Public Domain and the battle of 2019

[SuperFerret]

If you want to touch yourself to my characters having sex with each other and the cast of Star Trek, well... that tells me that I've touched your mind in a profound way, and that's cool, but please stay the hell away from me personally.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

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.

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.

2 parts of this post - one I think I agree with, the other I don't think I do.

I do think registration is the fair compromise here. I would agree that the rights to a property should not be locked up for infinity. But I also don't believe that a property should become fair game the second the creator dies.

I do think that having to re-register the copyright is the proper solution. And for what it's worth, I always thought it was that way. If a person or entity owns the rights to a creative property, they should be able to keep those rights if they so choose.

But yea, if they don't, then it becomes fair game.

But the last part of your post is where I disagree. I don't believe that the intentions of a long dead originator are less important than the creative minds of today. As far as I'm concerned, nobody is -entitled- to the creative property of others. I certainly understand the benefits of adapting and remaking previous work, but I also feel that someone else's work is someone else's work, dead or alive. If you are a creative type, you should be coming up with your own ideas, not latching onto someone else's work and turning it into something it was never intended to be.

As a creator myself, there's nothing that bothers me more than people who have to take someone else's work and put their own "take" on it. It's why I hate reboots in movies, and it's why I have a problem with this public domain discussion. Someone else's work isn't your place for your take. The place for "your take" is with your own works.

 

[Thundercrack85]

All culture is built on top of culture. You give back to the pool you took from.

I understand that people are selfish and let's be honest, at times, a bit greedy, and a little selfishness is healthy. But when you're dead, you're dead. Be glad you're adding something to the pool.

Your own works are a product of your culture, whether you realize it or not.

 

[jmc]

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.

Parody is parody, you can't say in good conscious a porn company making a WW film is in anyway shape or form trying to pass what it's doing as a legit representation of the character. If you don't like it don't watch it.

 

[jmc]

2 parts of this post - one I think I agree with, the other I don't think I do.

I do think registration is the fair compromise here. I would agree that the rights to a property should not be locked up for infinity. But I also don't believe that a property should become fair game the second the creator dies.

I do think that having to re-register the copyright is the proper solution. And for what it's worth, I always thought it was that way. If a person or entity owns the rights to a creative property, they should be able to keep those rights if they so choose.

But yea, if they don't, then it becomes fair game.

But the last part of your post is where I disagree. I don't believe that the intentions of a long dead originator are less important than the creative minds of today. As far as I'm concerned, nobody is -entitled- to the creative property of others. I certainly understand the benefits of adapting and remaking previous work, but I also feel that someone else's work is someone else's work, dead or alive. If you are a creative type, you should be coming up with your own ideas, not latching onto someone else's work and turning it into something it was never intended to be.

As a creator myself, there's nothing that bothers me more than people who have to take someone else's work and put their own "take" on it. It's why I hate reboots in movies, and it's why I have a problem with this public domain discussion. Someone else's work isn't your place for your take. The place for "your take" is with your own works.

It's been part of humanity culture since the dawn of time to 'reboot' things, people reboot stories because people like hearing them. There's no harm in it if the person whose creation it is is no longer with us and the copyright term has expired. I'm a creator too, we can't lock down every creation from here on in and classify it as ours well after our death, we have to give back to the book of arts and culture that many of us ourselves have at some point in our lives taken out of. Nobody, not even my family has the right to dictate what happens to my work after the term has expired because they are my ideas and they can't say in conscious what I would have done. We need reinterpretations of things to be brought to the table in order for stories to live on, and after copyright terms expire no one should dictate when those stories/characters can and can't come out. If you don't want people taking your ideas and doing something with them 100 years after your death then don't present your idea to anyone in the first place. The thing to remember also is that the ones controlling these big name characters are not people, they are corporations, the original owners and their families more often than not have little to no involvement in the process these days.

 

[warhorse78]

The current copyright laws are insane, and legally dubious. Really, it's amazing they haven't been overturned.

Copyright is fine, and logical, but there are (and were) limits. A creator's lifetime, should be that limit.

I hate what the copyright laws are doing to youtube. It's a shame too. Half of the modern songs I know of, I became aware of on youtube thanks to somebody's home made music videos, but now, they are just disappearing and the people are getting their accounts banned and whatnot.

 

[Human Torch]

Parody is parody, you can't say in good conscious a porn company making a WW film is in anyway shape or form trying to pass what it's doing as a legit representation of the character. If you don't like it don't watch it.

There's a difference between taking a humorous shot at a franchise and turning it into an excuse for filth.I don't have to watch it and I shouldn't have to subject my work to it.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

Porn is automatically synonymous with filth? Porn and humor are mutually exclusive?

Are you certain producing a porn parody of your work is turning it into an excuse? Interesting wording.

 

[Human Torch]

I don't get what you're trying to say.

 

[jmc]

There's a difference between taking a humorous shot at a franchise and turning it into an excuse for filth.I don't have to watch it and I shouldn't have to subject my work to it.

Parody isn't just about humour, it's there for imitation, mocking and even commenting on. If you don't like porn that's fine, but you can't ban one particular form of parody just because you don't like it. If you're ok with parody you have to accept all parody even if it's something that you don't like. Why should the law accommodate your likes and dislikes when to someone else a porn parody of their work may be meaningless?

 

[Superwoman Prime]

I don't get what you're trying to say.

Your approach to fair use is so defensive that you should forget publication. The world is too big and scary for your child/book/movie/whatever.

 

[jmc]

Honestly, if people don't want their work in anyway shape or form altered in any form - don't show it to anyone. Keep it to yourself.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

Agreed.

And meanwhile, spare us the displays of disgusting greed and selfishness.

 

[BATZARRO WWD]

Hey. We're all getting away from the heart of the matter.

Freedom of expression vs creators rights. You see, copyright is temporary because it is a (temporary, acceptable) thwarting of freedom of expression. What we should be thinking is if the law as it is now is a correct balance of a an author/owner's right and the right of people to freely express themselves.

It is my opinion that the current law is far too skewed towards owners and creators(but mostly to the benefit of owners). I don't believe authors should get nothing, but I also believe a near century of protection from all but some fair uses is not what it should be. Yes, some people are lazy and some make smut. This should not be the main reason why a snip of a work can't even be used as in youtube clip within near 100 years without fear of litigation. This is no justification why some works should essentially be lost forever.

Reduced duration to at least close to what it was, with required registering every odd decade, would hurt no one. And this is especially true of works whose actual creators are no longer the owners. WB doesn't care what Bob Kane would have liked. Or Siegel and Shuster. Marvel doesn't care what Jack Kirby would have liked. They didn't care when they were alive, and they don't care now. Why should you?

 

[Human Torch]

Your approach to fair use is so defensive that you should forget publication. The world is too big and scary for your child/book/movie/whatever.

I guess that's why I didn't understand,'cause it makes no sense.t:

I said I don't mind parody.I love parody.I grew up a huge Weird Al fan.If he were to poke fun at my stuff,I'd be flattered.Not all parodists are particularly talented,so you take the good with the bad.

Where does that make me defensive? Because I don't want my characters who represent moral values to be used for the smut industry for the purpose of making money for the very people I'm morally opposed to?

 

[Human Torch]

Agreed.

And meanwhile, spare us the displays of disgusting greed and selfishness.

And will you guys spare me the self-righteousness.I'm sure you spend all your earnings from your hard work on "culture building" and not putting food on the table like the rest of us.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Hey. We're all getting away from the heart of the matter.

Freedom of expression vs creators rights. You see, copyright is temporary because it is a (temporary, acceptable) thwarting of freedom of expression. What we should be thinking is if the law as it is now is a correct balance of a an author/owner's right and the right of people to freely express themselves.

It is my opinion that the current law is far too skewed towards owners and creators(but mostly to the benefit of owners). I don't believe authors should get nothing, but I also believe a near century of protection from all but some fair uses is not what it should be. Yes, some people are lazy and some make smut. This should not be the main reason why a snip of a work can't even be used as in youtube clip within near 100 years without fear of litigation. This is no justification why some works should essentially be lost forever.

Reduced duration to at least close to what it was, with required registering every odd decade, would hurt no one. And this is especially true of works whose actual creators are no longer the owners. WB doesn't care what Bob Kane would have liked. Or Siegel and Shuster. Marvel doesn't care what Jack Kirby would have liked. They didn't care when they were alive, and they don't care now. Why should you?

So what IS the point you're making then?

If the point is, less restriction on people sharing copyrighted material, such as YouTube or other places? Sure. I agree. I think punishments are too severe for that as it is, and those laws should be looked at.

If the point is, more opportunity for BATZARRO to make legitimate Batman fiction? Then no. And that's obviously just an example. But if you're going to actually creatively use someone else's work, then you SHOULD have to acquire the rights and not just be entitled to access.

But if it's about sharing a clip from Batman Begins on YouTube, then I would probably agree.

 

[Arach Knight]

Here is the reality for those of you opposed to shortening the length of copyright: therre is no new culture or growth of existing culture if derivative works are stifled by the law. Long before there was copyright, ideas and inventions were simply shared by the public. There was no copyright on Beowulf and no patent on inventions such as the sextant or compass. The very notion of private ownership of ideas is extremely modern. The patent war between Apple and Google (currently being fought as a proxy war against Samsung) highlights the very thing wrong with perpetuating overly long periods of ownership of ideas. Apple is suing over ideas as natural as phones with rounded edges and pinch to zoom.

Without derivative works, culture dies. Consider how many popular properties are derivative of other works, and not in the parody or homage sense.

- Hulk/Dr. Jekyll
- Superman/Hugo Danner and John Carter of Mars
- X-Men/Children of the Atom
- Jumper/The Tomorrow People

If ideas are put on lock down, then it keeps the gate open for people to sue for any idea that bears even a modest resemblance to the prior work. And before someone says that doesn't happen, I not only return attention to the Mutant X/X-Men debacle, but also invoke the Universal v Nintendo case of the 1980s, in which Universal attempted to sue Nintendo because Donkey Kong was too similar to King Kong.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

I guess that's why I didn't understand,'cause it makes no sense.t:

I can think of a second possibility.

 

[jmc]

So what IS the point you're making then?

If the point is, less restriction on people sharing copyrighted material, such as YouTube or other places? Sure. I agree. I think punishments are too severe for that as it is, and those laws should be looked at.

If the point is, more opportunity for BATZARRO to make legitimate Batman fiction? Then no. And that's obviously just an example. But if you're going to actually creatively use someone else's work, then you SHOULD have to acquire the rights and not just be entitled to access.

But if it's about sharing a clip from Batman Begins on YouTube, then I would probably agree.

Batzarro has every right to create legitimate Batman stories once said stories become available for use. Yes you should acquire rights, within the copyright time frame. After that it goes back into the public domain, as it should, as it needs to.

 

[Hal_Jordan]

I think this falls under the same veil of a lot of things that made sense 100, even 30 years ago. The internet and the spread of technology and the written and even visual word has completely changed everything for good or bad.

 

[BATZARRO WWD]

So what IS the point you're making then?

If the point is, less restriction on people sharing copyrighted material, such as YouTube or other places? Sure. I agree. I think punishments are too severe for that as it is, and those laws should be looked at.

If the point is, more opportunity for BATZARRO to make legitimate Batman fiction? Then no. And that's obviously just an example. But if you're going to actually creatively use someone else's work, then you SHOULD have to acquire the rights and not just be entitled to access.

But if it's about sharing a clip from Batman Begins on YouTube, then I would probably agree.

Both. Obviously once it becomes public domain it takes away the ambiguity of what it "unauthorized use." Should maybe copyright not be a means to harass your own fans? Yes, probably, but that's not my point. My point is that it's ridiculous you get to do that, for THIS LONG.

I'm not saying I'm entitled to make my own Pacific Rim stories for money now. I'm saying, we're all entitled to it becoming public domain EVENTUALLY, and maybe 3002 is a little overlong to put it into public domain. I'm saying the first videogames to become public domain will be after my own death when such a thing has no reason to be so. What, you don't believe there is such a thing as excessive copyright durations?

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I don't believe that copyrights are excessive if the owners of said copyrights are registering them and making use of them.

I always thought copyrights were needed to be re-registered to keep them. And I believe that is how it should be.

If I create a comic story, then that story should be mine. If I sell the rights to... Say... Marvel, then it is Marvel's. I have given up control of that story, and Nellman comics no longer need to fill the mold of what Nell2ThaIzzay would have done with them.

On to the next stage, if Marvel then sells the movie rights to, say, Fox, then it is then Fox's property to do with it as they wish.

If Marvel continues making Nellman comics, and re-registers the trademark, then absolutely they should keep copyright of it for as long as they are willing to do so, and as such, BATZARRO nor Nell2ThaIzzay are entitled to making legitimate Nellman stories. Unless, of course, we acquire the rights to do so.

And for the record, Dr. Jeckyll doesn't need to be in the public domain for Hulk to exist.

 

[Human Torch]

I don't believe that copyrights are excessive if the owners of said copyrights are registering them and making use of them.

I always thought copyrights were needed to be re-registered to keep them. And I believe that is how it should be.

If I create a comic story, then that story should be mine. If I sell the rights to... Say... Marvel, then it is Marvel's. I have given up control of that story, and Nellman comics no longer need to fill the mold of what Nell2ThaIzzay would have done with them.

On to the next stage, if Marvel then sells the movie rights to, say, Fox, then it is then Fox's property to do with it as they wish.

If Marvel continues making Nellman comics, and re-registers the trademark, then absolutely they should keep copyright of it for as long as they are willing to do so, and as such, BATZARRO nor Nell2ThaIzzay are entitled to making legitimate Nellman stories. Unless, of course, we acquire the rights to do so.

And for the record, Dr. Jeckyll doesn't need to be in the public domain for Hulk to exist.

[/close thread]

 

[BATZARRO WWD]

But that's just it. Indefinite copyright is even less legal than shorter copyright. Copyright is temporary. If they could change the duration to "as long as im profiting." well they would have. Between succeeding generations and undying corporations it could stretch the duration to infinite.

Maybe you should start a petition. That is what I would do.

And all this for a few big franchises. Most works don't enjoy a century of profitability. A lot not even a year. This works could eventually inspire more people with their enhanced availability by being public domain. These non profitable works will now take 9 decades to lapse. So at least we agree on this point that non profitable works are being held back.