" phrase is battened down with hatches?
but that the other examples redmarvel pointed out illustrate the point that previously published works CAN be kept our of newly pulbished works, regardless of whether or not they are part of the culture?

No, plenty of people create and then decide to SHARE it with the public (pretty much all band's websites now have several free videos.)

Others create and decide to CHARGE the public for enjoying it.
(When I go see "Dungeon Siege", Uwe Boll is not "sharing it with me". He's charging me money to see it, partially to offset the enormous cost of creating it, partially to reward himself for his fine work, via profit. (I know that's a dirty word here, but....)

And as far as I know, Mad magazine can satirize or refer to anything, which is totally different from if I Xeroxed every page of my copy of Stephen King's "The Stand", and then bound it together and sold it at a yard sale.

well now you're stating cartoonized versions of me argument. i never spoke to the situations you mention and they are not the same as those i mentioned.

As for the difference between sharing and charging, i partially agree, partially disagree. When someone is charging for a work they have just completed, they should obviously be given the lion's share of the credit (economic and otherwise) for said work. but regardless of whether they share or charge for it- once it leaves their head or hands, it is no longer "Theirs" completely.
(Unless we figure ot some way to wipe people memories after the fact...or unless the creator wants to start paying pleased audience members for "Advertising" the work to friends and bringing in new customers.)

once again, you can't have have it both ways. A public work is in the public sphere. The creator SHOULD expect ot retain some control over the work, but he cannot have absoulte control by simply virtue of hte public nature of said work.

have you ever read Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig?

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

No.

Anyway, it's weird...'cause if you're a local cover band, you can play any old Classic Rock song at a bar, even if they pay you. But what you can't do is record a CD of yourselves playing existing songs and sell them. Right?

And the "Happy Birthday" song...restaurant chains can't sing it unless they get clearance, but is the sole reason that the cover band and the millions of families who hire a clown to sing "Happy Birthday" at their child's party don't get into trouble the fact that it's unenforceable number-wise, or is it a legal distinction.

 

[maxwell's demon]

No.

Anyway, it's weird...'cause if you're a local cover band, you can play any old Classic Rock song at a bar, even if they pay you. But what you can't do is record a CD of yourselves playing existing songs and sell them. Right?

not without paying a royalty fee. and even then....

true story: a guy i know is in a joke band. they put out a CD and wanted to do a cover of a RHCP song, but sung as an old jewish spotre owner. they went the legal route, paid the fee, and the RHCP's lawyers still tried to railroad and threaten out of doing it. THi sis a CD that was going to sell about 93 copies. tops.

what you're getting into here is "brand identity " and "protecting brand integrity". and that's wehre...and why...the whole copyright/trademark issue gets so sticky.

And the "Happy Birthday" song...restaurant chains can't sing it unless they get clearance, but is the sole reason that the cover band and the millions of families who hire a clown to sing "Happy Birthday" at their child's party don't get into trouble the fact that it's unenforceable number-wise, or is it a legal distinction.

It IS a legal distinction, but I always figured it was also more numbers-wise. plus, how exactly do you compute the profit? did the restaurant make 100% more profit because they sang the song? 73%? 15%? A large-Coke-and-a -side-of-Fries worth?

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

It's gonna be mayhem when Superman and Batman become public domain

Well,Superman first came out in 1938.When it is the year 2033 it will be 95 years,and it will be 2008 with 70 years.DC`s fight will begin then.

We cant talk about Spider-Man,X-Men,Fantastic Four,Avengers or Thor because Stan Lee is still alive.

 

[The Amazing Lee]

Well, to be honest.....


you can get the rights to the characters. But not the actual stories.

For example Disney own the rights to Mickey Mouse, but not the actual cartoons themselves.

 

[Dew k. Mosi]

When Peter Pan was about to enter the public domain, Disney fought it tooth and nail... thankfully they lost.

Great Ormand St. Hospital for Sick Children in London owns the copyright to Peter Pan until 2007 in the European Union, and they claim it extends to 2023 in the United States, but that is a source of controversy and is widely considered to only cover additions to the story or adaptations after 1978.

 

[Danger Mouse]

Just for the sake of academic comparison, the copyright law in my country stipulates that the author holds the copyright to all of his material throughout his lifetime and shall continue for the next 20 years after his death. Then it goes into public domain.

 

[redmarvel]

Well,Superman first came out in 1938.When it is the year 2033 it will be 95 years,and it will be 2008 with 70 years.DC`s fight will begin then.

We cant talk about Spider-Man,X-Men,Fantastic Four,Avengers or Thor because Stan Lee is still alive.

95 years after the first publishing date or 70 years after the DEATH of the authors, whichever is later... so when did the two creators of Superman die?