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

[CapnZapp]

The moron who introduced it has no clue about copyright law and only did it to jump on Disney bashing bus.

This.

Reducing copyright duration is all good and well, but let's not give attention to a Republican just trying to punish Disney for trying to be less trans phobic.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Disney's ludicrous stranglehold on copyright laws was always horrible and has been incredibly restricting on creativity for decades.

Can you explain how? Do they stop people from trying to tell Cinderella stories, or is it only their own exclusive work that is affected?

I'm not sure what I think about this law. I don't know that I, in particular, need to be able to use someone else's narrow creation (Mickey Mouse, Sherlock Holmes, etc.) 50, 100, or 200 (well past when I think whatever law the US has in effect today will matter) years from when the creator invented them. Why am I not creating my own inventive work. To me, what's important would more be the scope of what someone can claim as theirs (can Disney come after me for my own anthropomorphic mouse character, Fred), which this doesn't seem to address at all.

 

[billd91]

Can you explain how? Do they stop people from trying to tell Cinderella stories, or is it only their own exclusive work that is affected?

I'm not sure what I think about this law. I don't know that I, in particular, need to be able to use someone else's narrow creation (Mickey Mouse, Sherlock Holmes, etc.) 50, 100, or 200 (well past when I think whatever law the US has in effect today will matter) years from when the creator invented them. Why am I not creating my own inventive work. To me, what's important would more be the scope of what someone can claim as theirs (can Disney come after me for my own anthropomorphic mouse character, Fred), which this doesn't seem to address at all.

Corporations will often complain about "infringements" that may not be strictly infringements in an effort to intimidate or exhaust the litigation budget of their target. Disney won't be an exception there.

That said, the issue of Sherlock Holmes is a particularly interesting one. Most of the works featuring him as a character are out of copyright protection - but some are in the US under US copyright law (though not UK law). The makers of Enola Holmes, the novels and the movie, were sued under the claim that they leaned on those works that are still under copyright - because those were the ones in which Doyle made Holmes a more emotional and warmer person and less of a cold fish. They apparently settled or something since the lawsuit was dismissed with the agreement of all sides.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

If "too old" American trademarks become public domains then companies could bet for foreigns IPs because their copyrights are protected for more time.

The audience will would rather the franchises by their current owners at least because these can be together with other popular characters created later. A Chinese manhua publisher could launch a xianxia version of Batman, but the Western reader would miss lots of characters from recenter years still owned by DC/Warner, for example Harley Quinn. Or we could find radical changes but these totally accepted by the fandom, for example a Batwoman with a secret crush for a handsome prince, or a Wonder Woman/Diana Prince (with a little touch of magical girl) who has been married and breed children.

I guess if this happen we will see a gentlemen's agreement and no IPs by other company will be touched beyond some cameo or easter egg, or intentional parody.

Can you imagine it? No-American streaming services could use older American movies and teleseries, or retelling, for example a soap-opera becoming a gothic horror series.

 

[aco175]

Would this affect other IP like Coke's secret formula or the 7 spices in KFC chicken? Those appear to be old enough to qualify. Is it like a patent on a new drug where the intent is to allow the company to recoup the investment in development?

 

[CatullusCato]

Is this a case of a fight where we hope both sides lose?

 

[Cadence]

Would this affect other IP like Coke's secret formula or the 7 spices in KFC chicken? Those appear to be old enough to qualify. Is it like a patent on a new drug where the intent is to allow the company to recoup the investment in development?

Don't secret recipes have no protection beyond being kept secret?

 

[Jer]

Would this affect other IP like Coke's secret formula or the 7 spices in KFC chicken? Those appear to be old enough to qualify.

Those aren't published works so no. Trade secrets aren't covered by copyright but they are in the US afforded some protections under the law (like if you work for a company with a trade secret and you sell it to a competitor you're going to face prosecution over that IP theft despite the fact that the secret doesn't have any copyright or patent protection).

Is it like a patent on a new drug where the intent is to allow the company to recoup the investment in development?

Patents are different because they're more like a deal with the inventor to not keep trade secrets. In exchange for making the details of their invention public they get a government enforced monopoly on the invention for a period of time. Patents are generally better for the public than trade secrets because it encourages the sharing of information so it doesn't get lost and can be built on while trade secret protection encourages the opposite.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Thanks for the reminder and for doing your job

Mod Note:

Just a reminder, regardless of your intent, in-thread commentary on moderation is not permitted.

 

[Mallus]

How about 20? Or 10.