[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

No, but that's hardly an argument in favor of the copyright laws we have today. It didn't completely destroy everything is not a ringing endorsement.

True. But the massive volume of content created in, say, the last 50 years is a pretty good indication that something is working.

I might add there are quite a few artists who thoroughly depend on copyright, as imperfect as it may be. Talk to some professional photographers and see how they like the idea of weakening copyright....

Originally Posted by iphinome

Those contemporary sources would have been covered by copyright in the same way Disney's movies are today, not just the art and music but the script, drawing from anything added would be infringment.

Again correct, but anything derived from historical or folk sources -- i.e. most of it -- would be fair game. Or he'd just license it or work around it.

Originally Posted by iphinome

With good lawyers and pile of money to fight the good lawyers and pile of money hollywood has a case for infringement could probably have been made, The Japanese though tend to take a different view even allowing fan based manga to be not just distributed but sold for profit.George Lucas could have also been in hot water over Star Wars....

The point is that even with contemporary copyright, artists are still able to do adaptations; adaptations are downright routine, especially books to movies (and vice versa). Meanwhile, Star Wars was clearly inspired by Hidden Fortress, but is nowhere near close enough to qualify as a copyright violation. Your interpretation of the powers of copyright are in excess of even the alleged "copyright tyrants."

Originally Posted by iphinome

Cover versions of songs are covered by statutory licenses.

Yep, and protected by copyright, and copyright hasn't stopped musicians from being inspired by other musicians -- in fact many openly acknowledge their inspirations. Sampling, on the other hand, is not a free-for-all; you need permission and you have to pay whatever the copyright holder demands. Again, it hasn't strangled hip-hop.

Originally Posted by iphinome

Again the question was what would he have not been able to write if he was stuck with existing copyright laws not what he would have come up with instead....

Right, which is why I pointed out that most of his sources were historical and folk tales, or (if done today) could involve licensing or modification.

But really, the societies in question are so different in so many ways that the inquiry is basically pointless.

Originally Posted by iphinome

Take a look at a fiction bestseller list and then try to tell me with a straight face that copyright law save us form low quality work.

Why do I need to restrict myself to the best-seller list? Every era produces junk, we are just not likely to read mediocre 16th century plays unless we're very curious or a scholar. Meanwhile, I could name thousands upon thousands of artworks and texts of outstanding quality whose creators deal with, rely on, or prefer to utilize, copyright protection.

Originally Posted by iphinome

Even footing. Disney has in the past and can right now infringe now and let the lawyers sort it out later if need be, they're a giant.

Uh huh. The fact that they don't rampantly violate copyright, and do occasionally get sued for infringement (sometimes with merit, sometimes without) pretty much invalidates this assertion.

Originally Posted by iphinome

The Harry Potter Lexicon, Lawsuits against JK Rowling claiming she ingrinfged though personally even with the crazy laws we have those seemed outrageous.

I assume you mean "the lawsuit against the HPL seems outrageous." Some claims were excessive, but the ruling actually made sense. She never went after the site or non-commercial uses; she only wanted to stop the commercial use of her work. The court ruling preserved fair use and recognized that authors cannot halt or control reference works relating to their work. The ruling went against the book because the HPL took too much verbatim from the original texts and was not sufficiently transformative. Thus Vander Ark can, and apparently is, rewriting the Lexicon for publication.

Originally Posted by iphinome

I don't know if this counts as an "appropriation artist" sincei'm not sure how you define it but http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/20...right-suit/?hp

An "appropriation artist" refers to a fairly specific type of conceptual artist who use other artists' works to make their own. Sometimes this is done to comment on the art itself, other times not so much. In many cases the artist is simply ignorant of copyright law, and is cloning the original material in no small part for a commercial purpose.

A recent example was shown in the Whitney Biennial; the conceptual artist Lorraine O'Grady used a photograph of Michael Jackson that was taken by Harry Benson without permission or attribution (or even any manipulation). Benson said he felt horrible that someone had "stolen" his work.

Another example is Jeff Koons; he saw a photograph of puppies, removed the copyright notification, and instructed his staff to produce a sculpture that duplicated the image with a few minor notifications. He then sold 3 copies for over $300,000 each.

Colting's case is different, in that he used characters without permission and his work fairly clearly did not meet the tests for fair use; O'Grady and Koons is a much more explicit copy of actual material. However, I see no particular defense for Colting's approach. He did not seek permission; he was not doing a parody or a scholarly work; Salinger objected. If Salinger didn't care, I wouldn't either. He did, and as such I don't see how Colting has much of a defense, even if the work is not particularly recent.

Perhaps it sucks for some artists to face limitations Shakespeare did not have to deal with in the 1500's. However, artists appear to have done quite well regardless.