The Fall of Gondolin

[issybird]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I don't mind remakes. The Maltese Falcon and The Wizard of Oz were remakes after all. You could wind up with a nice new take on a classic (the Dawn of the Dead remake was better than expected). Worst case, you have a bad remake and the classic stands (most of the remakes of John Carpenter films).

Remakes that improve on the original could make a good question in the movie thread in the Lounge.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by tomsem

It is difficult to come up with examples where sequels by someone other than the original author are equal to or better than the preceding works.

In movies, there are I would say many examples where the remake or reboot or sequel is better. I may be an outlier, but I never much cared for the first six Star Wars movies, while the latest two (and even the spinoffs) are quite good. Likewise the Nolan Batman movies were much better than the previous ones. I think a lot of this has to do with what it is technically possible to realize today with CGI, it is limited not so much by budget but by imagination.

But with books it is about plain old storytelling.

Consider that copyright isn't just about books, it's also about movie rights. There are a lot of potentially good movies buried in Tolkien's back story.

As an example, I rather liked the two Robert Dowdey Sherlock Holmes movies (a third is apparently in process). I also liked the modern reboot on BBC with Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman. Both rather innovative takes on the original character. I just wished that film makers would have the same freedom to mine the Tolkien back story.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Consider that copyright isn't just about books, it's also about movie rights.

Definitely. And what it shouldn't be about is putting your great-great-grandchildren through university on your ongoing royalties. The situation is absurd and disgraceful.

[Conan46]

Originally Posted by meeera

Definitely. And what it shouldn't be about is putting your great-great-grandchildren through university on your ongoing royalties. The situation is absurd and disgraceful.

Agreed. U.S. Copyright and Trademark law are the most abused laws in our country. And sadly, the powers that be have twisted arms to get the rest of the world on board.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Conan46

Agreed. U.S. Copyright and Trademark law are the most abused laws in our country. And sadly, the powers that be have twisted arms to get the rest of the world on board.

I believe it's the reverse. The current copyright law is based on the Treaty of Berne originally signed in 1887. The Treaty of Berne was basically developed by Victor Hugo the rather rich French author. The US didn't sign the Treaty of Berne until the late 1970's under the copyright law of 1976, sometimes known as the Sonny Bono act, since Sonny Bono died just before the law was rammed through and his death was used as an excuse to pass the law. Signing the treaty had little to do with books, but rather were driven by movie and music copyrights, since that was were all the money was. It coincided with the various Hollywood movie studios (i.e. Disney) wanting to expand their market outside the US, but of course since the US didn't recognize copyrights granted outside the US, the countries outside the US didn't recognize US copyrights.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I believe it's the reverse. The current copyright law is based on the Treaty of Berne originally signed in 1887. The Treaty of Berne was basically developed by Victor Hugo the rather rich French author. The US didn't sign the Treaty of Berne until the late 1970's under the copyright law of 1976, sometimes known as the Sonny Bono act, since Sonny Bono died just before the law was rammed through and his death was used as an excuse to pass the law. Signing the treaty had little to do with books, but rather were driven by movie and music copyrights, since that was were all the money was. It coincided with the various Hollywood movie studios (i.e. Disney) wanting to expand their market outside the US, but of course since the US didn't recognize copyrights granted outside the US, the countries outside the US didn't recognize US copyrights.

From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono

Salvatore Phillip "Sonny" Bono (/ˈboʊnoʊ/; February 16, 1935 – January 5, 1998) was an American musician, singer-songwriter, producer, actor, and politician who came to fame in partnership with his second wife Cher, as the popular singing duo Sonny & Cher. He was mayor of Palm Springs, California from 1988 to 1992, and the Republican congressman for California's 44th district from 1995 until his death in 1998.
The United States Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, which extended the term of copyright by 20 years, was named in honor of Bono when it was passed by Congress nine months after his death. Mary Bono (Sonny's last wife) had been one of the original sponsors of the legislation, commonly known as the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act.

A few decades off.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono



A few decades off.

Just the Bono part. The 1976 copyright act was the one that brought US copyright law into line with the Berne Convention. This established copyright at life plus 50 and codified the Fair Use doctrine. The 1998 law (also known as the Micky Mouse Protection Act) extended copyright to life plus 70. The 76 copyright act was the toe in the door, the 98 copyright act kicked the door open.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Just the Bono part.

Which was a big chunk of your post. You chopped 22 years from his life.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by meeera

Definitely. And what it shouldn't be about is putting your great-great-grandchildren through university on your ongoing royalties. The situation is absurd and disgraceful.

I've never been able to quite figure this out. If a man creates something that makes people money (has value), why shouldn't he be able to pass that valuable property on to his heirs? If a man creates a profitable corporation, should his family be forced to give it away fifty years after his death?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by rcentros

I've never been able to quite figure this out. If a man creates something that makes people money (has value), why shouldn't he be able to pass that valuable property on to his heirs? If a man creates a profitable corporation, should his family be forced to give it away fifty years after his death?

Why have copyright in the first place?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Which was a big chunk of your post. You chopped 22 years from his life.

Not actually. I was indeed wrong about Bono and acknowledge it, but the main point of the post was that the rest of the world had gone to extended copyright well before the US and that the US joined the rest of the world rather than the US twisting arms to get the rest of the world on board with the extended copyright.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Not actually. I was indeed wrong about Bono and acknowledge it, but the main point of the post was that the rest of the world had gone to extended copyright well before the US and that the US joined the rest of the world rather than the US twisting arms to get the rest of the world on board with the extended copyright.

Let's be precise here. The EU extended the Berne copyright. Most of the rest of the world did not before the US extended in 1998.

Canada, didn't. Australia, New Zealand, most of Asia didn't. The only longer one that I know of then was Mexico.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Why have copyright in the first place?

The idea of copyright as personal property to be kept forever is the crux of the copyright debates. Obviously Victor Hugo (and I suspect many people who profit from so called intellectual property i.e. copyright and patents) consider such things personal property to be passed down forever. However the idea of copyright and patents as property of the individual artist or inventor is a very new idea in history. Prior to the copyright act of 1710, copyright was a grant by the crown to the publisher, not the originating writer.

Copyright and patents are explicitly a limited time government granted monopoly in the US Constitution and thus should not be considered as personal property under US law. The poor starving offspring of famous artists are long been an emotional lever for those who think that such things are property. Given that the vast majority of works under copyright make insignificant amounts of money after the initial release, I find that argument unpersuasive.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Let's be precise here. The EU extended the Berne copyright. Most of the rest of the world did not before the US extended in 1998.

Canada, didn't. Australia, New Zealand, most of Asia didn't. The only longer one that I know of then was Mexico.

If the question is extending copyright from life plus 50 to life plus 100 (to use nice round numbers rather than the precises terms), then yes. But as you say, the US wasn't the first to go to life plus 100. It's more the US ( or more precisely US copyright holders) who jumped on the band wagon than the US driving the wagon.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Not actually. I was indeed wrong about Bono and acknowledge it, but the main point of the post was that the rest of the world had gone to extended copyright well before the US and that the US joined the rest of the world rather than the US twisting arms to get the rest of the world on board with the extended copyright.

It was half the post. Why put it in at all or why not spend the few seconds to check?