Great. Does the difference in exact number actually inform the discussion in some way?
Duration varies between human creators of copyright and business entities. Had Superman’s creators published him for themselves as opposed as in the scope of their employment, Superman’s entry into the public domain would be even further in the future.
This bears on what can be transferred, for how much, and when.
If someone created and self-published a great piece of IP, but it languished in obscurity until after the creator’s death, the duration of copyright would be a major factor on whether or not his estate (and successors in interest- family, friends, charities, etc.) could capitalize on that IP at all. The longer copyright endures, the better they will be able to get something of value for that IP. Shorter copyright durations means a corporation need only play a waiting game until they can use it without compensating those the IP creator cared about.
And as I pointed out, copyrighted material CAN have cyclical fluctuations in value…but they DO decrease over time in general. So to me, 20 years after a creator dies is WAY too short.
Yes you keep pointing it out, but it’s not compelling. Superman isn’t owned by his creators, so I have absolutely no regard for any supposed rights to exclusive ownership.
There’s not real distinctions in the copyright bundle of rights beyond duration, which favors human creators over business entities.
But the shorter copyright endures, the less value it has to its creators and any successors in interest. Even corporate-owned works for hire would decrease in value. If you’re a corporation paying people to create IP, you’ve got to assess whether or not expanding your use of it will give you a good ROI. Superman didn’t make the jump to movies until 13 years after his creation; TV at 14 years. Those shows and that movie might never have been made by Supes’s owners if their copyright was soon to expire.
The freedom to create new works using old elements is a fundamental part of the human experience. It is one of the oldest pursuits known to man.
It is, and as noted, a great many creative processes begin with being inspired by the creative works of others.
But also noted is the fact that copyright does not stop one from creating something based on something else, just 1:1 copies and some other things deemed too similar to it.
Prokofiev created Peter & The Wolf in 1936. Just 30 years later, Jimmy Smith created a jazz version of it that is highly respected and sought out. You can hear elements of Prokofiev’s original music in Jimmy Smith‘s interpretation- enough to identify the characters- but it’s clearly also different; it is it’s own thing,
Prokofiev’s copyright didn’t stifle Smith’s creativity.
Yes, it does. Copyright is a subversion of human nature that only serves the good when it is very limited in scope.
Clearly, I disagree.
Particularly, the transfer of ownership to non-individual entities to enrich the already wealthy at little to no benefit to the actual creator is a detriment to society.
You speak as if the corporation is the only one benefitting.
Corporations buying the rights to extant IP have to pay fair market value to the creators.
If they’re paying for works-for-hire, how much the corp pays them in wages will be at least partially dependent on their ROI calculations- the more valuable the IP, the more they can afford to compensate the creators. Record contracts illustrate this very clearly. Recording artists with record deals agree to produce a certain number of albums over the duration of a contract, with the companies holding the copyrights in the albums. The more albums you move, though, the higher royalty rates you can get; the bigger chunk you get from other income streams, like concerts & merch.
And remember, megastars who manage to hold onto their earnings often try to buy their copyrights back. Even though he lost the Beatles catalog bidding war to Michael Jackson, Paul McCartney was prepared to shell out a major chunk of his wealth based on the continuing commercial value of that music. It’s possible but less likely he- or MJ- would have bid on that music about to become public domain because it was owned by corporate holders. That saga took
another turn in 2020, when McCartney finally got ownership of his music after 50 years of trying.
Last I checked, Sir Paul is still an individual…
If corporate copyright were shorter, he wouldn’t be reaping the full benefits of his (and his bandmates’) work.
