> "Termination of Transfer" was introduced via the 1976 Copyright Act. It allows creators to unilaterally cancel the copyright licenses they have signed over to others, by waiting 35 years and then filing some paperwork with the US Copyright Office. You have to wait half a lifetime?! Talk about a performative (pun unintended) law. > when Congress gives creators new copyrights to bargain with, the Big Five (or Four, o…
Disney Lost Roger Rabbit
171–180 of 260 posts
Re: Disney Lost Roger Rabbit
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it misleading? The fact that alternatives exist doesn't mean that they're any good .
It's true that the alternatives may not be good, but if so it suggests that maybe publishing is a business that requires certain behavior. I think the best thing that Doctorow could do is set up his own publishing business and show the big companies the right way to do it. If he's right, he'll get the best new talent and quickly succeed. But I'm guessing he'll discover what the major companies know: the consumer is f…
Re: Disney Lost Roger Rabbit
#173Sorta related since Disney held a share in it previously but Dick Tracy exclusive rights are still held by Warren Beatty who produced and starred in the role back in 1990. He had to fight off a challenge from Tribune Media in court decades ago but stipulation was he had to produce new Dick Tracy stuff every few years. It’s lead to a series of increasingly surreal late night specials on TCM where he appears in charact…
So is Warren being an asshole here? I mean, we haven't seen a Dick Tracy movie since the 90s. I am out of the loop so trying to understand.
Re: Disney Lost Roger Rabbit
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
The vast majority of money for any given copyrighted work comes within the first few years of its existence. (This is extra true for things like video games.) Furthermore, current copyright terms are decades past the death of the creator . You seem to be thinking of copyright purely in terms of vast media conglomerates, but it affects literally every work created by every human in the country. That includes these HN…
> Furthermore, current copyright terms are decades past the death of the creator. It's important to recognize why this is the case - a lot of the hubbub around posthumous copyright comes from the fact that a large amount of classic literature often went unrecognized during an author's lifetime (a classic example is Moby Dick, which sold and reviewed poorly - Melville only made 1260$ from the book in total and his wif…
And I also understand Disney's point of view. Imagine you invested a lot of money into a franchise and the original author suddenly goes crazy and makes Roger the Rabbit a Klansman.
Although personally I would put the protection at 10 years.
Re: Disney Lost Roger Rabbit
#175So does this mean that the developers of abandonware can get legal rights to their old work?
Re: Disney Lost Roger Rabbit
#17635 years seems to be a lot of time. Make it 15 maybe. Which is still a lot of time with your creation collecting dust. Or am I missing something?
Re: Disney Lost Roger Rabbit
#177It amazes me the number of people who are raging at how AI is hurting creators, and will make long videos and posts about this subject, without touching on the fact that the __ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY__ is the single largest abuser of creators, and it's far worse than AI is or probably will ever be. That's how you can tell that the RIAA/MPAA propaganda campaign against AI to protect its racket is working.
The RIAA is a cartel monopsony that demands songwriters and singers negotiate away all equity in their work as a condition of market entry. But there are alternative markets for music, and successful musicians that have navigated them. This is why, for example, mainstream music has been so strangely stagnant while the independent space is a lot more innovative. The labels don't pay good money for innovation; hell, they don't even want it. They want a sure hit saleable product every time.
As nerds, we're predisposed to look at generative AI through the framing of the Napster Wars. Except file sharing wasn't doing what generative AI does. P2P gave you a more or less faithful, if lossy, reproduction of a specific work. It might have missing or wrong metadata, but it was still clearly identifiable as that work. A generative AI system is instead producing legally distinct work - which is why all the AI training lawsuits are failing - using the creative input of the data the company scraped to train on. It infringes on the moral grounding of copyright but not the copyright itself.
The threat that generative AI systems pose to artists is twofold: spam and standardization. Generative AI makes it far easier to churn out samey-looking outputs, while losing utility as you try to get more interesting or innovative styles out of it. It's a slop machine. And, notably, these are exactly the sort of things the RIAA wants out of mainstream music:
- AI music is safe and approachable. If you ask it for jazz, you're getting a stereotype of the jazz genre.
- AI music can be mass-produced at scale without needing to advance an artist royalties. That means you can spam it on Spotify and destroy the discoverability of independent musicians.
- More importantly, generative AI turns the act of music production into ownable equity. The artist is cut out of the picture completely, there is not even the need to find a naive artist that will sign their life away in a 360 deal for peanuts.
The ideal world that the RIAA wants to live in is one where each label sues and then buys out an AI music company, and then has that company train a fully-owned "house model" on their back catalog only. No other entities will be allowed to train models, either through aggressive copyright litigation or through some new "AI safety law" that conveniently exempts them. They'll own the streaming sites and digital marketplaces, and any independent musician making real music will get crushed under the weight of AI slop.
Re: Disney Lost Roger Rabbit
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't need to tie yourself to distributor control if you catch fire and maintain your rights. It's never been easier to build your audience and personal brand. VivziePop with Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss was able to do this on YouTube and then ink deals with Amazon and merch retailers (where the real money is). Her shows alone rake in over $100m and the merch significantly more. Glitch with Murder Drones and Ama…
It feels like you're not responding to my actual point, so let me repeat my first sentence: > And what alternatives existed for Wolf in the 80s?
> The big publishers do provide utility, but there's also an incredible asymmetry (they have trivially made many more book deals than any of their authors)
Literally doesn't matter in today's meta for people making music, video, or games. A substack or podcast following will do the same for authors.
It's not that this isn't hard. I'd argue it's harder to get noticed today now that everyone can make content. It's just that the power asymmetry is disappearing because you can hold onto more of your rights.
Today it's about building a brand following. If you can do that, the publishers will chase you.
It wasn't available for Wolf because nobody realized this strategy yet. A lack of Internet made it more difficult, but not impossible. George Lucas kind of got it.
Now it's glaringly obvious. Just not easy.
Re: Disney Lost Roger Rabbit
#179> Termination is a powerful copyright policy, and unlike most copyright, it solely benefits creative workers and not our bosses. That's an interesting framing. I know why Doctorow wants to import the boss/worker concept here, but it just doesn't apply. Disney wasn't Wolf's boss in any sense that is usually understood, and it just obscures the picture with a bunch of class-based chaff.
Re: Disney Lost Roger Rabbit
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, they're not different. If I can't sign away the title to my car, it's literally worthless. Exactly the same is true of my IP rights.
What? Car leasing is a massive market, and a large percentage of people and companies are very happy to pay to access cars and trucks without owning the title. Same goes for companies happily building on top of leasehold properties whenever it makes financial sense for them. And as for IP, with the time limits, patents and copyrights are inherently defined to expire, but are definitely not worthless.
But at the same time, hopefully you won't complain about the encroaching "You will own nothing and be happy about it" corporate ethos, if you want to restrict peoples' rights to buy and sell property of either a physical or intellectual nature.