A couple of objections. First, this would be almost completely unworkable. What author would have the time to decide on each request he received? Second, I think that by publicly displaying the work in the first place (which is a necessary step to obtain the copyright) the author should be assumed to be giving his assent for it to be read. A later decision to retract that permission should be allowed as an option, but it shouldn’t be the default.
I have that game. I’d make you a copy but … well … it would be illegal.
I think you folks need to consider the medium in which we are conducting this conversation.
In a few short years, every publisher out there will probably have come to the conclusion that they can profit quite nicely by selling electronic copies of their out-of-print material. No doubt someone will determine how much it will cost to have some flunky to turn the pages on the scanner, (if a machine hasn’t been perfected to do it), and how many people must put down how much money to cover those costs. Then an executive will double or treble that per-buyer cost and slide it straight to you, the consumer. They’ll be particularly interested in finding already created documents from overzealous bookworms, as it will reduce production costs significantly.
If you want it, you’ll probably need only to be willing to pay whatever the market will bear. You’ll get what you want, and far, far more important than you, the publisher’s revenue stream fattens up by a considerable percentage off of an inventory formerly considered to be taking up space.
Hello from over here on the front line of copyright enforcement - part of my job is to chase and prosecute infringers of intellectual property in China - including software and film, which are the main media subject to counterfeiting.
As I understand it, the life plus 70 years term isn’t matched by any other country except Germany (would be grateful if someone can correct me on that, or affirm it). I have also gathered that it was introduced primarily by lobbying by Disney and AOL/Time Warner, which each wants to control copyright in its film and such by reason of the ongoing exploitation of its character creations.
Bear in mind that Disney, for example, makes millions and millions of dollars out of its character concepts (the more important of which I anticipate are also covered by trade mark registration), and equally important for them, they spend enormous sums promoting these characters.
Corporations like that don’t want to lose their copyright ever because of the ongoing investment.
Stockholders don’t want those corporations to have one or more of their major IP assets shrink in value.
In relation to films, the film cinematography, the musical score, the musical notation, the script etc are all protected individually by their own copyright. Its will be an absolute mess trying to work out when each copyright ends - calculating the death of the producer plus 70; the death of the screen writer plus 70, etc. But films can be re-exploited - they can to be remade, for profit. Another asset for the corporation into which your pension scheme has invested.
For software, however, it makes no sense whatsoever - most software is obsolete within 10 years at best. For books and printed, life plus 70 years is an enormous length of time - I would think life plus 20 is a reasonable suggestion.
What would make far better sense all round would be for publishers to make out-of-print works available as print-by-demand, eg using a service such as http://www.lightningsource.com - that way old books could be ordered as and when needed, the appropriate people paid, and publishers not lose masses of money stockpiling unwanted reprints.
What happens to copyrights owned by publishers when the publisher goes bust? (As I think is the case with magogs game. BTW, a copy sold just now for £36 on ebay uk).
For a while, I have said to myself that “The public domain is America’s greatest resource.” It is true. Think about it-if It’s A Wonderful Life hadn’t fallen in the public domain, it wouldn’t have become as famous as it is now. If Wagner and Rossini were still under copyright in the 1950s, Chuck Jones wouldn’t have been able to make What’s Opera, Doc? and The Rabbit of Seville, arguably two of his-and Bugs Bunny’s-finest and funniest cartoons.
I say “Say No to Bono!” The public domain is America’s greatest resource!
That’s what I think about the public domain. And that’s all I’m gonna say about that.
And the definition of “a work made for hire” in 17 USC 101 is: “(1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation…” and so on. Bolding in both quotes was added by me. So, you don’t have to treat each element separately, at least not in the majority of cases.
Of course, this makes me realize that I left out, in my original “how long should copyright terms be” post, how long the term should be for a work created by a corporation. It doesn’t seem right that works from the 1920s should still be protected. I’d say 60 years is about right; films from the early 1940s would be just now falling into the public domain.
But I understand the various contributors to a film or other project sometimes negotiate to keep the copyright to their particular contributions. For example, the copyright to It’s a Wonderful Life has expired, but the copyright to the music on the soundtrack is still in force. Someone (Ted Turner, maybe?) acguired the copyright to the music and used this to regain control over showings and broadcasts of the film. That’s why you don’t see it nearly as often as you used to see it around Christmas time.
You can also copyright a specific edition of a work in the public domain. Giorgio Moroder took Fritz Lang’s classic silent film Metropolis, re-edited it, restored some missing footage, added subtitles instead of dialog cards, added a sound track with sound effects, original music and a number of then-contemporary rock sounds, did some color tinting, and the entire result, that particular edition of Metropolis, now has copyright protection. Some people will take recordings of old radio shows in the public doman, clean up the pops, scratches and hiss and copyright the result.
Just 'cuz it’s old don’t mean it’s gotta be in the public domain.
Well, the stuff I quoted above is the current law, as amended in the 1970s and thereafter. The copyright laws underwent a major overhaul in 1976. It’s A Wonderful Life, of course, was produced long before these changes in the rules.
Where filmmakers choose to use a pre-existing song (one not specifically created for the movie), the above doesn’t apply. For years, when the John Carpenter version of The Thing was broadcast, they had to put another song in in place of Stevie Wonder’s “Superstition”, which he approved for the big-screen release but didn’t permit them to use for broadcast or home video versions of the movie. The current DVD finally contains the restored song. In that situation, Stevie’s rights in the song aren’t bound to the movie.
I doubt, from the way the statute is worded, that a person can contract to keep the copyright on a work that’s specifically ordered or commissioned as part of a movie being made today. I’d have to start digging up caselaw, and I franky doubt there is any yet, it being less than 30 years since the major amendments and all.
Musical copyrights were also a huge headache when videotapes began hitting the market. Many of the contracts for the use of songs in older movies had not covered the sale of copies of the movies (it wasn’t anticipated decades ago that movies would actually be sold to viewers as opposed to being shown). So there was a number of movies where either new contracts had to be written or new soundtracks had to be added before the movie could be released on video.
[Insert standard IANAL disclaimer here.] I believe that if a copyright holding corporation disappears (and its assets are not transferred to another corporation) then the copyrights devolve back to their previous owners.
I’d also note that some people seem to be arguing that a copyright should only be honored when there is a significant chance of being caught breaking it. Just because work has appeared on a web page, or as a software program, or is published by a small independent publisher, doesn’t mean that work should be considered any less copyrighted that work published by Microsoft, Disney, or AOL Time Warner.
Mr2001: Yes, granted, copyright law has helped a profitable industry grow up around the creation and distribution of artistic works. But not every script is produced as a film, not every novel makes it to press, not every band gets a recording contract. Artists can be and often are motivated by the ability to do their art and make a living at it – some more than others, of course – but nothing, including copyright law, can guarantee this outcome. So to suggest that artists are motivated by copyright law to create is, I think, a bit simplistic and indicates a certain lack of understanding of the creative process. I’m not denying that copyright law plays a role somewhere, but I’m making a distinction between the creative process which leads to an artistic work, and what one can do with work once it is finished.
Well, as interesting as your idea is, it is itself completely unworkable for several reasons. First of all, “publicly displaying the work” – publication, production, performance, etc. – is not a requisite part of a copyright. I have plenty of unpublished material which is nevertheless copyrighted simply because it is my original work. I did not have to do anything to gain the protection of copyright law, beyond the actual creation of the work.
Secondly, there is the issue on which magog touched. A work is considered copyrighted from the moment of inception, not from the moment of completion. My second novel is not yet finished as far as I am concerned (and in this regard mine is the only opinion which matters), but it is nonetheless copyrighted, and has been since the moment I began Chapter One, Page One. This brings me to the unworkable aspect of your central repository: at what stage in the creation of the work should the artist register that work? You might say, “when the artist considers the work to be complete”. This seems the simplest solution, logistically speaking, but what about all of the works-in-progress which are equally protected by copyright law? How often during the writing process should I re-submit my work, to be sure that this repository has an up-to-date version of my protected work?
And why should I be compelled to decide, at any point, whether to issue a blanket order which allows my work to be (re-)distributed (or not)? The point is, again, that the audience has no intrinsic right to the material. The point is that copyright law gives the creator (or whomever holds the copyright) control over how that work is disseminated, if at all. There is huge difference between giving permission for work to be read (via publication) and giving permission for the work to be reproduced (reprinted, photocopied, etc). In publishing a work, an author has worked out acceptable terms with the publishing company under which the work is printed and distributed. The author has not worked out such terms with anyone else, and so has a right to decide whether/how others may be allowed to use the work. It might be cumbersome to allow or require copyright holders to scrutinize every single request for reproduction, but that is the responsibility one accrues by holding the copyright. And I, for one, would happily exercise my right on a case-by-case basis, because the alternative – some partial or total surrender of my artistic ownership and control – is horrifying and unacceptable.
There are practical reasons, too, why each request should be assessed individually. In considering your request, the author will want to know who you are, why you want a copy of the work, and how you intend to use it and distribute it. The author will want to be certain that, in your use of the work, you are not misrepresenting that work, the author, and so on. (In this as well, the author’s opinion is the only one which matters.) The author may be quite happy for the work to be out of general circulation and may choose to leave it there. For all you know, the work may be out of print for artistic reasons already. The author is under no obligation to resurrect an out-of-print work at the whim or for the convenience of an audience. A person has no “right” to use the work just because s/he has read it, anymore than your neighbor has an intrinsic right to your hedge-clippers just because he borrowed them once. And it is simplistic, at best, to suggest that the copyright holder should be motivated to say “yes” solely by the promise of financial compensation. Just because you can pay doesn’t mean it’s for sale.
I am very torn about these sorts of ideas. It seems to me that copyrights are there to prohibit copying, not to guarantee the owner makes a buck. Thus, a “default” fee if other works aren’t being produced seems to go against that and assumes that the copyright owner intends to sell it.
However, the case where it ws once in print and no longer is seems to honestly be a different matter. Relevant questions might be, has the copyright holder changed (and thus expresses its wishes to not have the work in print)? Has the orginal owner’s wishes changed? Or was it simply a matter of market forces?
Remember, nothing ever prohibits anyone from contacting the copyright owner and asking for explicit permission, or explicit terms under which one could get permission.
RE: software. A specific implimentation of software becomes obsolete. Actually doing what the software does can be ported indefinitely so long as there is a need for such an algorithm. I’ve always felt that software shouldn’t be copyrighted but its methods patented instead to reflect this. Perhaps it is and I just don’t know about it. Of course, software games which tell stories should have their stories copyrighted in the same manner in which “choose your own adventure” books were copyrighted (this is in addition to any of my suggested patents on algorithms).
Software is, in my opinion, a terribly complicated issue as it contains the ability to reflect copyrighted and patented work, and yet it could seem that even though the patent might expire on a method the code behind it could then be kept under copyright… strange, I think, but again I don’t really know much about it.
I have to question this. While I am not a lawyer (as I have stated above) I’m fairly certain that public display is necessary for copyright. There’s an obvious reason for this. What else prevents a person from claiming that Stephen King’s, Tom Clancy’s, or John Grisham’s new bestseller plagiarized their unpublished novel? Anyone could claim they wrote and copyrighted the same exact book five years ago but stuck it in a desk drawer where no one else has seen it until now.
Again, I have to differ. Copyright does not protect broad ideas; it only protects specific arrangments of words. You cannot simply say you have the intent of writing the Great American Novel and then sue anyone else who writes a book because they stole your idea before you could get around to writing it. Until you actually write it down, you have nothing to protect.
Well, you may question it all you like, but it happens to be true that written works are automatically copyrighted without any kind of “public display” needed. I am not a lawyer, either, but I am an author and have had good reason to look into these things. Pick up any edition of Writer’s Market in the reference section of your local bookstore; the opening sections of this guide explain the basics of copyright as it applies to written works.
Perhaps I was not clear enough on the issue of works-in-progress. I did not mean to suggest that unwritten parts of my novel – or potential sequels – are protected by copyright law. What I meant was, from the moment I began writing my novel, everything I wrote was copyrighted even though the work was not finished. The reason for this is simple: it prevents someone from stealing my unfinished work and trying to pass it off, or publish it, as his/her own.
So to answer your question: nothing prevents author X from claiming that Stephen King’s latest novel plagiarizes X’s unpublished novel and violates X’s copyright on that novel. But, in order to appeal to copyright law for redress, X had better be able to back up this accusation by: (a) producing the alleged unpublished novel, some substantial portion of which should bear more than a passing resemblance to Mr. King’s; and (b) offering some evidence to explain how Mr. King managed to acquire this novel, or parts of it, while it languished in the desk drawer. The nice thing about copyright law is that it allows such disputes to be taken into court.
However, plagiarism is an accusation of criminal copyright infringement. Similarity in two works isn’t enough; the plaintiff has to prove theft of the pre-existing work. Two very similar novels, produced by two completely unassociated authors who had no access of any kind to one another’s works, are both entitled to copyright because no plagiarism is involved. The idea of a copyright in no way guarantees that one artist’s original work will bear absolutely no similarity to anyone else’s.
On one side of the scales, you have the artist’s interest in enjoying the profits from his/her creation.
On the other side you have the public interest in the free exchange of ideas and information.
There is an obvious tension between these interests. In my opinion, Disney and Time Warner/AOL have used their financial clout to tip the scales excessively in favor of the profit interest.
Think about this: Let’s say someone writes a book that satirizes, oh, say, Bill Gates. (In the same way that the movie Citizen Kane satirized William Randolph Hearst.) Should Gates be able to buy the copyright and then squelch the publication of the book for a hundred years or more (utilizing current copyright laws)? Or should the public interest in the exchange of ideas prevail?
That’s an extreme example, obviously.
mobo85 has pointed out some less extreme examples of how too-lengthy copyright protection can inhibit derivative artistic expression.
