Quote:
Originally Posted by GrannyGrump
Mind you, I did say " pleasing permutations." 
Too much of the current explosion consists of drivel and dreck.
But what I was driving at, was that with Perpetual Copyright, the availability of subjects or usable output could be diminished. If it were legally strongly enforced, might it not have a negative impact on that explosion?
(And since I was advancing a fictional situation, it of course has no effect on actual current events.) |
We have actual copyright now....and no limit on the production of fiction. Due to the efforts of Disney and the like, we have no significant modern fiction that has fallen into the public domain. And still no limit to the production of fiction.
Copyright hasn't locked out any themes, any genres. Nobody owns "buddy copy story", nobody owns vampires. Rowling probably does own "Muggle" but she doesn't own "non magical people".
I refer again to the Jack Reacher, John Puller situation. Jack becomes John, Reacher becomes Puller. I have no idea why Baldacci did this as he clearly was already an established author. Did Lee Child insult his mother? Who knows. But there is nothing Lee Child could do. They aren't "the same", but they are more than kissing cousins. Fun fact....I like both series. And why wouldn't anyone....if you liked one. The Sword of Shanara is a direct rip off of Lord of the rings. Scene for scene. It was only later that Terry Brooks learned to write his own plots.
Music is much more constrained in comparison. Some of the copyright infringements have seemed specious IMHO.