No no no, that means each bill takes up more space, so there's less money in the bag of money.
[News] Lawsuit: Warner does NOT own "Happy Birthday to You"
- Thread starter DarkAudit
- Start date
GasBandit
Staff member
If you're not actively writing/producing comics for your previous webcomics anymore, why shouldn't somebody else be able to write more of it 7 years after you stop?
I know this is a sore subject for the "content creator" types, but when I stop working on a job, I stop getting paid for it. I'm not grasping why a company I custom built a computer for 7 years ago should still be paying me (even assuming they're still using it).
I think my only real argument is that sometimes, things like books or comics don't necessarily get 'discovered' until they've been around for some time, especially in our modern age where there is so much content available. I could easily see something going into the public domain just as people start talking about it and thus the content creator losing it right when it becomes popular.
Maybe a good example would be when a song is used in a movie. Prior to the movie, no one has heard of the artist. After the movie, everyone wants the song, looks into the album, etc.
Just seems a bit off to me.
Maybe a good example would be when a song is used in a movie. Prior to the movie, no one has heard of the artist. After the movie, everyone wants the song, looks into the album, etc.
Just seems a bit off to me.
Don't care! I want dillos raining down on my head!
And wow, that sounds really wrong if you read it too fast.
Zappit
Staff member
What if, as the content creator, I feel the work is "done"? Finished. Why should someone else then be able to come along after only a few years, take those characters and ideas, and then profit from them? Why shouldn't they have to come up with their own ideas?
If someone made a parody or a satirical take on my work, fine. That's Fair Use. My first comic had a definite ending. It's not meant to have someone come along and start doing their own stories with those characters. Come up with your own damn stuff.
What a seven year period does is empower movie studios, book publishers, and other media outlets to get material for free. They can wait until a work has been done for seven years, take it and produce something that could generate a tremendous sum of money, and not owe the creator a dime. We already see how Hollywood rips off small creators who do not have the financial resources to do big things with their creations. Why give those entities another legal avenue to grab up material for nothing? All they'd have to do is tweak things just a little bit.
Let's look at an example. Say, ThatNickGuy's book series wraps up. Nick doesn't have the cash to finance a film, and the studios he pitches it to aren't biting. The seven year period ends, and oh...wouldn't you know it? Disney orders Pixar to produce a movie featuring an armadillo detective named Dill. It follows the same story Nick wrote, cleaned up more for the kiddos, and because it's Pixar, it's a hit, and sequels follow. Nick gets nothing. No royalties, no money for the rights despite pitching it to both Disney and Pixar. All Disney had to do was wait a few years to avoid paying out to the creator. That seem fair? Meanwhile, Nick feels to terrible that even his prom looks good compared to this.
fade
Staff member
I'm really of two minds about this. On the one hand, the world would benefit from openness (though it seems a bit arbitrary to limit that openness to the one thing out of all nouns that people could truly call their own). On the other (spoken from a creator of both technical and artistic content), the value of IP isn't in its creation, but in its transference. That happens every time someone new picks up my work. A derivative work leverages that value.
figmentPez
Staff member
I disagree. Recognized authors/creators would have competition for their works. Studios are going to compete to produce a movie of the next work from J.K. Rowling. She can force a sale of her movie rights within 7 years, and most likely do it on terms that are favorable to her. On the other hand @ThatNickGuy isn't recognized. If a movie studio decides that Dill would make a great movie... Well, they just have to wait around 7 years and then not pay him anything. Unless Nick can get two or more studios willing to fight over who gets to pay for Dill rather than wait 7 years, then Nick gets nothing.
I am curious why those arguing for a severely shortened copyright term want it? What is the gain beyond it's not fair that they hold the copyright for so long? Do you want to make your own Hunger Games story but don't want to bother to come up with a plot and characters of your own so you'd rather use Katniss since everyone loves her and you don't want to do the work to make your own character? How is copyright law affecting non-creators negatively?
I am truly curious as to why this is even a conversation.
I am truly curious as to why this is even a conversation.
The idea is that there's a societal benefit to allow freer use of copyright. Using Hunger Games as an example, it's possible that an even better version of Hunger Games is released as a result and we as a whole benefit from this expansion of knowledge.
GasBandit
Staff member
Have you read Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality? Were it not for the fact that JK Rowling has given it her blessing, that frankly incredibly well written and engaging work would be in violation of copyright. Yes there is a veritable ocean of bad Harry Potter fanfiction out there, but the market of ideas and attention sorts the wheat from the chaff fairly handily. I wish Less Wrong could make money from his "fanfic," but that would obviously cross the legal line and make JKR (or at the very least, her publisher) come down on him like a ton of brick-toting lawyers. As it is, it skirts a line because LW often uses the place where he publishes HPMOR chapters as he writes them to pimp the foundation he works for and solicit donations. But worse, because he has to have a "real job," HPMOR gets written incredibly slowly. There are entire spans of months where he goes without writing anything because his job keeps him too busy. A shorter copyright duration would make the Less Wrongs of the world, who have good stories to tell that people want to read, actually able to make money telling those stories.
figmentPez
Staff member
Wicked
10 Things I Hate About You
BBC's Sherlock (and House M.D.)
Abbot & Costello Meet Frankenstein
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies
West Side Story
Pretty much every animated Disney movie ever
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
Need I go on?
Consider that last one, and then look at this concept, and ask if the world should be forced to wait indefinitely before that becomes a feasible possibility. The reason the comic book was possible is that Allan Quartermain, Captain Nemo, Dr. Jekyll, The Invisible Man, etc. are all in the public domain. People are free to take them and put them all in the same world, and have them fight evil. That is the purpose of limited copyright, to allow derivative works to be created and explore the possibilities of what ideas can be when combined freely with other ideas.
While I don't agree that 7 years is appropriate, the current Disney-fied version of copyright law (which is, in effect, for the indefinite future) is much too long. Culture is enriched by derivative works, and the ability to reexamine cultural icons. It's important to be able to freely insert zombies into a period romance, without having to parody that romance in order to claim free speech.
Loophole. Every big budget movie would get a Star Wars style special edition every 6 1/2 years just to stay in copyright.
Although this "new installment every 7 years or lose copyright" might be enough to get GRRM to actually start writing ASoIaF again...
GasBandit
Staff member
That alone might be worth it.
But in all seriousness, it's not really a loophole. A daily or weekly comic strip differs fundamentally from a book or movie, much the same as a TV series would. Now, if we got an actual star wars movie (not just a special edition/remastering but a new feature film) every 6 and a half years... bully for Disney, bully for moviegoers, the moneymakers are making money and the public is getting regular product.
No, where the real sticky wicket is, is in overlapping IPs like Marvel comics'. Even without tackling the whole thing about comic publishing rights being treated as separate from movie rights (which is why no spider-man or x-men in avengers movies' universe), how do overlapping properties such as the Avengers figure in? Iron Man movies vs Avengers? Or, say, the teaser for Scarlet Witch at the end of Cap2, does that start the clock running? It's a tangled web to unravel.
Zappit
Staff member
And each of those came out after the original authors passed. Derivative works have a place, and they can connect the present to those past works and themes. What would happen with a severely shortened copyright period? Derivative works would flood the market much sooner. Would Frankenstein have had such an impact if it simply got lost in the shuffle, considered part of some fad genre? Would it just be some zombie book? Part of the reason works become so memorable, so beloved, is that they're given time to stand on their own, and to not be defined by someone else so quickly. Think of the original black and white Frankenstein film. Lightning bolts, Igor, and pitchforks and torches. Was the book like that? No. Was it better than the book? That's subjective, but probably not. But that's what most people think of when they think of Frankenstein.
I'd hate to see that pattern. A great work defined by some flashy, dumbed down Hollywood version that would come out less than a decade after the original work was published. Let the creator define their creation during their lifetime. Give them the long-term option to sell it if they choose to.
Okay, haven't read the Harry Potter derivative work you mention but it's clear that without Rowling having created the world of Harry Potter to begin with, the author wouldn't have had a story. Why shouldn't she have control over the world and characters she created and have final say about what can be done with them? Besides, if that author truly has talent, they will create a story of their own and then they will own the rights to it the same way Rowling owns the rights to hers. Kudos to her for letting the story continue without involving lawyers but that is her right as the copyright holder.
All the titles that Pez lists were in public domain when they were written so I assume you are saying if they hadn't been in public domain we would have never gotten those stories told in that way. But I counter with who knows what stories we would have gotten instead, if those same creators had been forced to come up with all their own material rather that riding on what came before.
It is without a doubt shameful how some Corporations abuse copyright law ( and patent law but that is another problem) but I don't think that means we should take away the rights of all creators to own their creations and make money on them in their lifetime. I think looking at how those companies are abusing the system and fixing that would be better rather than saying I want the length of copyright changed to an arbitrary shortened time period so I can watch a derivative work of 80 iconic characters as a super-team. We already get so much recycled material in the entertainment business, this would make that worse not better.
In terms of societal benefit..... are you shitting me? So what we are saying that because some story based on a beloved book could be better that the original, we should strip the original author of their copyright in order to get it made? That is ridiculous. Is the creator's lifetime plus 70 years too much time for a copyright to be held? Maybe, but reducing it down to 7 years is a joke.
All the titles that Pez lists were in public domain when they were written so I assume you are saying if they hadn't been in public domain we would have never gotten those stories told in that way. But I counter with who knows what stories we would have gotten instead, if those same creators had been forced to come up with all their own material rather that riding on what came before.
It is without a doubt shameful how some Corporations abuse copyright law ( and patent law but that is another problem) but I don't think that means we should take away the rights of all creators to own their creations and make money on them in their lifetime. I think looking at how those companies are abusing the system and fixing that would be better rather than saying I want the length of copyright changed to an arbitrary shortened time period so I can watch a derivative work of 80 iconic characters as a super-team. We already get so much recycled material in the entertainment business, this would make that worse not better.
In terms of societal benefit..... are you shitting me? So what we are saying that because some story based on a beloved book could be better that the original, we should strip the original author of their copyright in order to get it made? That is ridiculous. Is the creator's lifetime plus 70 years too much time for a copyright to be held? Maybe, but reducing it down to 7 years is a joke.
GasBandit
Staff member
If she's not doing anything with them, why should she be able to stop anyone else from doing so for the rest of her life, plus howevermuch?
Imagine how much it would have hurt the automobile market, consumers worldwide, and technological progress in general if Daimler and Benz had decided to stop making gasoline engines in 1890 but were able to prevent anyone else from doing so for as long as they lived (1929).
Because she created the work. If someone wants to make a derivative work on her copyright they can ask for permission.
I imagine we might have been forced to come up with a better engine, one that ran on electricity maybe?
GasBandit
Staff member
Why should they have to? If JK Rowling doesn't so much as speak or write the name "Harry" in 10 years (or to use Stienman's compromise, 30 years), still nobody else can make a derivative work without her permission why?
So the 19th century should have just spontaneously developed technology we're barely getting a handle on here in the 21st, and without the stepping-stone benefit of what is - by far - the most efficient energy delivery method per volume of fuel in recorded human history?
Boy, I hope you weren't too attached to the concept of powered flight, either.
No, I was being silly but so was the supposition that you made. Can you give me an example of copyright causing as much chaos as your example with the engine? Because I agree that your example would be problematic for the future of the automobile. How is a young author not getting to write their own take on Harry Potter going to make things hard for the future?
Zappit
Staff member
Copyright law sucks right now, but not because of the length of time a copyright can be enforced. Look at Ted. There's a webcomic called Imagine This. Same concept and tone. Looks like the movie could have ripped that off. Pretty likely it did. But can the creator, Lucas Turnbloom, afford to defend his copyright in court? Nope. So Ted succeeds, and gets a sequel. Take the Saranormal book series. The creator of the comic Tara Normal went to Simon and Schuster to try to get a publishing deal. S&S passed, and not long after that, they put out a book series that stands as one of the most blatant rip-offs ever seen. Tara Normal's creator can't afford a prolonged court case, either.
You want to change it? Why not change it to give the small-time creators a real chance to defend their copyrights? Because as things stand now, they can't afford to when a wealthy media entity can simply drown them out in court costs to make them go away, and that's not right.
You want to change it? Why not change it to give the small-time creators a real chance to defend their copyrights? Because as things stand now, they can't afford to when a wealthy media entity can simply drown them out in court costs to make them go away, and that's not right.
Absolutely this.
Zappit
Staff member
I honestly think life plus twenty would work best. Let's say Supervillainous becomes a hit for me. I make a very good living off the comic, selling books, merchandise, and maybe even an animated special. If I get hit by a car and die, the copyright ends. Then Dreamworks swoops in and makes a Supervillainous movie. I know I want my family to be taken care of, and my creation shouldn't be up for grabs after I go, especially if SV's been a major source - perhaps the primary source - of income for the household. I don't want it to last for generations. I just want my loved ones taken care of, and if my work can do that, then that's what I want.
Different risk/reward structure. Apples to oranges. A more apt comparison would be a lawyer in comparison to Joe Hill. Lifetime earnings are similar, but distributed over different time frames
GasBandit
Staff member
It genuinely took me a few minutes to realize you weren't talking about an executed pro-union folk singer.
figmentPez
Staff member
But your assets don't just become worthless the second you die, either. Any capital you own, land, machinery, computers, etc. all retains it's value and can be passed on to your heirs. Your property remains your property, and can continue to earn money for your family. Just because your job won't pay your family after you're dead, doesn't mean the car you own stops running.
It's hard to make an exact comparison between physical and non-physical property, but completley throwing out the idea of intellectual property as property isn't the solution to that. (It also doesn't take into account what to do in the situation of a work that's only published after an author's death. Should Zappit's widow be unable to earn income on unpublished works, just because the author isn't alive to publish them?)
GasBandit
Staff member
Do cartoonists not have property, a bank account, a car, a house? It seems the difference here is that a "creator" expects his revenue stream to continue post mortem in a fashion that someone in any other industry would be laughed at for suggesting.
I didn't say throw out the idea of intellectual property altogether, I just said the length of the copyright should be 7 years. Though, if that economist MD linked says the ideal length is 14 years, I'd be willing to defer to his judgement.
figmentPez
Staff member
Doesn't someone who owns a printing press have other property? Why should their business assets be excluded? Should an apple orchard be forfeit and the farmer's heirs be unable to profit from the fruit, just because most people's jobs don't involve a significant investment in capital?
You're mixing arguments here. Saying that copyright should be a flat seven years is tremendously different than saying that copyright should stop at death. If you want to argue that copyright should not be connected to the lifespan of the creator at all, you're going to have to stop arguing that copyright reverts to public domain upon the death of the author.
If my creative creations - most especially my direct work, like my books - is still making money long after I'm gone, then I would want my family to at least get some of that. There's a difference between putting your time in with a company for X number a years, where your work is no longer making them money, and a creative piece of work that continues to sell and make money far into the future. Of course the writer's estate should still receive money for their work. Why shouldn't they?
Now, obviously, there's a difference if the work is almost 100 years old, like the examples listed above. When it's public domain and the creator's direct family are also long and gone, it's a little silly for the family to keep getting money. I don't know if there's still an estate for Mary Shelley or Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, but I doubt they get any money for those creations any more. If Dill entered public domain, I wouldn't expect anyone but the creators of the new work where they modernize it and make Dill a space detective or something, to get money.
I really don't see why there's such a huge argument over this. Using JK Rowling as an example, why should Harry Potter be public domain while she's still alive? She told her story, it ended the way she wanted it to, and it worked out quite well, in my opinion. For the most part, the books conclude in a satisfying manner. They still make her a LOT of money because they are her direct work, her creations, her writing. Writing is a very personal process. Putting ideas to page takes a lot of consideration and effort. At least to do it right. That should be rewarded.
Right now, Dill is mine and mine alone. There are a lot of personal motivations and inspirations behind his creation. He wasn't just thrown together overnight. It was a long process to create him the way he is now. I have (very rough) plans for his future. And I would want it to stay that way as long as humanly (dilloly?) possible.
Now, obviously, there's a difference if the work is almost 100 years old, like the examples listed above. When it's public domain and the creator's direct family are also long and gone, it's a little silly for the family to keep getting money. I don't know if there's still an estate for Mary Shelley or Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, but I doubt they get any money for those creations any more. If Dill entered public domain, I wouldn't expect anyone but the creators of the new work where they modernize it and make Dill a space detective or something, to get money.
I really don't see why there's such a huge argument over this. Using JK Rowling as an example, why should Harry Potter be public domain while she's still alive? She told her story, it ended the way she wanted it to, and it worked out quite well, in my opinion. For the most part, the books conclude in a satisfying manner. They still make her a LOT of money because they are her direct work, her creations, her writing. Writing is a very personal process. Putting ideas to page takes a lot of consideration and effort. At least to do it right. That should be rewarded.
Right now, Dill is mine and mine alone. There are a lot of personal motivations and inspirations behind his creation. He wasn't just thrown together overnight. It was a long process to create him the way he is now. I have (very rough) plans for his future. And I would want it to stay that way as long as humanly (dilloly?) possible.