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

[Dannyalcatraz]

Since you used Sherlock Holmes as an example, one of my favorite "mainstream" TV shows in reasonably recent years was based on a modern-day Sherlock Holmes. No, not that self-indulgent thing with Benedict Cumberbatch. I'm talking about Elementary, the show that moved Sherlock Holmes to New York and had Jonny Lee Miller and Lucy Liu in the main roles. It was awesome, and would never have happened if Sherlock Holmes had still been copyrighted.

OTOH, the original 2 detectives in Law & Order: Criminal Intent are based on Holmes & Watson (with a generally more competent Watson analog). He had his own Moriarty-esque opponent who was in 4-5 episodes. When DiNofrio stepped away for a while, Goldblum’s character provided a similarly hyper-competent detective with different flaws.

They told stories “mostly“ original to the show. Great show, and would have been completely legal even if the original wasn’t in the public domain.

And as I noted above, Superman is still in copyright, and there are literally dozens of versions of him in DC comics and in the universes of their competitors.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I have no doubt that if given the opportunity, someone would try to finish the abandoned sequel that Tolkien started.

Pretty bad.

What's so frustrating is that those movies have moments where you can see the original story shining through, where you can see what they might have been before all the studio interference.

In all honesty, probably not worse than the Hobbit movies.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I have no doubt that if given the opportunity, someone would try to finish the abandoned sequel that Tolkien started.

Chuck Tingle could totally do it!

Angry Descendants of Aragorn Pounded by the Fear of their Latent Gayness over a Human Transitioning into an Orc

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I'd buy that!

Chuck Tingle could totally do it!

Angry Descendants of Aragorn Pounded by the Fear of their Latent Gayness over a Human Transitioning into an Orc

 

[Ryujin]

I have no doubt that if given the opportunity, someone would try to finish the abandoned sequel that Tolkien started.

What's so frustrating is that those movies have moments where you can see the original story shining through, where you can see what they might have been before all the studio interference.

I quite enjoyed the original LotR trilogy even if there were some things dropped, that I wish had been in them. OTOH I haven't even seen a minute of "The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies" that wasn't in the trailers, or in reviews. It just kept getting worse as things moved along.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Another example of a horror movie made based on IP that is still under copyright- you may recognize it:

 

[Ryujin]

Another example of a horror movie made based on IP that is still under copyright- you may recognize it:

Parody is an accepted form of IP use, though asking permission is generally a good idea.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Parody is an accepted form of IP use, though asking permission is generally a good idea.

I’m well aware (copyright attorney). What people do not realize is how broad the safe harbor of parody is. That movie is NOT a comedy, it’s a legit horror movie with comedic elements.

I checked last night: there’s over 170 variations on Superman in DC, Marvel and other comic book companies’ universes. The first of them, Fawcett’s Captain Marvel, outsold DCs original, and survived a copyright challenge. All on a copyrighted character and under copyright themselves. Some of which were themselves parodied by DC Comics.

Clearly, you don’t need all the trappings of Superman to tell a Superman story.

So, again, I have to question when someone talks about copyright stifling creativity as a major reason to reduce copyright protection.

 

[Ryujin]

I’m well aware (copyright attorney). What people do not realize is how broad the safe harbor of parody is. That movie is NOT a comedy, it’s a legit horror movie with comedic elements.

I checked last night: there’s over 170 variations on Superman in DC, Marvel and other comic book companies’ universes. The first of them, Fawcett’s Captain Marvel, outsold DCs original, and survived a copyright challenge. All on a copyrighted character and under copyright themselves. Some of which were themselves parodied by DC Comics.

Clearly, you don’t need all the trappings of Superman to tell a Superman story.

So, again, I have to question when someone talks about copyright stifling creativity as a major reason to reduce copyright protection.

I remembered that you were a copyright attorney, but somehow had it in my head that your post was made by someone other than you. Don't know where that came from.

Parody and review are two pretty powerful pieces of creative armour, but they aren't impenetrable. Disney has used their bottomless bank accounts, for example, to stifle any parody attempts on a regular basis.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Parody and review are two pretty powerful pieces of creative armour, but they aren't impenetrable. Disney has used their bottomless bank accounts, for example, to stifle any parody attempts on a regular basis.

The fact that Disney can defend its rights better than others with less money- even to the point of abuse- is not the best argument to strip those same rights from others.

That the wealthy can defend their rights better than the less powerful is a truism in every field of law, in every aspect of life. Reducing their rights by necessity reduces the rights of the less fortunate in the same position. And whatever remains of their rights after restructuring? They will still be able to defend themselves better. If you cut copyright durations to 25 years, Disney would still be able to throw an army of lawyers at a possible infringement.

IOW, it doesn’t solve any problem, it simply shifts where the problem is encountered,