Public Domain

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

She could claim it. But "might well win"? No she wouldn't. She wasn't the first (and it's too vague). She herself would be derivative if that's the standard. No judge in their right mind would decide that any book merely set in a wizarding school is derivative of HP. No more than any judge would decide that any book that takes place on Mars is derivative of The Martian. There is SOME common sense that prevails in this regard.

Unfortunately, the assumption that some common sense that prevails doesn't seem to be entirely accurate. One sees this more in patent law than in copyright, but if a claimant is aggressive enough, one never knows that a judge and jury will decide. In copyright law, there is rarely enough money involved to make it worth pushing the envelop. That doesn't imply that someone won't. After all, 20th Century Fox sued Universal Studio claiming that Battlestar Galactica infringed on Star Wars including such things as the character Skyler was too close to Skywalker. Much of the case was solved via negotiations (example Larson agreed to use different special effects for the laser blasts) .

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by SleepyBob

But can there be dementors and patroni without being Harry Potter? Muggles or horcruxes? House elves? Without limits on copyright and derivative works, ideas themselves get held hostage.

And this is the issue. What if Tolkien had started suing everyone who used the words Hobbit and Halfling? It really would come down to someone who was aggressive and willing to push the envelop. As we have seen with patent law, even the threat of a lawsuit will cause people to back off. Very few authors or publishers would be willing to risk a lawsuit given the small amounts of money involved for most works.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Unfortunately, the assumption that some common sense that prevails doesn't seem to be entirely accurate. One sees this more in patent law than in copyright, but if a claimant is aggressive enough, one never knows that a judge and jury will decide.

You might not know. But I certainly know what a judge (no jury would be involved for most copyright disputes) would decide if "wizarding school setting" were the extent of the similarities. We've already seen that "derivative" (in the sense that it's deemed actionable infringement) is a pretty tough row to hoe unless there's a heck of lot more specifics than "similar setting." If kids going to a wizarding school were enough, Lev Grossman and Patrick Rothfuss would be in debtor's prison already. Rowling herself would be guilty of copyright violation since Le Guin did "boy goes to wizardry school" long before her. But that ain't the case. General setting won't cut it. Never has, never will.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by SleepyBob

But can there be dementors and patroni without being Harry Potter? Muggles or horcruxes? House elves? Without limits on copyright and derivative works, ideas themselves get held hostage.

Probably unless such inclusion essentially puts one in the Harry Potter universe...as in fan fiction.

[SleepyBob]

Originally Posted by leebase

Probably unless such inclusion essentially puts one in the Harry Potter universe...as in fan fiction.

Except that those are creations of Rowling, so would be covered by copyright. It would be no different than transplanting Sherlock Holmes into a different setting (before the copyright expired). You couldn't do it. And if copyrights didn't expire, that would be a real problem.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by SleepyBob

Except that those are creations of Rowling, so would be covered by copyright.

Only the names (and only some of those) were her creations, not the ideas. She clearly based her "House Elves" on the Hob from English folklore. And the notion of a magic-less class of people looked down upon by those WITH magic was not her idea, only the term "muggle." So while you may not want to call them "House Elves," there's really nothing stopping someone from having household magical slave-like creatures that can be set free (or banished) by giving them articles of clothing (even in a book that has a wizarding school setting). Same for dementors. The word was not invented by Rowling. It's been used to describe evil fearsome creatures before and after Harry Potter. Owning ideas is much harder than people think. Rowling's characters may be her own, but she (and any author) will always have an uphill battle trying to claim ownership of ideas, settings, situations and the like (not that she's interested in trying).

[Fiat_Lux]

Originally Posted by Frenzie

Is it hyperbolic if it's real? Mein Kampf wasn't available for purchase until a couple of years ago because it was still under copyright. That copyright was (ab)used to censor the work. Of course it's an exceptional situation, but still.

Copyright affected publication in Germany, but not other countries.

How available Mein Kampf and its sequel were, literally depended upon what country you lived in. Some countries banned both books. Some countries banned one book, but not the other. I have forgotten which country allowed Mein Kampf, but banned the sequel. More common was to allow the second book, whilst banning the first.

Much more common was publishers, and distributors deciding that publishing either book would be a guaranteed instant money losing proposition. (A long time ago, I read a publisher in the "White Supremacy" publishing niche explain how and why the economics of publishing Mein Kampf didn't work for his organization.)

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Yes, by 5 years. Steamboat Willie had synchronized sound.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steamboat_Willie

Not much, but still an extension.

The original bill would have extended it to 2067 - 44 more years worth. This was the passed compromise.

Is it enough that it has sound? The sound wasn't published as a separate item, as far as I know, so the exact wording of the extension for sound recordings is going to be vital.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Is it enough that it has sound? The sound wasn't published as a separate item, as far as I know, so the exact wording of the extension for sound recordings is going to be vital.

That is for the lawyers to determine. Look at how long the "Happy Birthday" song was kept under a copyright, due to a 1935, axillary (player piano roll) copyright.

One could say the the pure video portion, by itself may fall into copyright, but how many people would want, say Gone with the Wind without an audio soundtrack? Hollywood is really only concerned about sound pictures, that is where the real money is. This gives them an extension of at least 5 years, (for those from 1923 on).

The question is, how does one view a partial extension of copyright, in terms of the bet. The bet was couched in terms of all or none. We got something in the middle. . . .

[DiapDealer]

I think you guys are probably going to have go through arbitration.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

That is for the lawyers to determine. Look at how long the "Happy Birthday" song was kept under a copyright, due to a 1935, axillary (player piano roll) copyright.

One could say the the pure video portion, by itself may fall into copyright, but how many people would want, say Gone with the Wind without an audio soundtrack? Hollywood is really only concerned about sound pictures, that is where the real money is. This gives them an extension of at least 5 years, (for those from 1923 on).

The question is, how does one view a partial extension of copyright, in terms of the bet. The bet was couched in terms of all or none. We got something in the middle. . . .

If you look up the definition of "Sound Recording" in the US Copyright Act, you find this:

"Sound recordings" are works that result from the fixation of a series of musical, spoken, or other sounds, but not including the sounds accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work, regardless of the nature of the material objects, such as disks, tapes, or other phonorecords, in which they are embodied.

Since Steamboat Willie is a motion picture, the soundtrack is explicitly excluded from the extension of copyright in "sound recordings".

So no copyright extension yet.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by SleepyBob

Except that those are creations of Rowling, so would be covered by copyright. It would be no different than transplanting Sherlock Holmes into a different setting (before the copyright expired). You couldn't do it. And if copyrights didn't expire, that would be a real problem.

Let's make it more like Star Trek for other than Holmes and Watson, the "Holmes universe" is just old England and hardly copyrightable.

If you wrote a book with Start Fleet, Vulcans, Klingons, phasers, tri-corders, transporters, warp drive....but not Kirk, McKoy and Spock....you are still clearly writing in the Star Trek universe.

If you wrote a book with Earth like kind beings that fought Reptile like humanoids....you'd be fine. Think of how many times Romeo and Juliet have been written in modern context. As long as you don't call your characters "Romeo and Juliet", you'd be fine.

Elves, trolls, wizards, dwarves and the like are pre-copyright. You'd probably run afoul if you used "Muggle" as the name for your non-magical characters.

You have to be exceedingly lazy to not be able to come up with your own names even for familiar concepts.

There is simply no societal need for fiction to be protected by a time limited copyright.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by leebase

Let's make it more like Star Trek for other than Holmes and Watson, the "Holmes universe" is just old England and hardly copyrightable.

If you wrote a book with Start Fleet, Vulcans, Klingons, phasers, tri-corders, transporters, warp drive....but not Kirk, McKoy and Spock....you are still clearly writing in the Star Trek universe.

If you wrote a book with Earth like kind beings that fought Reptile like humanoids....you'd be fine. Think of how many times Romeo and Juliet have been written in modern context. As long as you don't call your characters "Romeo and Juliet", you'd be fine.

Elves, trolls, wizards, dwarves and the like are pre-copyright. You'd probably run afoul if you used "Muggle" as the name for your non-magical characters.

You have to be exceedingly lazy to not be able to come up with your own names even for familiar concepts.

There is simply no societal need for fiction to be protected by a time limited copyright.

Except... if we'd always had eternal copyright, 'elves', 'trolls', 'wizards', etc. would all be in-copyright terms.

Note also that using 'dwarves' instead of 'dwarfs' may run foul of the Tolkien Estate.

BTW, Shakespeare is long out of copyright. You may call your star-crossed lovers Romeo Montague and Juliet Capulet if you wish.

[leebase]

I see no problem with having to come up with your own names for things like Elves and Trolls if they were copyrighted.

Without copyright, people can not only write fiction in a given universe, but just resell the original work. Or right porn using Disney Characters. While it's obvious the great harm Disney would incur, it's not obvious at all as to why society needs stories about Mickey Mouse that aren't created by Disney.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by leebase

Or right porn using Disney Characters. While it's obvious the great harm Disney would incur...

Look, I don't mean to drag the conversation down, but there already exist porn 'parodies' that use copyrighted names.

Also, there's Wally Wood's Disneyland Memorial Orgy poster.

So it could likely be done now if there were interest. And honestly, what harm would occur? What confusion would there be? It's ludicrous.

...it's not obvious at all as to why society needs stories about Mickey Mouse that aren't created by Disney.

Using that logic, why does society need stories about Snow White not created by The Brothers Grimm, stories about Pinocchio not created by Carlo Collodi or stories about The Little Mermaid not created by Hans Christian Andersen?

Goethe should have held on to The Sorcerer's Apprentice, so no music by Paul Dukas, no Fantasia by Disney, no revival of Mickey's popularity.