Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You have to wait half a lifetime?! Yeah, I cannot quite believe the term on that thing. Somewhere between 10 and 20 feels far more reasonable since businesses do need time to work plan around and develop property. I'm not sure how I feel about auto-reversion as a concept. I can see real problems with it conceptually (creating a deadzone around expiry etc)
How about 14? Which as the article explains was the original copyright term.
Disney Lost Roger Rabbit
211–220 of 260 posts
Re: Disney Lost Roger Rabbit
#212Re: Disney Lost Roger Rabbit
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
You answer your own question. Yes, intellectual property rights should be different than physical property rights.
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.
Re: Disney Lost Roger Rabbit
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps, but he's also highlighting how fundamentally broken the copyright system is. I don't think that's his goal (he's mostly being petty; there's a reason there's a pop song about his vanity), but it is an interesting side-effect of his odd project.
I think it's simpler than that. IE; not a vanity thing for his ego or pettyness for the sake of being petty, Entity owns an IP, Entity doesn't want another entity to own it for risk to the IP. (the other entity being a globally publicly owned historic aggregator of IPs for sake of short term profits) DIsney is doing the same in reverse with the Muppets/Henson Properties. Don't do anything with it beyond semi-annual s…
I mean, let the IP free or try to sell it if you are not doing anything with it.
Re: Disney Lost Roger Rabbit
#215Sorta 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…
There's also a legendary Star wars merch rights agreement that only expired because the rights holder forgot to send Lucas a check while the franchise was inactive. Billions of dollars gone because of an oversight. Arguably they didn't know Lucas was going to bring it back. https://equinoxbusinesslaw.com/blog/how-hasbro-almost-blew-a...
Re: Disney Lost Roger Rabbit
#216Otherwise ("creative works" based on the original material also transfer to the author of the original material) would mean that the author suddenly owns the MOVIE as well...
Re: Disney Lost Roger Rabbit
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's simpler than that. IE; not a vanity thing for his ego or pettyness for the sake of being petty, Entity owns an IP, Entity doesn't want another entity to own it for risk to the IP. (the other entity being a globally publicly owned historic aggregator of IPs for sake of short term profits) DIsney is doing the same in reverse with the Muppets/Henson Properties. Don't do anything with it beyond semi-annual s…
So he is being an ass. I mean, let the IP free or try to sell it if you are not doing anything with it.
No, let me correct you: He's being a Dick.
Re: Disney Lost Roger Rabbit
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
Valid argument. Car analogies usually break down at some point, and leasing is a definite weakness of that one. 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.
Good point, but in this case I'm arguing for the exact opposite: I'm suggesting that (natural) people are the ones owning IP, and companies only lease it. I was just making the case that a lease is not "worthless".
Re: Disney Lost Roger Rabbit
#219> The original US copyright lasted for 14 years, and could be renewed for another 14 years, but only by the creator (not by the publisher). I wish we would go back to that.
Yes, I always preferred the short term with renewals; I didn't realize that it used to be the creator not the publisher. I wonder how that would interact with the current "work fore hire" laws that exist.
The simplest interaction would be "it's practically impossible to renew copyright on something created by a large number of employees", but IMO, that's not a bad thing.
Re: Disney Lost Roger Rabbit
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really? It isn't obvious? > 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 c…
> Literally doesn't matter anymore This is incredibly incorrect! The examples you've pointed to illustrate the smiling curve [1]. Publishers still have an enormous amount of leverage and power, and that is extremely important for other businesses operating in that space. Not everybody is an individual creator, and some creators prefer to work on small teams. You're describing this incredible transformation of the val…
Yikes. I really do not appreciate your unkind tone in these last few messages.
There's a really big trend you're missing by focusing on old anecdotes.
The creator economy is on pace to exceed the size of Hollywood and the music industry combined.
There are kids on Roblox making six figures while still in school. The next generation knows what's up - they want to be YouTubers and not movie stars, because they know how fundamentally the world has changed. How a world that once relied on nepotism is opening up more opportunity. (It's still hard, but you don't need the "right parents" anymore.)
$100M brands and franchises are launching on YouTube.
Publishers and distributors will take what they can get. They make money on volume now, and if they screw over publishers, new players enter to fill the gap.
You could even go raise capital on that narrative of servicing the creator economy. The VCs I've talked to are excited about it.
> But listen to Zach Gage talk about the funding difference for making a game for Apple Arcade.
It's becoming easier than ever to raise funding for video game development. There are now dozens of funds specially for this. Including funds that give you six figures without a demo if you've already worked in the industry.
> As for rights negotiations, even Taylor Swift had some difficulty reclaiming ownership of her masters.
Taylor Swift is a billionaire and she negotiated her early contracts two decades ago. Before steaming, ie. ancient times, ie. when dinosaurs roamed the earth. And she's found ways to wiggle out of them.