41–50 of 59 posts
If Mickey is public domain soon, does that mean Oswald the Rabbit is already out and due for an epic reboot?!?
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…
If you look at the history, the purpose is to enrich publishers, and everything else is simply to make the legislation more palatable.
If there was truly concern about enriching the public domain, the system would be dramatically different.
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…
> 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. If you look at the history, the purpose is to enrich publishers, and everything else is simply to make the legislation more palatable. If there was truly concern about enriching the public do…
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 believe I read an article (by jerry pournelle?) where he was fine with copyright before 1976 - 28 years with a renewal for an additional 28 years. I believe the normal thing authors worked out was the publisher would get the first term, then the author could renew and get next 28 years. That seems entirely reasonable to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you don’t want other humans to remix information you have broadcasted, then don’t broadcast in the first place. It’s not like you haven’t been using other people’s ideas in your “original” work.
So you are presumably OK with Disney, Sony, etc. grabbing a recent book and making a movie out of it without giving the original author a cent or any credit?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
If you don’t want other humans to remix information you have broadcasted, then don’t broadcast in the first place. It’s not like you haven’t been using other people’s ideas in your “original” work.
Even now it is perfectly fine for you to make your own original character influenced by Harry Potter or Mikey Mouse. Heck make it a Wizard Mouse called Marry Motter. Still you can't - and in my mind shouldn't - be able to write Harry Potter and the Magical Mouse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Why (and I realize this is one of those questions that sounds snide, but I do not mean it so) should a creator's kids gain from a piece of art or work of music after a creator's death? Editing to clarify: I fully accept that copyright is a good thing to give incentives to people to make art and music and creative works, I just don't understand why that incentive should be transmissible to their kids, i.e. people who…
I don't see why it wouldn't be reasonable for the inheritors of a author to benefit for a little while for their parent's work. 10 years feels very reasonable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
One can simultaneously think that copyright terms are too long and that (almost certainly primarily) companies shouldn't be able to parachute in after a few years have passed and hoover up creative works and exploit them for free.