Quote:
Originally Posted by Iphinome
In fact if you do some quick searches you'll see just about all of his work sourced and dated from earlier but not that much earlier works.....
|
Many of Shakespeare's inspirations were history, alleged history (e.g. Macbeth) or had origins in folk tales, thus not really bound by copyright.
And while current copyright durations may be too long, don't forget that durations were significantly shorter -- 14 years iirc -- in the 1500s when copyright first started. (Longer terms make more sense, now that our lifespans have more than doubled since the 1500s.)
Also, don't forget that modern society does not necessarily
outlaw creative re-uses -- just re-uses that are a) too similar and b) if it is highly similar, done with the permission of the rights holder.
There is also a lot of tacit approval of, or at least tolerance of, certain non-commercial re-uses, notably "fanfics."
Even from a strictly aesthetic point of view, restrictions on who can legitimately use and re-use copyrighted material is not necessarily a bad thing. I'm not convinced the world would be best served by every Tom, Dick and Harry being able to publish their own Harry Potter books and make their own Harry Potter movies. Nor do I believe that if a writer of equal talent and dedication as Shakespeare was active today, that copyright would genuinely hinder his or her abilities.
This is not to say that the commercial stewards of such properties always make perfect decisions, or that current copyright durations are optimal. But I don't see how replacing copyright with an anarchistic public domain policy offers an improvement, except for the people who can't be bothered to make their own characters, plots and fantasy worlds.
