[Alanon]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Obviously this discussion can go into the various legalities of copyright, derivative works (in some countries derivative works are not covered under copyright, in others they are) and the like, but that's not really what I want to focus on. Instead I want to focus on two ideas. The first being that when a work goes into public domain, anyone can make a copy and the second the idea of new works using the characters or universe of a previous work.

For some reason, there hasn't been much discussion about your second point, which I find by far the more interesting one, and it's been in the centre of some of my research. I beg forgiveness for the wall of text that is to follow, when I'm intrigued by something I find it difficult to stop.

One could make the argument of there being a novel understanding not of the concept of "derivative" but rather of the concept of "work" (as in work of art). At the core of what's called transmedal narratology there's an understanding that modern stories by and large are no longer created in a singular medium, but in one of two ways - either through what's been called the "snowball effect", where a single-media creation grows so popular that it spills over into other media (think Harry Potter), or as a true transmedial project, with parallel stories across media, each, ideally developing a distinct part of the story (think Dragon Age). What's central in both of these approaches is an understanding that the audience somehow constitutes the body of work and engages with it in a much more active way. This has untold implications on the way the idea of an author is perceived, be it consciously or subconsciously. Fanfic is a prime example - the Harry Potter fanfic authors by and large hate the fact J.K. Rowling is "writing fan fiction of her own work" because they see it as an intrusion, or even unearned privilege of destroying everything they've created. How would one even begin to disentangle this situation from a traditional copyright position? There is an expectation (one would argue it was there from the very beginning, let's not forget the Sherock readership and Doyle's reversal) that an audience has a right to impact the franchise they love. More often than not such an attitude spills over into a new breadth of creativity. Corporate copyright laws allow for it - Universal's "transformative" green, flat-topped Frankenstein's monster is under copyright - despite the fact Mary Shelley's book is not. Fifty shades started of as a Twilight fanfic and is now happily being sold by Amazon, expunged from any vestiges of the original characters. Something is changing in our media landscape, and the way which we perceive media has, I believe, also changed the way we see authors.

The plain fact is that the figure of the author - or should I say, auteur - has been fictionalised and propped up beyond measure. We relish the creative genius living in a decrepit shack, starving and ill, whose self-made creation soares to the heavens. Walt Disney, esq. may have thought Mickey up all on his lonesome, but most of his subsequent creations are a conglomeration of a great many people contributing ideas. Yet we were more than OK with a single man carrying the banner of an entire creative industry, and awarded him dozens of Oscars. I don't think it would happen today, certainly not so easily. Still there are people across the thread taking him as a poster boy of why copyright should be adhered to, or even lengthened? All the while, the paradoxes and inconsistencies of this reasoning are apparent - architects, craftsmen, jewellers, all of them engaged in creative and impactful intellectual work without anyone so much batting an eye. As far as I know, there is no copyright for an inventive diamond cut. A point can be made in the standard creative lane - can anyone justify why Stan Lee, being a creative genius and immense influence - was not a billionaire like good ol' Walt? Should the fact he signed away his rights due to the place where he was employed and the nature of his industry matter to copyright absolutists? Should it matter to his audience, or the people influenced by him? What I believe is changing is that the moralistic, Messianic, romanticist notion of the individual creative genius (as opposed to sell-outs that compromise their artistic integrity for creature comforts like food), is being challenged by contemporary new art forms like video games, which influence our ideas as to what authorship means. Should this not somehow be reflected in copyright legislation?

A central hindrance in communication in the thread, as I see it, seem to be the art and property inheritance parallels. Art is only valuable insofar as it is unique - be it the original, or a unique reproduction by a famous forger, etc. The correct comparison between a Rembrandt portrait and Shakespeare is the portrait vs. an actual Shakespeare manuscript, not Rembrandt and the untold Penguin Classics printed editions. A sculpture loses value when reproduced. It has not been so in printed books, save for vaunted exceptions, and even in such cases it is due to rarity or historical significance as much - if not more - than the actual content. As I see it, the palliative backbone of print copyright infringement is in revenue lost from unauthorised reproduction and sales, the argument being - if you lot buy the Harry Potter films you might not buy the books. However, when the storyworld expands to include content from wildly different sources, all contributing to the general landscape, the waters get muddied, and it becomes unclear who, exactly, is the most appropriate rights holder - Rowling, the film studios, comic artists, merch designers... the list goes on. Problem is, these are never copies, but creative adaptations, and the "he was here first" argument of yesteryear seldom when cuts it. As the media landscape changes, so will the incentives of corporations. Public domain works were once reprinted because that was the only way to obtain them. The internet and places like this forum are testaments to the shifting sands. The internet has made available books that would in no way have been readable, if not for the uncompensated effort of places like Gutenberg. Heirs peter out, only corporations are forever. Finally, to all those claiming that modern copyright best protects the intellectual labour and interests of authors, I point to the sorry state of academic publishing paywalls, which protect only the corporate interests that made the rules in the first place.