New Bill to Limit Copyright to 56 Years, Would be Retroactive

[Staffan]

The most creative, in terms of quantity, or quality?

Both. Sturgeon's law applies: 90% of everything is crap. But if there's more stuff, that 10% that's good is going to be bigger. See also: the explosion of d20 material in the early 00s spurred on by enabling the licensing of D&D material on extremely generous terms, which is pretty close to putting D&D in the public domain in its effect. There was a lot of crap, a bunch of serviceable material, and some real gems.

We already have more creative works, in quantity, than can be be consumed by the market. And you've not established that League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, for example, is specifically more creative than an original work.

I don't need to establish that it's "more creative". I only need to establish that it fills a very well-regarded niche, which is clearly the case. It's a successful and critically acclaimed comic, and there's even been a movie made based on it.

The public domain is filled with characters with which we are all familiar, and that can be easily appropriated to your own story. Merlin, Cinderella, Robinson Crusoe, Dracula, Robin Hood, Alice, Ariel, Puck, and the list goes on. There is no reason Superman, James Bond, The Moomins, Pippi Longstocking, Blackadder, the Doctor, Jim Kirk, Spock, Rincewind, Granny Weatherwax, and other creations of the 20th and 21st centuries should not be allowed to join that public domain pantheon.

I also find it particularly galling that Disney is leading the charge to extend copyright given that they made a significant portion of their wealth by providing their own interpretations of public domain stories and characters. Disney gets to make movies based on Snow White, the Jungle Book, Pinocchio, and Oliver Twist, but we can't publish stories with Scrooge McDuck, Luke Skywalker, or Spider-Man.

 

[Cadence]

The public domain is filled with characters with which we are all familiar, and that can be easily appropriated to your own story. Merlin, Cinderella, Robinson Crusoe, Dracula, Robin Hood, Alice, Ariel, Puck, and the list goes on. There is no reason Superman, James Bond, The Moomins, Pippi Longstocking, Blackadder, the Doctor, Jim Kirk, Spock, Rincewind, Granny Weatherwax, and other creations of the 20th and 21st centuries should not be allowed to join that public domain pantheon.

You want things created in the 21st century (within the last 23 years or less) to be in the public domain already?

I also find it particularly galling that Disney is leading the charge to extend copyright given that they made a significant portion of their wealth by providing their own interpretations of public domain stories and characters. Disney gets to make movies based on Snow White, the Jungle Book, Pinocchio, and Oliver Twist, but we can't publish stories with Scrooge McDuck, Luke Skywalker, or Spider-Man.

You too can make your own takes on the original Snow White, Killing, Pinnochio, and Oliver Twist, right?

Is the first year of Scrooge only a decade and a half away from being open? (It's only a as each thing expires right? So they can sue the snot out of people who act like the whole ouvre is open?)

Luke is under 50 years and Spider-Man is around 60? That feels kind of like a difference from, say Snow White at 210 years?

 

[Cadence]

Just so I'm on the right page. Public domain isn't just right to do derivatives, but also to publish the original too, right?

And things only enter the public domain as individual things. So when Episode IV is out, one still can't do anything from any of the other movies, books, or shows? (Or even cleaned up later versions of episode IV. Are copies of the VHS and DVD still off the table, just copies of the original film?).

 

[billd91]

Just so I'm on the right page. Public domain isn't just right to do derivatives, but also to publish the original too, right?

That’s right.

And things only enter the public domain as individual things. So when Episode IV is out, one still can't do anything from any of the other movies, books, or shows? (Or even cleaned up later versions of episode IV. Are copies of the VHS and DVD still off the table, just copies of the original film?).

Just the original content. So in Star Wars’s case, if some aspect of a character changed, like Luke becoming Vader’s son, that would be off limits even if Luke circa A New Hope was available in the public domain. And any restored scenes, like Han’s conversation with Jabba, wouldn‘t be available either, until those entered public domain as well some years later.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The prevalence (and success) of lawsuits in regard to songs that that do not sample, but "sound" similar.

I am using the term loosely- but for an artist to create new music, it is nearly impossible to create something that is truly new. Now, whether that's because the artist inadvertently used a hook that is "too close" to something in the past, the artist heard it at some point and didn't realize they were using it, or the artist is paying homage (or even copying) is difficult to determine.

But the in terrorem effect of those lawsuits is incredibly high; for example, while were might be able to discuss the actual procedural issues behind the 9th COA's decision upholding the jury verdict, the loud message to most is that if there is any chance of going to the jury, you better settle.

Basically, when it comes to music (and rights holders) you are getting something similar to the patent troll effect, except copyrights last longer.

IMO, etc.

I agree that there’s more C&D letters and lawsuits in music than 20 years ago. There’s also a similar effect going on with YouTube takedown orders, especially for companies hiring musicians to demo their gear and people teaching techniques and music theory online. Rick Beato- a notable music producer- has had several of his vids taken down at least temporarily due to him demonstrating how to play this or that, or illustrating why a musician did what he did.

And yes, many of them ARE frivolous. Part of that has to do with the limitations on how many patterns there are that sound pleasing to human aesthetics. Part of that has to do with the information age’s technology making it easier to detect said patterns. Part of it is the desire to minimize entry barriers for initiating legitimate lawsuits perforce lowering those same barriers for the frivolous ones.

That last one is squarely on the legal profession. I strongly suspect that if the penalties for us attorneys wasting the courts’ time with frivolous/nuisance suits were a bit steeper, we’d see fewer of them.

The thing is, part of this litigious environment is ALSO due to the aftereffects of music piracy and the waning power of major labels as small-scale self-production becomes cheaper.

The latter phenomenon increased the percentage of the music industry being small labels and self-publishers, none of whom have the bankrolls Sony and the other big labels have to fight the former issue. Small operators HAVE to be aggressive in protecting themselves with C&Ds and takedowns because lawsuits STILL take time and money. Way back in the late 1990s, Ani Di Franco started producing her stuff in her own label. She found the time and effort she spent fighting piracy of her music was actually taking time away from creating it in the first place. It hasn’t really gotten better.

 

[Ryujin]

I agree that there’s more C&D letters and lawsuits in music than 20 years ago. There’s also a similar effect going on with YouTube takedown orders, especially for companies hiring musicians to demo their gear and people teaching techniques and music theory online. Rick Beato- a notable music producer- has had several of his vids taken down at least temporarily due to him demonstrating how to play this or that, or illustrating why a musician did what he did.

And yes, many of them ARE frivolous. Part of that has to do with the limitations on how many patterns there are that sound pleasing to human aesthetics. Part of that has to do with the information age’s technology making it easier to detect said patterns. Part of it is the desire to minimize entry barriers for initiating legitimate lawsuits perforce lowering those same barriers for the frivolous ones.

That last one is squarely on the legal profession. I strongly suspect that if the penalties for us attorneys wasting the courts’ time with frivolous/nuisance suits were a bit steeper, we’d see fewer of them.

The thing is, part of this litigious environment is ALSO due to the aftereffects of music piracy and the waning power of major labels as small-scale self-production becomes cheaper.

The latter phenomenon increased the percentage of the music industry being small labels and self-publishers, none of whom have the bankrolls Sony and the other big labels have to fight the former issue. Small operators HAVE to be aggressive in protecting themselves with C&Ds and takedowns because lawsuits STILL take time and money. Way back in the late 1990s, Ani Di Franco started producing her stuff in her own label. She found the time and effort she spent fighting piracy of her music was actually taking time away from creating it in the first place. It hasn’t really gotten better.

The Youtube takedown thing has been out of control since its inception. There are musicians/composers who have received copyright strikes for posting their own original works, because they are those works, and it has been a nightmare for them to have the strikes removed.

 

[Staffan]

You want things created in the 21st century (within the last 23 years or less) to be in the public domain already?

Maybe not yet, but soon. I don't know what copyright duration is the best for benefiting the creation of Stuff, but I think people in their middle age should be able to make stuff based on the things they enjoyed as a child or teen. So maybe 30 years or so, and there should be significantly stronger protections for fair use. For example, Wikimedia Sweden was sued by a collection society on behalf of people making public art (statues, architecture, etc.) because of a database showing these things, and lost. This, to me, is nonsense. A picture of a statue is not the same as the statue, and should not be protected by copyright. Neither should someone making a movie where someone is in a newspaper store have to license all the covers in the store. Reaction videos should be protected as well.

In my ideal world, this would not be the first step. Current creators have made economic decisions based on current circumstances, so any changes need to be cushioned somehow. But as a matter of principle, I don't see why someone should be able to continually make money from things they did decades ago. Write more books, make more records, shoot more movies. Or get a more traditional job.

You too can make your own takes on the original Snow White, Killing, Pinnochio, and Oliver Twist, right?

Yes, but what is good for the goose should be good for the gander. Disney has made movies based on culturally relevant works made by others, so others should be able to make Stuff based on Disney's culturally relevant stuff.

Is the first year of Scrooge only a decade and a half away from being open? (It's only a as each thing expires right? So they can sue the snot out of people who act like the whole ouvre is open?)

Luke is under 50 years and Spider-Man is around 60? That feels kind of like a difference from, say Snow White at 210 years?

When the Jungle Book was released, the work it was based on was a little over 70 years old. I think 70 is still far too long, maybe it should be about half that.

 

[Ryujin]

Maybe not yet, but soon. I don't know what copyright duration is the best for benefiting the creation of Stuff, but I think people in their middle age should be able to make stuff based on the things they enjoyed as a child or teen. So maybe 30 years or so, and there should be significantly stronger protections for fair use. For example, Wikimedia Sweden was sued by a collection society on behalf of people making public art (statues, architecture, etc.) because of a database showing these things, and lost. This, to me, is nonsense. A picture of a statue is not the same as the statue, and should not be protected by copyright. Neither should someone making a movie where someone is in a newspaper store have to license all the covers in the store. Reaction videos should be protected as well.

In my ideal world, this would not be the first step. Current creators have made economic decisions based on current circumstances, so any changes need to be cushioned somehow. But as a matter of principle, I don't see why someone should be able to continually make money from things they did decades ago. Write more books, make more records, shoot more movies. Or get a more traditional job.

Yes, but what is good for the goose should be good for the gander. Disney has made movies based on culturally relevant works made by others, so others should be able to make Stuff based on Disney's culturally relevant stuff.

When the Jungle Book was released, the work it was based on was a little over 70 years old. I think 70 is still far too long, maybe it should be about half that.

I agree that a picture of something should not, in and of itself, be a violation of copyright unless the picture is of a picture without comment or context. One of the things that I find to be patently ridiculous is that a picture of the Eiffel Tower, taken at night, is a copyright violation.

Why Your Eiffel Tower Photos May Be Illegal

Nighttime pictures of the Paris monument can violate French law.

www.huffpost.com

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

See, you're coming at this from the perspective of "What brings the most money to creators and/or owners?".

Yes, the people who actually did the work.

I don't. I'm coming at this from the perspective of "What gets the most creative stuff done?"

As I’ve repeatedly pointed out, copyright prevents/limits copying something too closely, but not actual creativity. Let’s be honest here: what is more creative, copying someone’s work exactly and making a few changes to tell a story or doing an identifiable homage that tells the same tale?

When a philosophy teacher friend of mine noticed one of her students copied several paragraphs from her (the teacher’s) own father’s textsbooks , it was called “plagiarism.” Had the student reformulated those ideas into her own words, she might not have gotten expelled.

People generally don't write* things with the expectation that they'll make it big when someone makes a movie of it 30 years from now.

Some do, but most don’t, true. But why should we punish a lack of long-term perspective? Especially in a world where “sampling” is no longer confined to D

If the problem is "But how do aging creators eat?", that can be solved in other ways.

Suggest some.

Most of the ways in which copyrighted material generates income are directly related to the copyright itself. The big bucks for musicians come from songwriting royalties, concerts and merchandise, nor record sales. Of those, only concerts don’t require control of a copyright to be an income stream for the IP creator. And musicians like Jason Becker (ALS rendered him a paraplegic) cannot perform.

There are no retirement plans, etc.

McCartney appears to have been amply compensated when those records were released in the 60s and 70s, and for quite some time afterwards. Does he really need to keep being compensated? I mean, I go to work every day, and get paid at the end of the month, but no-one's paying me for the work I did a year ago. I need to keep working. Why should creative work be different?

Is your work worth 1000x or more than when it was created? If it is, isn’t that more of an indictment of YOUR compensation than a reason to limit his ability to profit from his own creations?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Sure, licensing dozens of characters belonging to dozens of creators would in no way be a logistical or legal nightmare, particularly if those rights are spread over multiple companies in different parts of the world.

Licensing issues have created issues for many projects I know. One of the most famous ones I can think of is the original Heavy Metal movie and it’s soundtrack.

Thing is, absolutely none of the issues that plague complicated projects like HM would be solved by shortening copyright to the levels proposed thus far. You’d need to reduce protection to something on the order of 15 years or less after creation to solve licensing issues.