Can somebody help me justify protecting derivative works?
So if you write a novel, you also own rights to plays or films based on that novel, and you own rights to all translations of the novel.
The way I look at it, the derivative works share only the basic idea of the original work, and ideas should not be copyright-able. From a protectionist point of view, this is effectively banning derivative works, hardly the right step if we want to promote the creative arts.
Can you set me straight?
How about an argument for why you shouldn’t be able to stop derivative works? If derivative works are allowed freely, then it’s impossible to protect the original work at all, since anyone who wants to make a copy can just make a derivative work that’s changed only trivially.
Plus, some forms of art exist entirely as derivative works: Nobody ever appreciates a piece of music by looking at the notes on the page, for instance. They appreciate music by listening to a performance, and every performance of a piece of music is a derivative work. Should composers have no rights at all?
Ideas are not protected by copyright. But a derivative work is using more than just the basic idea. You can write all the books and stories you want about a boarding school for young magic users, as long as you make up your own school and characters.
US copyright law goes too far in helping the dead owners of copyright. Things need expire quicker. There was a reddit thread that listed the things that would have been in the public domain as of 2015 if Congress hadn’t extended the copyright protection years ago. Among the things were Gone with the Wind and some of the early issues of Batman. There was a ton more but I can’t find the thread now
However, that’s irrelevant to this thread which is about derivative works.
Doesn’t existing copyright cover derivative works? If copyright laws are too strong, then allowing copyright for the original works to extend after death but removing all copyright from derivative works would serve to weaken it.
Should composers have rights to other people’s work? There is a lot of creative work that goes into turning words and notes into a performance. Shouldn’t there be a line where the the new content overwhelms the initial inspiration?
Another example. JKR wrote Harry Potter and she (presumably) owns the copyright. Harry Potter was also translated into Czech. Aside from several names (and not even all of them), the translations shares no words with the English original. Yet JKR still owns the copyright. How is that fair?
I see “characters” as abstract ideas. Their descriptions, as set down on paper, are subject to copyright, but the “character” should not be. If worried about brand recognition, there’s trademark for that.
No, she doesn’t. The translator holds the copyright to the translation.
Distribution rights are shared, though. The translator can’t distribute copies of the translated book without permission from JKR (and presumably some profit-sharing deal). Nor can JKR simply take the translated version and distribute it herself without permission from the translator (although she could commission a totally independent translation). JKR owns the copyright on the original book, and the translator owns the copyright not on the translated book but on the translation itself.
Intellectual property law is designed to encourage the dissemination of new ideas by allowing the market to reward those who create them through a protection called ownership.
Copy rights are a consequence of IP law that protects a certain form of expression of an idea.
“Certain” is the word that gets us into trouble.
Characters have been mentioned. If I write a novel that features Xphid Pthmn, it can be argued that not only are the words I use to describe Xphid Pthmn’s actions are a protected expression but that the constellation of ideas that Xphid Pthmn represents are themselves an expression, embodied in the words I used to describe Xphid’s actions. Therefore, Xphid Pthmn is itself an expression and not an underlying idea, and is protected by copyright.
Those who would assert [straw man, I know] that Xphid Pthmn isn’t an expression but rather an idea, and therefore not protectable, would say that their own novel featuring a character named Xphid Pthmn, who has identical traits to the Xphid Pthmn in my own novel, does not infringe because no “certain” expression is identical between their novel and mine.
I would propose, offhand, the following test to see if the character is an expression or an idea: if the name “Xphid Pthmn” has economic value that did not exist before the first novel was written, then it itself is a certain expression. The other, later novel could have been written in an otherwise identical fashion except the character was named Lmpc Yrep, which would not have copied anything, but chose to use the name Xphid Pthmn to take advantage of the market that valued that name. If copyright as an intellectual property law is meant to incentivize the creation of ideas, then the expression of Xphid Xthmn is necessary.
Of course, my straw man would go into the topic of fair use, but I think the analysis would be much the same.
I am not solid on UK and Czech law, but in US and Canada the book cannot be translated without JKR’s express permission.
And this is where copyright overreaches. You could trademark “Xphid Pthmn” and thus protect your commercial interests. And this would permit anybody to create new stuff, to expand on your original idea, provided they did not earn money. By applying copyright to abstract ideas, we are stifling new creation.
If you don’t include translations as protected, it’s trivially easy to get around copyright.
I’m going to define a new language called Ênglîsh. It’s pretty similar to English, except all the vowels have circumflex accents. Then I’ll translate your book into it. No words are the same!
This may be where you’re going wrong; and you may be committing the same fallacy—overvaluing the “basic idea” in a creative work—that has been discussed before in threads like this one:
Derivative works (including translations to different languages, adaptations to other media, and stories that share the same characters and setting) copy a lot more than just “the basic idea.”
The following thread may also be relevant here: What constitutes plagiarism?
Could you give a cite that trademark law works in this way?
Sure you can. You can do just about anything you want in the comfort of your own home, including translate copyrighted works (or produce other kinds of of derivative works). You just can’t distribute your translation, because again those rights are shared. And that includes passing out copies to your friends or people on message boards. You still own the copyright, though–if JKR were to somehow obtain a copy of your translation, she would have no right to distribute it without your permission.
What’s the justification for ownership and control of intellectual creations *ever *expiring, except for the convenience of Reddit mashers, internet users and other pirates?
I agree that too many things are lost in a limbo when ownership cannot be traced and rights cannot be obtained simply because an author or creator cannot be contacted.
But the general whine that “copyright laws are too strong” and thus a bunch of people can’t start making their own Batman movies or comics or mashups or slash fic is just… piffle. How too bad for you all that everything popular actually belongs to someone who created it.
Exactly. For the most part the people who complain that “copyrights last too long” aren’t wanting to copy 50+ year old works, they want to copy recent works that are currently popular.
At the top of chapter 7 of the popular fanfic of Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality there is the following note;
A spokesman for Rowlings literary agent said that Rowling is OK with the existence of fanfiction as long as no one charges for it and everyones clear that the original copywrights belong to her.