Sherlock Holmes ruled to be (mostly) in the public domain

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by crich70

Ah but if you write a book and don't have the ability to claim copyright on it during your lifetime how will you ensure that you have enough $$ to live on so that you can write the next one? Mozart is a good example. He ended up in a pauper's grave when he died because he only got paid once for each of his works. He'd write a piece of music for someone and once paid that was the only money he made from that piece. By making sure that the author of a book or short story has certain rights during their lifetime what is best for the public is assured. He/she is able to make enough money to either add to their income or (if lucky enough to be popular) to be able to spend their working lives creating more dreams for others to share in.

There is a difference between a certain limited copyright, lets say 50 years flat, and essentially unlimited copyright (he'd have done just fine, really, if he had a 10-year copyright,) and what's best for society would therefore be assured. There would be no benefit to society beyond that, so why should it still be under copyright?

Of course, some people here think Mozart's work should still be under copyright....

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

The reasoning behind copyright law is that if it benefits the authors they will create more works and that benefits the public. I'm arguing that the current copyright terms don't benefit the authors.

Well you are for sure wrong there, although you are welcome to quibble over how MUCH they are benefited.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by hardcastle

There are some wonderful pieces of literature that would have never existed without the public domain. For example, is essentially a hidden set of acts in Hamlet, and it's a wonderful play that draws and builds on Shakespeare's words, characters and ideas. And there are dozens more movies, books and plays where those came from, from Hamlet alone! These works are great on their own, and in turn make Hamlet itself even greater. The free use of that play is fundamental in that creativity.

I doubt anyone would suggest that copyright should be abolished entirely, so Twilight clones would not be much of an issue. In a fair arrangement, the time would come long after the market was still heavily demanding Twilight or books like it. Does anyone really think that letting the 1930's and 1940's into the 2014 public domain suddenly allow a flood of fads from those periods to resurface?

I've never said or even thought that there should be copyright forever. Rozencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead is pretty derivative, but I don't think it was written within 75 years of Shakespeare's death? Or am I mistaken? Not sure how it makes Hamlet any greater, but bow to your opinion on that.

My opinion (and it is only an opinion), is many who decry copyright seek to benefit from using or obtaining at no cost, currently popular works, and if copyright was lowered to 50 years the demands would be for 25, then 10 etc.

And if most of the successful writers of the last century managed under the
restrictions without the world falling into cultural poverty, why can't those of today? It's not like everybody is using Shakespeare or Dickens etc. as a springboard even though they can.

Helen

[meeera]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I've never said or even thought that there should be copyright forever. Rozencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead is pretty derivative,

Do you think so? I think it's a prime example of a truly transformative work.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by meeera

Do you think so? I think it's a prime example of a truly transformative work.

Sorry, I truly cannot say. I read hamlet but have never seen Tom Stoppard's play. I was going by the Wikipedia article.

The main source of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead is Shakespeare's Hamlet. Comparisons have also been drawn to Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot,[3] for the presence of two central characters who almost appear to be two halves of a single character. Many plot features are similar as well: the characters pass time by playing Questions, impersonating other characters, and interrupting each other or remaining silent for long periods of time.

Title[edit]

The title is taken directly from the final scene of Shakespeare's Hamlet. In earlier scenes, Prince Hamlet, having been exiled by the treacherous King of Denmark (his uncle, who murdered Hamlet's father to obtain the throne) to England and discovering en route a letter from the King carried by his old but now untrusted friends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, which letter implored from England Hamlet's death upon his arrival, rewrote the letter to command Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's death and escaped, returning to Denmark. By the end of Shakespeare's play, Prince Hamlet, Laertes, Ophelia, Polonius, King Claudius and Gertrude all lie dead. An ambassador from England arrives to bluntly report "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead" (Hamlet. Act V, Scene II, line 411) and so they join all the stabbed, poisoned, and drowned key characters. By the end of Hamlet, Horatio is the only main figure left alive.

I am sure it is wonderful and unique in many ways but I am still inclined to think it is derivative to a fair extent. I only mentioned it as hardcastle used it as an example of an important derivative work and I was agreeing with him that many derivative works are worthwhile.

Helen

[meeera]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Sorry, I truly cannot say. I read hamlet but have never seen Tom Stoppard's play. I was going by the Wikipedia article.

I've seen, read and studied both, and I think that R&G is thoroughly transformative, not derivative. It is very substantially original, has a completely different style, and it is complementary to Hamlet (it makes not a lot of sense to people who aren't familiar with Hamlet). It doesn't re-tell the Hamlet story; it takes two minor "disposable" characters and tells their story, in all the gaps and at the edges of the Hamlet story.

If you want to stick with Wikipedia as a source:

The modern emphasis of transformativeness in fair use analysis stems from a 1990 article by Judge Pierre N. Leval in the Harvard Law Review, "Toward a Fair Use Standard",[16] which the Court quoted and cited extensively in its Campbell opinion. In his article, Leval explained the social importance of transformative use of another's work and what justifies such a taking::

"I believe the answer to the question of justification turns primarily on whether, and to what extent, the challenged use is transformative. The use must be productive and must employ the quoted matter in a different manner or for a different purpose from the original. ...[If] the secondary use adds value to the original--if the quoted matter is used as raw material, transformed in the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings--this is the very type of activity that the fair use doctrine intends to protect for the enrichment of society.

Transformative uses may include criticizing the quoted work, exposing the character of the original author, proving a fact, or summarizing an idea argued in the original in order to defend or rebut it. They also may include parody, symbolism, aesthetic declarations, and innumerable other uses."

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

My opinion (and it is only an opinion), is many who decry copyright seek to benefit from using or obtaining at no cost, currently popular works, and if copyright was lowered to 50 years the demands would be for 25, then 10 etc.

And if most of the successful writers of the last century managed under the
restrictions without the world falling into cultural poverty, why can't those of today? It's not like everybody is using Shakespeare or Dickens etc. as a springboard even though they can.

Helen

Just to clarify, no one in this thread is arguing (right now) that copyright should be shortened considerably or abolished. All of this began because a few posters suggested that all of public domain was a form of theft, and then our conversation began because you suggested that all derivative works are devoid of creativity or don't benefit society in any meaningful way.

At this point, and for this thread, a discussion about copyright length would just be tedious. And anyway, there's virtually no chance of copyright (particularly in the U.S.) being lowered; copyright length in the U.S. has tended to move in only one direction, and that's up.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

And if most of the successful writers of the last century managed under the
restrictions without the world falling into cultural poverty, why can't those of today? It's not like everybody is using Shakespeare or Dickens etc. as a springboard even though they can.

Perhaps you are unaware of how much copyright changed in the last century?

In the US up until 1977 authors had a maximum fixed term of 56 years from publication to benefit from their work before copyright expired. In the UK until 1911, they had the maximum of 42 years from publication or life+7 years (whichever was longer).

The complaint about current copyright law is that the copyright term has been greatly extended, but that this has not been of any benefit to the actual creators of the works, but has been of considerable harm to everyone else except some copyright holders.

[hardcastle]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I've never said or even thought that there should be copyright forever. Rozencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead is pretty derivative, but I don't think it was written within 75 years of Shakespeare's death? Or am I mistaken? Not sure how it makes Hamlet any greater, but bow to your opinion on that.

I'm just offering examples to counter your claim that "society has [not] benefitted greatly" from derivatives created from public domain works (your words, quoted directly, sic). I never claimed to make any other point, at least in relation to you.

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

My opinion (and it is only an opinion), is many who decry copyright seek to benefit from using or obtaining at no cost, currently popular works, and if copyright was lowered to 50 years the demands would be for 25, then 10 etc.

Your opinion is also a slippery slope fallacy, not to mention ad hominem.

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

And if most of the successful writers of the last century managed under the
restrictions without the world falling into cultural poverty, why can't those of today? It's not like everybody is using Shakespeare or Dickens etc. as a springboard even though they can.

If your definition of success for the public domain is "every single book ever written uses it" then we shouldn't even bother discussing the topic.

No, not "everybody" is using Shakespeare, Dickens, Austin, or dozens of other writers from other time periods, but even a non-trivial amount of people doing so is worth the effort. The widespread use of fiction worlds for fan-fiction are further proof that writers of every age and talent level are interested in using other works as a starting point for further writing, be it practice or serious publishing efforts - both beneficial to mass culture in the long run.

[DianNC]

From Baen...a short, albeit excellent contribution to the conversation.

Many here are probably already familiar.

[crich70]

If you want to hear the actual man himself speak there is a video of an interview he gave in which he talks about Sherlock Holmes among other things.
A.C.Doyle

[crich70]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

There is a difference between a certain limited copyright, lets say 50 years flat, and essentially unlimited copyright (he'd have done just fine, really, if he had a 10-year copyright,) and what's best for society would therefore be assured. There would be no benefit to society beyond that, so why should it still be under copyright?

Of course, some people here think Mozart's work should still be under copyright....

Ah but I wasn't saying it should be indefinitely prolonged. I was replying to your post about how some claim copyright is to 'the public interest.' If you re-read my post it deals with making sure the actual author has the funds to survive so that he/she can continue to produce works.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by crich70

Ah but I wasn't saying it should be indefinitely prolonged. I was replying to your post about how some claim copyright is to 'the public interest.' If you re-read my post it deals with making sure the actual author has the funds to survive so that he/she can continue to produce works.

Ensuring that popular authors can continue to produce work is in the public interest.

Copyright laws (like all laws) should always be about the public interest, not providing a secure income for a small subsection of society. Unfortunately, in many cases that's precisely what modern laws, especially in the US, are all about.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Ensuring that popular authors can continue to produce work is in the public interest.

Copyright laws (like all laws) should always be about the public interest, not providing a secure income for a small subsection of society. Unfortunately, in many cases that's precisely what modern laws, especially in the US, are all about.

Yes, but there is a fine balance between the two isn't there? I mean granted a person shouldn't think of their work as being a source of steady income that will sustain them forever so that they don't have to work, but if it doesn't bring in enough income for them to be able to eat while they do the writing instead of another job then they will turn to other means of gaining income and stop writing (or at least produce less since they have to have funds to live on as well). And we'll all be the poorer for it.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by crich70

Yes, but there is a fine balance between the two isn't there? I mean granted a person shouldn't think of their work as being a source of steady income that will sustain them forever so that they don't have to work, but if it doesn't bring in enough income for them to be able to eat while they do the writing instead of another job then they will turn to other means of gaining income and stop writing (or at least produce less since they have to have funds to live on as well). And we'll all be the poorer for it.

Or maybe not. Maybe less crap will be produced. And maybe some people need to work to get experience to produce masterworks.

It is very hard to say what will happen. That is also why I do not think that the argument that Shakespear and Dickens wrote for money is a good argument. Maybe they would have produced much better things if they did not have to write for money.