This is definitely the sticking point of the thread. There are some easy answers: 1) a rising tide lifts all boats (i.e. wide distribution will usually benefit the author, even if indirectly); 2) many artists are motivated by fame as well as–or more than–money; 3) it encourages artists to continually add value to existing works; 4) it’s not all wicked companies that want public domain art – internet librarians and artists who make derivative works are nice people too. And there are some good responses to those things:1) there’s no guarantee that my boat will be lifted; 2) fame, smame, I gotta pay the bills; 3) adding value isn’t always an option; and 4) make up your own stupid characters.
But ultimately none of these things are going to make yosemitebabe feel any better when the Joools Copyright Term Reduction act passes and 2042 rolls around and I fire up the mug factory. I guess all I can say is, I don’t expect to be able to change your mind about the fact that you won’t like it when that happens.
But this situation is only one variable in the equation, and copyright is ultimately a contract between a publisher and society. The word “limited” is in the constitution because we believe (I think rightly) that you should have a generous first crack at profiting from your work. But not the only crack.
And in exchange for a guarantee of lifetime exclusivity, you get a better society, in which art and speech are less regulated rather than more, and in which we aren’t actively trying to stop ourselves from using cultural memes like Santa Claus, “Happy Birthday”, and Mickey Mouse.
And there, in a nutshell, is a perfect illustration of one of the major problems with current copyright lengths. A copyright holder might not like something that another artist has derived from the copyrighted work - and the copyright gives him/her the legal power to suppress publication of that work (either by denying a license to the other artist, or by suing for copyright infringement if the other artist publishes), not because it’s artistically invalid in any way, but simply because he/she doesn’t like it.
Now, I’ve already said that I have no problem with copyrights lasting for the life of the original author - so if you don’t like fanfiction based on your works, Primaflora, I’ve got no problems with you going after the copyright violators. You created those characters. But why should the Mitchell estate be able to use copyright to suppress publication of a work based on Gone with the Wind because they don’t approve of the way the work portrays Scarlett and Rhett? Margaret Mitchell is long dead; the current holders of that copyright did not create those characters. They did not produce the work on which they hold the copyright. Why should their opinions be allowed to dictate what others can do artistically with that material, material which they did not create, but from which they are profiting - at my hypothetical artist’s expense? Why should Christopher Tolkien be able to prevent a movie adaptation of The Hobbit from being made? That book was written by his father, not by him. Bilbo Baggins is not his creation.
It’s entirely possible that the heirs of the Bronte sisters don’t approve of Wide Sargasso Sea - but they could not suppress publication of that novel even if they wished to, because the book upon which it was based (Jane Eyre) is now in the public domain. The only difference between works such as Wide Sargasso Sea and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead and “fanfiction” based on Gone with the Wind or The Hobbit is that Jane Eyre and Hamlet lie in the public domain, while both Gone with the Wind and The Hobbit have remained under copyright long past the deaths of their authors. Artistically, there’s no difference.
Christopher Tolkien is doing what his father wanted though. JRR was against a movie being made of his work. I don’t see why simply because he is dead, that his wishes should be disregarded.
You can also view books like GWTW as a family business. Like any other franchise, the family is guarding the books and growing the business like any other business holder.
But then I have an issue with the very idea that it is necessary for a writer/artist to take someone else’s ideas and work with them. If GWTW meant that no-one else ever could write about the South and LOTR meant that no-one else ever could write about a fantasy world, then copyright would stifle creativity.
But then I suspect that because all of this is not theory for me and my family, it’s how we make our bread and butter, I’m slightly less than enchanted by the concept that my family business according to some people needs to die with whoever has their name on the copyright. Why not ban all inheritance of businesses in that case? Why should the kid next door benefit from being able to sell his family business of, say, dog washing while my kids have to benefit during our lifetimes?
Because, basically, there are two kinds of copyrighted works: works created by individuals or partnerships, and works created for hire. Ninety-nine percent of all motion pictures and television productions, for instance, are works for hire. Director Fritz Lang did not hold the copyright to Metropolis, the studio U.F.A. and its assignees and successors did; Lang was only U.F.A.'s employee.
Books, plays, music, and artworks, on the other hand, are usually works created by an individual, and the individual creator licenses the work to a publisher/distributor.
Publishers and distributors like AOL Time Warner who are great copyright owners or copyright licensees, are the ones who are hurt if and when works go into the public domain. But – every other publisher on this planet now has the opportunity to scoop up these public domain works and publish them. Those publishers are the beneficiaries of a shortened copyright term.
I don’t see why relatives who didn’t work on the books or artwork are ENTITLED to profit from the works of someone they may have never even met.
If I had a great-grand father, who happened to be a famous author who died 5 years before I was born, why should I be collecting royalty payments until I’m 65 (retirement age)? I didn’t have a DAMNED thing to do with writing that book. I should have to WORK for a living like everyone else, and not mooch off of life just because of an accident of birth.
If JRR Tolkien wants that kind of control of his work, that public might not have been that best place for it. Work that gets put in the public eye is going to end up being subject to the public imagination- and that means people are going to want to comment on it and build on it. There is a certain loss of control that happens when you put your work in the public sphere. You can’t, for example, prevent people from writing reviews of it, or coming up with private little stories about it, or whatever.
Lets say I put a nifty looking rock in the middle of the sidewalk and said “That’s my rock- I don’t want anyone to touch it.” Now at some point, perhaps after I am dead, someone is going to want to touch that rock. And you know what? I chose to put that rock right in the middle of the sidewalk, right where everyone would want to touch it. If I was really all that concerned with people not touching my rock, I should have kept it at home.
Of course I don’t advocate that artists horde their work away. But frankly I don’t see that as the logical consequence of acknowledgeing that at some point an artist work takes on a life of it’s own and might go places that the author never expected. Artistic work is like a child- You raise them the best you can, but once you let them out of the house (hopefully to seek sucess) you lose that perfect sense of control.
**
If you want to keep a business going, you have to do stuff. They can do anything the heck they want with GWTW, including marketing collectors plates and sequels and fuzzy dice. The only trick is that they don’t get a monopoly on it, because the benefits of the public having access to these works, and perhaps creating other works, like The Wind Done Gone, outweighs the benefits of them being able to be the only ones allowed to make GWTW car ornaments.
Have we not seen numerous examples of artistic works based on other artistic works that have contributed to our culture in a positive way? Do you not understand that art comes from our society, and part of our society is other artistic works? Making a piece of art about or based on another piece of art is the same darn thing as making a piece of art based on a historic event, person, cultural ritual, political outlook etc. etc. It is stifling to forbid us from making art about any art that has happened in the last seventy years, and it is wrong.
J.R.R. Tolkien apparently did not wish much of the material Christopher has published postumously in his History of Middle Earth series to ever see the light of day, either. Do you feel that material should not have been published? Does Christopher Tolkien’s decision express his father’s wishes, or his own? How can we know for certain?
What Tolkien wanted or didn’t want with regards to his works became irrelevant when he died - because from that point on, other people of necessity would be the ones making the decisions, and he can’t express his wishes from beyond the grave. Artists cannot hang on to their works postumously.
How is one book a business?
So you have a problem with the Coen brothers’ recent movie Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?? It’s not original - it’s a reworking of The Odyssey.
The Lord of the Rings isn’t original, either - most of the elements in that book Tolkien lifted directly from earlier European stories and myths. The only thing that’s different is the packaging - but it’s a very significant difference, in the end.
If you honestly believe that it’s wrong for an artist to rework earlier material, then I suggest you hang up your pen - because ultimately, ALL art is derivitive of someone else’s work. We don’t live in a cultural vacuum; your ideas didn’t just spring up from nowhere. In “original” works, the influence is subtle; in other artists’ works, the derivation is more direct (because, as Stricker has pointed out repeatedly, doing something new and unexpected with an old creation is a powerful artistic tool in the right hands). What matters in the end isn’t whether the work is “original”, but whether it has artistic merit; Shakespeare’s work isn’t lesser because he “ripped off other artists” when he wrote his plays.
Bottom line for me - your art isn’t a family business. Your art is yours, not your heirs’, who did not create it and therefore have no legitimate claim to profit from it. My family has also invested heavily in my education, and expects to reap a handsome reward as a result - but my medical practice is not a “family business”, and the greater good of society is best served by NOT allowing my family to practice medicine using my degree after my death (even though they can make a strong case that they paid for it, and that degree should therefore belong to them). The greater good of society when it comes to art is met by limiting the terms of copyright, allowing the artist control of his/her work, but not permitting people who did NOT create the works in question to continue to control those works and profit from them long after the death of their creator. Society has a need for a public domain, and that need trumps the rights of your grandkids to milk YOUR creations.
Nobody is forbidden from making art about any art that has happened in the last seventy years. They can do it. They just need to make sure that their work is not totally derivative and is original enough.
I honestly don’t see what the problem is with that. But then it would be a cold day in hell before I wrote fan fic so I guess I’m just not that taken with the concept of writing within someone else’s world.
Blalron
are you against any form of inheritance then? Why is it OK for me to inherit a couple of houses from my parents which generate income from rental but not OK for my kids to inherit copyrights which generate income from royalties and possibly licensing? With the houses I would do some admin and with the books my kids would do some admin. What’s the difference? OK I can sell the houses and my kids can’t sell the copyrights but I’m not seeing why my parents can provide for me but I can’t provide for my kids. Is it OK for me to hock off my copyright for a lump sum to the publisher and buy a house for them to benefit from?
So, bottom line: it’s always OK for publishers to profit, but artists and authors are expected to “donate” after a while? No, I don’t think that is right. You have not convinced me.
And like I’ve already pointed out, there are a lot of times when the “newborns” die young, or have an illness that prevents them from working for more than a few years in their youth. All that education and struggle, and only a few years of work. And, in my own case, even though I am not that old (I don’t think) I have photos that I took in my teens which will be 25 years old in a few years. Sorry, I’m not quite ready to see them in Fingerhut catalogs just yet.
Good, because the 25 year plan is grossly unacceptable.
Of course, like I’ve already rambled on about before, I still want to see some worthy heirs get to keep the profits. Like Primaflora’s kids. Like my family, who helped prop me up, helped pay for my art school, helped pay my car insurance bills—their emotional and financial assistance helped make my work possible. They deserve something for that. But for distant relatives, relatives I never see anymore? No, I don’t think they necessarily need to profit from my work.
And so perhaps there could be some regulation or policy that would allow worthy artists or authors to “petition” to have a copyright holder who was sitting on a copyright for no damned good reason to be more…reasonable? I don’t know. I wouldn’t want copyright holders to lose their copyright, but if a few of them are denying something out of pure spitefulness, or because of a “dog in the manger” attitude—well, I can sympathise with the people who honestly want to pay a fair fee for the use of copyrighted material, but are prevented from doing so by mind-numbingly unreasonable people. (Which in most cases, probably would be the big corporations, now wouldn’t it?)
In some cases, probably not (my distant cousins would not deserve to profit from my work). But if I died at a young age, my heirs would deserve to profit from my work, as do Primaflora’s kids. And if I instruct my heirs that I don’t want a particular piece to be released because I am very embarrassed by it, or find it morally disturbing—I want that wish to be honored.
Agreed. If we could stick it to Disney without simultaniously sticking it to Primaflora and me, that’s fine with me. Disney is evil, I have that on good authority. (I know a few people who work for Disney. Trust me, Disney is evil.)
I think Primaflora, being a writer, would be in more of a position to discuss this particular thing with some clarity and authority. All I know is that I have many friends who are writers, or “wannabe” writers. They like to write fan fiction (I’ve illustrated some of their work in the past) and yet none of them seem to lack the creativity to make stories up on their own—from their own universes. One fanfic writer that I illustrated for is Melanie Rawn (she used to do Star Wars stories). As you can see, she’s gone on to do quite well writing in her own universe. And another author I did a little illustration for, Eluki Bes Shahar, well some of her “Hellflower” stories (that you see listed on Amazon) used to be Star Wars stories. She re-wrote them, took out the Star Wars references, and voilà! Eluki isn’t voilating copyright!
I think fan fiction is fun, and I am glad that in some cases authors embrace and welcome fan fiction. It can be a very supportive community. But, the general attitude I get from my writer friends is that fan fiction (or work “adapted” or derived from someone else’s fairly contemporary work) is temporary, or for fun. They all want to “graduate” to their own universes, and their own ideas. Just my observation, from hanging out with writers.
Fanfiction IS fun, and the authors do it out of genuine love of and respect for the works (that has to be their motivation, since they can’t charge money for it) - but that doesn’t change the fact that it is also completely illegal. It is, in nearly all cases, a violation of copyright - and since the copyright holders generally have no intention of granting the writers a license under any circumstances, people who wish to work with those characters are forced to either stifle those creative urges or to fulfill them at the cost of breaking the law, taking care to keep a VERY low profile (which results in their works not being widely available). Either way, it’s the public at large that loses out, because undoubtably some of those stories are (or would be) well worth reading, and many people would love to do so.
Ask Melanie Rawn whether she’s ashamed of the fanfiction she wrote - and whether she views it as artistically “inferior” to her published work because its based on other people’s characters rather than on her own. Ask her if there are any stories using copyrighted characters she’d write now if she could actually publish the resulting works for money. Ask Eluki Bes Shahar if her work lost anything when she had to strip out the Star Wars references before she could publish it - and whether she would have done so if she could have published the story with those references left in place.
And as for fanfiction writers wanting to graduate to “their own” universes - I know many fanfiction writers who have no interest in doing so. They are satisfied with what they’re writing now, and they don’t see writing fanfiction as merely using “training wheels” to prepare themselves for the day when they’re ready to write supposedly “superior” original works. (In fact, at least one of the writers I know DOES publish professionally as well - so it’s clearly not the case that she’s writing fanfiction because she’s not “good enough to create publishable original works”.) Of course, those fanfiction writers who want to become professional authors have no choice but to move on to their own “original” characters - because their fanfiction (under current copyright law) CAN’T be published, no matter how badly they might wish it could be.
Unless, of course, they’re lucky enough to find that it’s a work already in the public domain that inspires their muse - then they can write all the “fanfiction” they want, give it a catchy title such as Wide Sargasso Sea or Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, and publish it for profit without anyone accusing them of being second-rate writers who’re incapable of generating original ideas. I’m glad that the folks who love Jane Eyre and Hamlet have that freedom; I only wish that the ones who feel the same way about Mickey Mouse or The Lord of the Rings did as well.
You know, something strikes me as odd. We copyright holders are expected by many of you to give up our creations in a relative short amount of time (14 - 25 years, or even less, according to some of you) because you figure that we were “newborns” when we created those works, and we need to get on to make new works and not profit from the old…yadda yadda yadda. You want to force us to give up rights to the older works, because we should have “graduated” past them, in a manner of speaking.
But when we suggest that these fan writers be expected to “graduate” past using other people’s characters and come up with their own (something that they are perfectly capable of doing), somehow that’s not acceptable? No, not buying it.
Under the 50/life plan, it could not possibly be a donation of the artist. The artist is freakin’ dead. Dead dead dead.
But if you want to argue my ideal, okay. Let’s look at Kafka. Kafka wanted his works to be burned when he died. But what happened? Kafka’s friend decided that the works were just too damn good to burn.
This was against Kafka’s wishes, and it was also the right thing to do. As soon as Kafka put words to paper, his art became a part of the world instead of a just a part of his head. Kafka’s art thus belongs to the world, just as all art belongs to the world. Allowing the world to do what it wants with a work is not a “donation”.
But a short copyright is a well-justified exception to that. Artists need some time to profit from what they create. But that exception is secondary in importance. The real owner of the work, the public, deserves that work as soon as possible.
According to you, 25 years is “grossly unacceptable”. I won’t argue that any further, but I will add that it’s also grossly unacceptable for a work to be copyrighted longer than the average life expectancy of a child who is younger than the work.
Then, as I’ve said before, leave them cash. Under the 50/life rule, you or your heirs will have a monopoly on that work for at least 50 years. If you can’t save up a decent amount to leave to those you love after 50+ years of a monopoly on your creations, then I don’t know what to tell you.
Corporations own the government. Disney would apply to adapt a 30 year old work and be approved. I would apply to adapt a 70 year old work and would be denied.
No, more government regulation is not the way to go. We need to find the simplest compromise possible.
Are you going to tell Tom Stoppard that he should “graduate” past using other people’s characters, and stop writing things such as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead and the screenplay for Shakespeare in Love? Would Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead even work if the connection to Hamlet was removed from the play? Or would it become incomprehensible and meaningless?
Is T.H. White someone who never grew up because all his best-known works are based on other people’s creations? Would The Once and Future King be a better book if he had changed all the characters’ names, and thus avoided “ripping off” Le Morte d’Arthur - or would it be a lesser one?
Why should an author be compelled to come up with “original” characters when he/she wants to tell a tale that works better with already established ones? Why should an artist have to stifle his ideas if they are intimately connected with an already-published piece and serve to change the way we look at the older story, making it seem fresh and new again? Answers, please.
This is part of what confuses me about what Primaflora has said in regard to fan fiction: .00000000001% of fan fiction is ever published, after obtaining the permission of the original works’ creators, as was done with a book of Star Trek fics. As it normally stands, though, fan fic writers are never ever going to see a single cent from their stories, so why would it hurt the character’s creators financially? Even’s daughter would, by nature of being a fan fic writer, know that she would never be allowed to publish her story with non-orginal characters, so if she wanted to publish, she should use her own characters instead.
I don’t think fan fic writers should expect to write for profit, because, as the good ones all acknowledge, they’re borrowing someone else’s characters- borrowing someone else’s “hard work”.
In addition to writing stories with my own characters, I write fan fics, and I enjoy doing so very much. I like writing crossovers that would never happen in reality (see my sig link) and I like writing alternative endings. I do research for some of these stories - for example I spent about an hour working out how a 17 year-old and his 12-year-old sister could most affordably, and legally, get from an imaginary place on the cape in MA to Roswell, NM; in another story I learned more about bone marrow transplants than I would have liked so I could make a scene realistic-because that’s simply part of good writing. But I don’t expect to ever publish any of these stories. The stories I write with original characters I have higher hopes for.
If I don’t expect to profit why do I write fan fics? a. I crave immediate feedback. By posting to my audience on another set of message boards, I rarely have to wait more than 36 hours for readers to react to whatever portion of the story I just posted. b. I like to share my ideas. That’s why I post at any message board, actually. c. It’s helping me increase my attention span. In the past 13 months I’ve written approximately 175,000 words in a series of connecting stories. This is helping me learn to extend my ideas. Does it bother me that I’ll never be able to publish my stories? Not really, they have values above, so it’s not as I’m writing them for nothing.
On the other hand, I write original stories too, none of which I’ve been brave enough to attempt publishing. (I have publish poems, though) I would be fine with people writing fan fics on them, but would be really bothered if someone attempted to publish stories with characters I created without getting my ok. Attempting to publish a fan fic without premision is plagerism.
Why? In the hypothetical example Even gave, the creators of Hogan’s Heros are long dead - why should she not be allowed to publish that work?
Why is it O.K. for Disney to adapt the original works produced by Victor Hugo, Hans Christian Andersen, Rudyard Kipling, and the Brothers Grim, then?
A large part of Disney’s fortune is directly owed to the limited copyright terms of previous generations, which is what allowed those stories to enter the public domain in the first place. Now Disney (and the other large media corporations) are lobbying for changes in copyright law to protect THEIR original works from undergoing the same treatment at the hands of others. Why shouldn’t future generations have the same opportunity to re-work Hogan’s Heros, Mickey Mouse, or Donald Duck that Walt’s company has had with Snow White and The Little Mermaid?
And if you answer, “well, artists shouldn’t ever use someone else’s work”, I’ll ask you if you’re prepared to throw away West Side Story, Akiro Kurosawa’s brilliant Ran, T. H. White’s The Once and Future King, The Ten Commandments, Errol Flynn’s The Adventures of Robin Hood, the musical Man of La Mancha, Oh, Brother, Where Art Thou?… the list goes on and on. Art based directly on earlier artists’ work is common. Personally, I think such a trade would be a poor deal - sacrificing so much creative expression just to ensure that The Mouse is protected from such “exploitation” forever (which is Disney’s long-term goal).
I think you’re missing something here - you say you wouldn’t dream of publishing your fanfics. But that is EXACTLY what you’re doing when you post them to a messageboard where other people can read them, and if your fanfics are based on copyrighted material (as they probably are) YOU ARE IN VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT. It doesn’t matter that no money has traded hands - the copyright holders can take you to court if they please, even though you’ve never made a dime off those works. If you wish to respect copyright law, you are obligated to keep those stories hidden away where no one else can see them, unless you can get permission from the copyright holder to publish them (even for free) or until the works on which they are based enter the public domain (which, due to the recent extension of the copyright terms, almost certainly won’t happen during your lifetime - if it ever does).
As I’ve said before, I have no problems with copyrights lasting for the lifetime of the creator; so all those Harry Potter fanfics would still be illegal under the copyright periods I envision. Those writers would have to wait until J. K. Rowling dies before they could legally bring their works out before the public. Fine - but note, they WOULD have a chance to publish those works at some point during their lifetimes, as Rowling isn’t going to live forever. They’d just have to be patient (and hope that people still cared about Harry Potter by then).
But I see no point in continuing copyright significantly beyond the author’s death - it’s too stifling to creativity. And I don’t see any reason why work-for-hire should be protected for 100+ years. Kirk and Spock, Han and Luke and Darth Vader, Matt Dillon and Kitty, Buffy and Angel, Superman and Batman - those are our modern equivalent of mythology, they form a huge part of our common culture, and (after a reasonable amount of time to allow the originators to profit from their creations), they should be made available for everyone else to use, just as King Arthur and Robin Hood are.
I made it clear quite a while ago that I didn’t think that every story should remain copyrighted forever. After a copyright expires, have at it. Which is what Tom Stoppard did.
Oh, but it’s for their own good, don’t you see? I mean, that’s what y’all are implying about those of us who so unreasonably want to hang onto our works for more than a few years, right?
It’s for our own good that we “donate” our works so that they can profit others. If we are forced to “donate” our works, we’ll be compelled to make more works. We’ll “graduate” and not rely on our “newborn” works. We should be working for a living like everyone else, right?
And y’all are going to do us this tremendous favor by not allowing us to keep rights to our own work. For our own good, mind.
So we just want to return the favor. By urging these authors to be more inventive, and by encouraging them to create their own characters. It’s for their own good that we wish this.
Fortunately, ths is rarely enforced (at least in my experience). And, an important part of the whole copyright violation process is determining damages. With most fan fiction, there isn’t much.
For instance, one of my friends, a capable filmmaker, had made a “spoof” Star Trek film. He made it over 10 years ago, and it is still in circulation. People can “order” it from his website (and any of his other fannish “spoof” movies) by merely sending a SASE and a blank VHS tape. That way, no money is passing hands. He copies the movies onto the tapes, mails the tape back, and no profit has been made. He’s been doing this for well over ten years and no one has busted him yet. I doubt they ever will.
However, if he were to start selling his movies, that would be a different matter.
Yeah, I understand. They made a judgment call. A good one, I think.
And I trust that my heirs will also make a good judgment call. I select them as my heirs, I trust them.
Unless the artists expected to give up rights to their own works are still alive. But they are not working full-time at their art because they can’t make ends meet, but of course they are still expected to hand over rights to older works so that publishers can make a profit from them.
You seem to think that as if by saying it, it will become true.
Look, I share something. It’s still mine, but I decide to share it. I worked at it. I went to school to educate myself enough to figure out how to do it. I bought the materials in order to make it. And then I decide to share it, under certain conditions. My choice. The public does not own my work. I choose to share it with them.
Damn straight it is. I don’t consider myself that old (I started doing my photography and artwork at at a rather young age) and yet I will have works that are 25 years old in a few years. I don’t think I should be obliged to “donate” them just yet.
Which is why I conceded quite a while ago that 35 - 50 years after the death of the artist is good enough.
:rolleyes: Sigh.
Let’s say I die tomorrow, or next year. I don’t hage a lot of cash. What I do have are a LOT of negatives, and a website promoting these photographs. I also have another (rather popular) website which is a psuedo “e-Book” art tutorial site. Could be easily be made into a print book. (And my site visitors frequently ask when I’m going to do that.) These are my “assets”. Not cash. The potential earnings of these things. They are just now starting to pick up. I don’t expect them to make money overnight, and they may never make a lot of money. But that’s the best I’ve got. And if these “assets” do make money, I actually have the audacity to want my heirs to get it, at least for a while.
My heirs helped make my work possible. No, they didn’t physically make the work, but they supported me in many other significant ways. They are far more “deserving” of the profits from my work than a publishing company.
Assuming, of course, that the works in question are ever ALLOWED to enter the public domain - which is precisely the issue here. Copyright laws have been extended (and retroactively, too, not just on new works) since the 70s, with no signs of a letup on the horizon. Do you really think the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act is the final time that this will happen? If life of the artist + 20 years wasn’t sufficient for the big corporations, why do you think that life of the artist + 70 years will be?
And life of the artist + 70 years means that many works which were produced before a child is born will STILL be under copyright when that child dies of old age. From the standpoint of that child, how is that a “limited term” of copyright? He/she was denied the ability to ever freely use those works (and remember, even if the person is willing and able to pay a license fee, there’s no guarentee he/she will be grated one - so I’m not just talking about “free” in an economic sense here). A copyright that extends to cover a period of nearly two human lifespans is too long.
**
Actually, it IS for your own good. Most of the participants in this thread have been proposing relatively long terms of copyright (50 years or more, many agreeing with the life of the artist as a reasonable limit) - they’re just shorter terms than the ones currently set by the law, terms more in line with what copyrights historically were set at. You’d retain full rights to your works for 50+ years or more - and in return, you’d gain unlimited access to the works of literally HUNDREDS of other artists when those works enter the public domain. Works you’re now free to use when creating YOUR art.
Want to make a photo montage that uses important historical footage (such as clips from the Zapruder film, or the Challenger explosion), or recognizable cultural icons (such as Superman, or Mickey Mouse)? Have at it - those works will enter public domain during your lifetime, and you’ll be able to use them without having to pay a huge licensing fee, or risking being denied their use by a copyright holder. Want to make your own unique film adaptation of “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” - go for it. There’s no longer any risk that you’ll be sued by Disney for “infringing” on their (no-longer copyrighted) version of the story. Feel free to throw a little Gershwin or ragtime into your new jazz medley. Go ahead and toss James Bond or Rhett Butler into your novel or short story. Once the character is in the public domain, you’re free to do so should you wish to.
You keep seeing only the negative side of things - but for artists, there’s an important positive side, too, namely a tremendous expansion in their artistic freedom. Only corporations (which theoretically can live forever) stand to gain any benefits from these current extremely long copyright periods. That’s why they’re fighting so hard for them.
Damages are NOT important in assessing copyright violations - only in determining how severely the copyright violator will be punished. A fanfiction writer may not be assessed any monetary damages, since his/her work is generating no revenue and he/she is therefore not depriving the copyright holder of income, but he/she can still be ordered to cease and desist publication of the infringing works. This deprives the writer of freedom of expression, and the general public of the opportunity to view that work. In some cases (such as recently published works, where the author is still alive), that may be appropariate. But why should works written in the 1930s, whose authors have been mouldering in the ground for years, be so protected?
And whether the law is enforced is ENTIRELY up to the copyright holder. As more and more copyrights are held by large media corporations (which can afford the legal expenses of prosecution, and are zealous about maintaining control of “their” creations), we can expect zealous enforcement attempts to increase.
Only because (to date) Paramount has been lenient about pursuing Star Trek copyright violations (unlike many corporations, they apparently recognise that a supportive fandom is a GOOD thing for their works; it is, after all , the only reason Star Trek has remained economically profitable over the years). What your friend is doing is STILL a copyright violation, though, and if Paramount changed its mind, the company COULD legally shut his website down and suppress distribution of his film. And there would be nothing your friend could do about it - the fact that Kirk and Spock are cultural icons (and were probably created before he was even born) means nothing to the court. But shouldn’t your friend have the freedom to comment on these cultural icons of the 1960s without having to worry about the possibility of being hauled into court?
And if your friend’s spoof is really that good, and people WANT to view it, why should he be forbidden to profit from it? You have been very concerned about protecting the income from your creations - why do you not feel the same way about your friend’s creation? Paramount didn’t create Kirk and Spock - Gene Roddenberry did, and he’s dead. And the contents of your friend’s spoof are his own, even if the characters are not. Why should he be forbidden to profit from his unique creation? How is his Star Trek spoof fundamentally different from, say, a political spoof featuring Richard Nixon (another important icon of the 60s and 70s), which he COULD sell?
Sigh. I’ve already repeated many countless times that I don’t support endless copyright extensions. 35 - 50 years past the copyright holder’s death is just fine. How many times must I repeat that?
:rolleyes: You’re just protecting us from ourselves, eh?
HUH? You mean some people have been suggesting this? Oh wait! There have been people suggesting this! And one of them has been ME! Yes, I’d like to see 35 - 50 years past artist’s death for heirs, but I stipulate worthy heirs (not just any distant cousin). I already conceded a while ago, for most cases, Strickler’s proposal of 50 years or death of artist sounds decent.
However, several on this thread (including Strickler) would prefer 25 years, or less. One person thinks 5 years is plenty.
Golly, I have never seen the need to work too much with other people’s art. Sure, I can see the benefit in some cases, but as Primaflora and I have already told you, the temptation is not that great a lot of the time. I feel a pride in going out and taking my own photos, etc.
And I concede—if we can find a way to limit the stranglehold these big companies have, without simultaniously screwing over people like Primaflora and me, that’s fine. We are just interested in keeping rights to our own works, and passing them on for a spell to our heirs. (Just like people pass on family businesses to their heirs.) Not forever, just for a while.
True, but how many companies are going to go to the trouble of taking a 15 year old fanfic author to court for putting a small Geocities site up that gets 100 visits a month? I mean, seriously?
And I’m sure most fanfic writers can live with this risk. Many of their little sites have a disclaimer that says that they’ll happily remove any material if the copyright owners object to it.
Well, I never said that they should. The most I think that the most that heirs should keep copyright would be 50 years. 35 is OK too.
He’s a smart guy—he knows that.
Hmmm…I am not up completely on “fair use”, but isn’t “satire” part of “fair use”? My friend’s film is defintely satire. I don’t even know if he is violating copyright.
Well, whatever—he makes other films that are non-fan-related. He’s a pragmatic fellow, and he’s doing fine, financially.
He created it going in knowing that he was using someone else’s ideas. I’ve never heard him complain about the limitations. I can’t speak for him, but I wouldn’t be surprised that he would feel that if he wants his creative ideas protected, he’d better not expect to profit from other people’s ideas.