21–30 of 59 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A new score would certainly qualify as "materially different", to GPs point
Yes and no. You can still record the original music again, but with a brand new orchestra. Is it materially different then? From a legal standpoint? From an individual standpoint?
It's pedantic to say it, but copyright is not directly intended to help creators; its purpose is to enrich the public by inspiring creators to produce more. Helping creators profit/benefit from their work is a means to an end. Creative work benefits the public in at least two ways: primarily, by being itself. People like reading the original Harry Potter books. Copyright encourages that by allowing creators to sell t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
seems like a good idea - what's the downside?
One downside of any sort of copyright registration requirement (probably especially one requiring ongoing renewals) is that it benefits corporations at the expense of individual creatives. Disney's lawyers are not going to forget to renew and the revenues involved mean that any registration is likely trivial. Not so for an individual author or photographer. In fact, groups representing authors and photographers have…
Over time, this would exponentially not be the case
It's pedantic to say it, but copyright is not directly intended to help creators; its purpose is to enrich the public by inspiring creators to produce more. Helping creators profit/benefit from their work is a means to an end. Creative work benefits the public in at least two ways: primarily, by being itself. People like reading the original Harry Potter books. Copyright encourages that by allowing creators to sell t…
I wouldn’t want just anyone to be able to use my characters and setting for their grummy cashgrabs. I think reasonable copyright would be 10 years or lifetime of the author which ever occurs later. This way the author would be in charge of their characters while alive and their kids would still gain from works done in the later years
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue, as it is presented in the article, is with how copyright law intermingles with trademark law. They noted that people will be able to distribute the original short. They also noted that any unique works that incorporate the iconic mouse (even in its original form) may run into litigation. Given Disney's financial interest in The Mouse, I suspect they were understating it. It is easy to oversimplify what is…
Trademarks should be limited to providing identification for a business, not something that applies to products or cultural elements. You shouldn't be able to hold a trademark on "Star Wars" or "iPhone," but should be able to for LucasFilm or Apple. All product names should be effectively generic. Copyright and patents should just be straight up abolished, or at least severely scaled back and limited to 1-3 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One downside of any sort of copyright registration requirement (probably especially one requiring ongoing renewals) is that it benefits corporations at the expense of individual creatives. Disney's lawyers are not going to forget to renew and the revenues involved mean that any registration is likely trivial. Not so for an individual author or photographer. In fact, groups representing authors and photographers have…
> the revenues involved mean that any registration is likely trivial. Over time, this would exponentially not be the case
Copyright applies from the moment of creation for all creative works in the US today. But registering, which as I understand makes it easier to collect damages, costs money (call it $100, the details are somewhat complicated). I probably wouldn't go through that for most things even today.
It's pedantic to say it, but copyright is not directly intended to help creators; its purpose is to enrich the public by inspiring creators to produce more. Helping creators profit/benefit from their work is a means to an end. Creative work benefits the public in at least two ways: primarily, by being itself. People like reading the original Harry Potter books. Copyright encourages that by allowing creators to sell t…
The issue, as it is presented in the article, is with how copyright law intermingles with trademark law. They noted that people will be able to distribute the original short. They also noted that any unique works that incorporate the iconic mouse (even in its original form) may run into litigation. Given Disney's financial interest in The Mouse, I suspect they were understating it. It is easy to oversimplify what is…
The character in Steamboat Willie is Mickey Mouse. There’s no one named Steamboat Willie in the animation. That said there have been several visual evolutions of the character given the same name, and Disney may claim newer versions are still copyrighted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A new score would certainly qualify as "materially different", to GPs point
Yes and no. You can still record the original music again, but with a brand new orchestra. Is it materially different then? From a legal standpoint? From an individual standpoint?
It's pedantic to say it, but copyright is not directly intended to help creators; its purpose is to enrich the public by inspiring creators to produce more. Helping creators profit/benefit from their work is a means to an end. Creative work benefits the public in at least two ways: primarily, by being itself. People like reading the original Harry Potter books. Copyright encourages that by allowing creators to sell t…
The issue, as it is presented in the article, is with how copyright law intermingles with trademark law. They noted that people will be able to distribute the original short. They also noted that any unique works that incorporate the iconic mouse (even in its original form) may run into litigation. Given Disney's financial interest in The Mouse, I suspect they were understating it. It is easy to oversimplify what is…
It's pedantic to say it, but copyright is not directly intended to help creators; its purpose is to enrich the public by inspiring creators to produce more. Helping creators profit/benefit from their work is a means to an end. Creative work benefits the public in at least two ways: primarily, by being itself. People like reading the original Harry Potter books. Copyright encourages that by allowing creators to sell t…
I wouldn’t want just anyone to be able to use my characters and setting for their grummy cashgrabs. I think reasonable copyright would be 10 years or lifetime of the author which ever occurs later. This way the author would be in charge of their characters while alive and their kids would still gain from works done in the later years