Public Domain and the battle of 2019

But they would be available. You would just have to pay for the rights to use them. Nobody wants the rights just to have them. If they aren't doing something with the character themselves then I'm sure they would be willing to lease them out but they may want a say in who can use them so they can insure the quality of the project. They may want a quality film about say Wonder Woman to add to the legacy of the character rather than Wonder Woman XXX to degrade the legacy of the character.

There are already a number of pornographic films that have been released under fair use/parody laws. These films are unlicensed yet unchallenged in court. So you are a bit too late to worry about any "degraded legacy."
 
Last edited:
Why would I be against public libraries? That has nothing to do with the public domain.

Which, I am also not against a public domain. I just don't think that a creator's death means it's fair game for every internet "writer" to have free reign at legitimized Batman fan fic.

Nor do I believe that artists are "entitled" to another artists' IP at any point in any way shape or form.


You're kinda off the mark if you think people's arguments are about internet fan fiction. And so what if people want to legitimize their Batman stories? Who's it harming if people want to do a reboot of Detective Comics #27 when it becomes available for use?
 
Examples, please.

The specific example Martin gave:

Most of us laboring in the genres of science fiction and fantasy (but perhaps not Diana Gabaldon, who comes from outside SF and thus may not be familiar with the case I am about to cite) had a lesson in the dangers of permitting fan fiction a couple of decades back, courtesy of Marion Zimmer Bradley. MZB had been an author who not only allowed fan fiction based on her Darkover series, but actively encouraged it... even read and critiqued the stories of her fans. All was happiness and joy, until one day she encountered in one such fan story an idea similar to one she was using in her current Darkover novel-in-progress. MZB wrote to the fan, explained the situation, even offered a token payment and an acknowledgement in the book. The fan replied that she wanted full co-authorship of said book, and half the money, or she would sue. MZB scrapped the novel instead, rather than risk a lawsuit. She also stopped encouraging and reading fan fiction, and wrote an account of this incident for the SFWA FORUM to warn other writers of the potential pitfalls of same.

http://grrm.livejournal.com/151914.html


This is also the reason why while there is the Amazon marketplace for fanfic, the fine print is that anything published there ultimately actually belongs to the property's originator. If they use an idea from the fanfic, the fanfic writer has no legal recourse.
 
Figured that's what you were referencing. That's more an issue of authors involving themselves with those who write fan fiction than whether or not it should exist.
 
http://flavorwire.com/281936/abusing-the-people-of-westeros-famous-authors-on-fan-fiction/9/

Though Stross, author of many science fiction novels and short stories, doesn’t care if anyone writes about his characters, he does care if that practice impinges on his own ability to make a living. He explains, rather eloquently we think, “I am not a precious sparkly unicorn who is obsessed with the purity of his characters — rather, I am a glittery and avaricious dragon who is jealous of his steaming pile of gold. If you do not steal the dragon’s gold, the dragon will leave you alone. Offer to bring the dragon more gold and the dragon will be your friend.”
 
Edit: Irrelevant to discussion.
 
Last edited:
Edit: Nevermind, see above.
 
Last edited:
Certain, and specific rights, and characters should not and should never become public domain.

Plain and simple.

When you arguing that special treatment should be giving to "certain" characters then it's anything but plain and simple.

Who get's to decide who's a special case?
 
So as the company that started it, DC can't do something to renew that trademark and it will for sure fall into public domain? I didn't realize it worked that way. Come the 2040's, wait for all the fanboys campaigning for Batman in the next Avengers film.
 
So as the company that started it, DC can't do something to renew that trademark and it will for sure fall into public domain? I didn't realize it worked that way. Come the 2040's, wait for all the fanboys campaigning for Batman in the next Avengers film.

Captain Batmerica:wow:
 
So as the company that started it, DC can't do something to renew that trademark and it will for sure fall into public domain? I didn't realize it worked that way. Come the 2040's, wait for all the fanboys campaigning for Batman in the next Avengers film.

Now you're getting it. If you don't think Disney will be the first to make Superman stories outside WB, then you just don't know the House of Mouse. I don't know, I'd watch that. :cwink:

Additionally, yes, there are a number of Superheroes that lapsed into the public domain, that any of us may use. But they only lapsed because the law back then wasn't like it is now. You had to re-register every 28 years with a small fee, and sometimes if you didn't put the copyright in there plainly visible, your work would lapse. If the Moongirl had been succesfull enough to bother re-registering it, it wouldn't have ever lapsed. If the law then had been as it is now, it just wouldn't have lapsed. E.C. comics, who published it, later went on to make Mad magazine, and I think either folded, got bought by WB, or both. So no Moongirl for you, even those measly handfull of comics haven't made anyone's heir any money in over half a century.

Public Domain isn't so bad. It's not the worst thing to happen to GEORGE Romero, who's seminal zombie movie Night of the Living Dead lapsed because of lack of copyright indication. Instead of giving up directing forever and curling into a ball, he made more movies in what became a genre and he's fairly well off from that. And we get to live in a world that has Resident Evil, House of the Dead, Zombies ate my Neightborhood, World War Z, Shaun of the Dead, Zombieland etc.
 
Last edited:
Public Domain isn't so bad. It's not the worst thing to happen to John Romero, who's seminal zombie movie Night of the Living Dead lapsed because of lack of copyright indication. Instead of giving up directing forever and curling into a ball, he made more movies in what became a genre and he's fairly well off from that. And we get to live in a world that has Resident Evil, House of the Dead, Zombies ate my Neightborhood, World War Z, Shaun of the Dead, Zombieland etc.

This is what people need to understand. Public domain exists to enrich culture. America is VERY young and honestly has little depth of culture. We have one, but it isn't storied. Other countries have so much culture because long before copyright, most works were legend/folklore/fairy tales. Stories were passed down again and again, told in different ways by different elders.

America has little of this tradition. There are figures like Johnny Appleseed and John Henry, but by and large, our culture is entangled in copyright. The entire purpose behind copyright was to provide a short period of time for creators to monetize their work exclusively, so that creative people would have incentive to introduce new ideas into the public sphere. Greed has since corrupted the original purpose of copyright and has more or less created a stranglehold on access to ideas.

It is bad enough for a company to own a pop culture character into perpetuity, but copyright is now so strict that people sue any one for attempting to create any idea that is deemed too similar. For instance, Marvel licensed the rights to the X-Men to Fox, which included live-action television and film rights. Since that left Marvel unable to produce live action programming about the X-Men, they came up with an all new universe of mutant characters. You may remember the show if you are old enough. It was called "Mutant X." Fox sued Marvel over the production, claiming it was too similar to the X-Men content that Marvel had licensed them (unfair competition). Several years later, Marvel and Fox settled out of court. That is the sort of ridiculousness that comes from copyright.

If copyright has no limit, then the time will come sooner than you think in which the rest of our culture will look like the smartphone wars between Google, Apple and Samsung, in which every person with a stake in the market accuses others of having no right to create their own take on a concept.

Public Domain is what comprises most of the Disney catalog. Public domain is how we got a John Carter/Barsoom live action film (Disney really capitalizes on public domain, which is ironic, because they are the chief opposition to public domain). Public domain is how Joss Whedon was able to take a crack at making his own take on Much Ado about Nothing. Public domain is how we get works like Resident Evil and Underworld (all novel derivatives of prior concepts such as Night of the Living Dead, Dracula and The Wolfman). Public domain is how we can have Thor films from Marvel. Public domain has not cheated any person or corporate entity from generating revenue. However, the lack of public domain does cheat our culture.
 
Last edited:
I vaguely remember Mutant X existing. I did not know it's history. And I agree with what you're saying about the future of culture. It's no coincidence that as of recently companies have started buying everything that's popular. Viacom owns Ninja Turtles and Power Rangers, Disney owns Star Wars and Marvel, and WB owns DC, all the Hanna Barbera cartoons and Looney Tunes. They're looking to buy into videogme companies, now.


They might be realizing that ever more we live in a world where you don't need big money to get creative works out there, anymore. We live in a world you don't need to license Angry Birds to someone else to make money off of it. You don't need to rent a theater or spread dvds to get someone to see your video creations. You don't need to know coding to make a fighting game.

When Wonder Woman becomes public domain, any one of us could get together and make a Wonder Woman animated series for profit, that might get someone that isn't them a bunch of money, regardless of whether they're making said series or not. And this scares them. So off course they only like the idea of copyright lasting 95 years only slightly less than copyright lasting 595 years.

Hell, I'm thinking of making up the content now, and then delay-releasing it when it goes PD. I'll be pushing 50 when the DC heroes go PD, so I'll be my retirement fund. :woot:
 
They won't go PD. Corporations worth billions and billions and billions will see to that.
 
Copyright of some form should certainly exist within creator's lifetimes and for a span after though. While Romero has of course had some opportunities to profit himself, it is kind of ridiculous that Night of the Living Dead is public domain. At the same time though, that status has eased the spread of its influence.
 
They won't go PD. Corporations worth billions and billions and billions will see to that.

Certain aspects do become public domain. Currently, Steam Boat Willie (the first Mickey Mouse cartoon with sound) is public domain. People are free to retell that story or even resell, or host the original video. The old Max Fleischer Superman cartoons are also in the public domain. So even though Superman is still a trademark of Warner Bros., you are free to do whatever you want with the Max Fleischer cartoons.
 
I don't think things should necessarily be locked away for all time,but at the same time,the family (or generally whoever is given the copyright) should have the right of approval to say,"no,this isn't the way George wanted it.You can't have Pirate Captain Joe travel to the Moon." and let them glean a modest profit.

At the same time,you can have people making pornos of your characters while you're still alive.So,I suppose,if anything,I'd prefer to have my characters protected from filth while I'm alive,rather than worry about what may happen 70 years after I'm dead.Those are changes that definitely need to be made.
 
Certain aspects do become public domain. Currently, Steam Boat Willie (the first Mickey Mouse cartoon with sound) is public domain.

I'm pretty sure it's not. It's not what Wikipedia says anyway.

Once the first appearance off a character becomes public domain, the character itself becomes fair game. However, if a subsequent work became public domain first, such as the aforementioned Superman cartoons, the character is still copyrighted, because the second work is a derivative of the first, in this case his first appearance in Action Comics.

If Steamboat Willie was PD, anything from that becomes public domain as well to use reuse remix or whatever. If Steamboat Willie was public domain, Mickey's public domain. And we'd probably not be here talking about all this.
 
Now you're getting it. If you don't think Disney will be the first to make Superman stories outside WB, then you just don't know the House of Mouse. I don't know, I'd watch that. :cwink:
No, Disney won't make a Superman film outside of Warner Bros. Even though these companies are competing against each other, they don't actively work to sour relations with one another and often find ways to work together to improve profitability such as Disney's deal with Paramount over the Indiana Jones IP. Or Sony showing a clip of X-Men: Days of Future Past at the end of Amazing Spider-Man 2.
 
No, Disney won't make a Superman film outside of Warner Bros. Even though these companies are competing against each other, they don't actively work to sour relations with one another and often find ways to work together to improve profitability such as Disney's deal with Paramount over the Indiana Jones IP. Or Sony showing a clip of X-Men: Days of Future Past at the end of Amazing Spider-Man 2.

Explain dueling Hercules films, dueling Snow White films, perennial dueling Sherlock Holmes projects, Batman vs. Superman and Captain America 3 announcing the same date etc.
 
I don't think things should necessarily be locked away for all time,but at the same time,the family (or generally whoever is given the copyright) should have the right of approval to say,"no,this isn't the way George wanted it.You can't have Pirate Captain Joe travel to the Moon." and let them glean a modest profit.

At the same time,you can have people making pornos of your characters while you're still alive.So,I suppose,if anything,I'd prefer to have my characters protected from filth while I'm alive,rather than worry about what may happen 70 years after I'm dead.Those are changes that definitely need to be made.

How long is long enough for the family? One generation? 2? 3? A grandchild isn't likely to have known what grandpa or grandma would or wouldn't have done with a character they created, even a child might not have known what their parents intended with a character. The family have the right to inherit whatever wealth associated with the character within the copyright timeframe, that's about it. The porno thing falls under parody and can't be touched as it should be, parody is an important aspect that needs protection.
 
How long is long enough for the family? One generation? 2? 3? A grandchild isn't likely to have known what grandpa or grandma would or wouldn't have done with a character they created, even a child might not have known what their parents intended with a character. The family have the right to inherit whatever wealth associated with the character within the copyright timeframe, that's about it. The porno thing falls under parody and can't be touched as it should be, parody is an important aspect that needs protection.

There should be a difference between parody and porn.I'm all for parody.I'm not against people poking fun at my characters.It's a far cry from using them to promote smut.
 
How long is long enough for the family? One generation? 2? 3? A grandchild isn't likely to have known what grandpa or grandma would or wouldn't have done with a character they created, even a child might not have known what their parents intended with a character. The family have the right to inherit whatever wealth associated with the character within the copyright timeframe, that's about it. The porno thing falls under parody and can't be touched as it should be, parody is an important aspect that needs protection.

That's kind of what it is. 75 years after death for humans, 95 years for corporate owned works. I guess until they figure corporations are people and them a death + years deal, too.:whatever:

Again, if works had to be registered, it wouldn't get so bad, because maybe those works that don't make the heirs money in the first 20 years could lapse. Those heirs who ARE making money will reasonably re-register. Whose who aren't, or simply don't exist obviously won't. Most works used to lapse that way, because people wheren't even making money and maybe didn't even know that Grampa had made a book, and so it fell through. I could stand it being the authors death + x years, if these lesser successful works AT LEAST lapsed.

Again, copyright is meant to temporarilly stop undue profiting during your lifetime. Not keep everyone from legaly drawing your character in a thong decades after your death. So maybe the Wiz might suck, and Frank Baum wouldn't have loved it, to say an example. Big deal. The will of a ghost is a lesser priority compared to freedom of expression and creativity.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,267
Messages
22,076,336
Members
45,875
Latest member
Pducklila
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"