Why public domain

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by barryem

If we stop copyright it will cause huge problems, of course. Much of our system and our economy is built around it.

True.

The number one system there may be a free press with enough financial resources to inform the public about all sorts of bad governance around the world.

That system has already been greatly harmed by the internet, which makes it easy to breach pay walls. Without copyright, it would be even harder to finance whatever you might regard as good journalism.

Excessive copyright also harms the public, such as when editors need clearances for fair-use quotation of 20th century historical figures.

As for novels, sure, they are important. But I think research-based non-fiction is more at risk from bad copyright practices.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Ghitulescu

I am not talking about modern books, LOTR and stuff. I am talking about the times when US had no writers, and they stole works from Europe, and Europe complained as US complains today about China.

AFAIK the first time when non-US citizens could get a copyright in the US was after the major reform of the law, in 1923. Wikipedia appears to promote an earlier date, 1891, yet I've searched the online CCE library for non-US citizens and found them only after 1924 - not to say there were none, just that I found none in a rather extensive search.

Even the fact that only in 1976 US adhered to Berne Convention says a lot about this.

I think you are talking about automatic copyright protection. The flip side is that Britian didn't honor US copyrights at the time either. There were a lot of pirated copies of Poe in England. There were a number of copyright laws in the US over the years, both national as well as state. It wasn't until 1975 that the state laws were explicitly overturned. The US signed some sort of copyright treaty with England in the 1891 that gave some automatic protection to English works.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by hildea

I mentioned several serious drawbacks to your suggestion a couple of pages back. Do you have any comments to any of those? Do you think they won't happen, or do you think none of the drawbacks are important?

I read your earlier post and I think I've been commenting on some of your points already. I agree there will probably be fewer new novels. I've said that a number of times. I'm not sure how much of a problem that is.

I didn't comment on your idea about the quality declining due to a lack of professional services such as editing. I'm not a writer and I'm not sure how important that is. I do know that authors say it's important but I wonder if we didn't have good literature before we had good editors. And how much do editors make a book a team effort instead of simply the work of the author. I'm not sure about any of this so I didn't comment. I do think if it becomes a problem authors will find ways to deal with it.

I'm not sure this would affect the diversity of authors. Maybe there would be more rich white ones but I suspect all kinds of people will keep writing because they love to write.

A lot of people read and enjoy new novels, including genre novels. Losing most of those might not be a loss to you personally, but I assure you that it would be a significant loss to many, many readers.

Frankly, this view sounds like someone going to a buffet and throwing out all the food they don't like, because they can't imagine that other people might have different tastes.

I doubt seriously there would be NO new books. There would probably be fewer but those who were writing would be doing so because they want to, not because they hope to get rich. Maybe we're having a quantity vs quality discussion.

Barry

[barryem]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

True.

The number one system there may be a free press with enough financial resources to inform the public about all sorts of bad governance around the world.

There was an episode in the first season of "Newsroom" where the news anchor described some early legislation involving the FCC where they mandated that every network give a 30 minute news broadcast daily. But, he said, they made the mistake of not requiring that that 30 minutes be ad free. And that eventually resulted in networks pushing the most dramatic news; the news that would get the biggest audience, instead of just giving the public a picture of the state of things.

I think that's the answer to your suggestion. The free press is no longer "free". It's pandering to the audience and it's not doing it's job and that's partly why we're having a lot of the problems we're having. Nobody believes any news except the one they choose to watch and they're even skeptical of that one. And with good reason

Barry

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

The number one system there may be a free press with enough financial resources to inform the public about all sorts of bad governance around the world.

Hmmm... Messages between Frederic Remington and William Randolph Hearst:

“Everything is quiet. There is no trouble. There will be no war. I wish to return.”
Hearst sent back a note: “Please remain. You furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war.”

The power of a free press.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by Greg Anos

We have a deal. You provide the works, we give you a monopoly to exploit it for a fixed period of time. Everything you see around you in the IP worfd was for a limited period of time.

Nobody put a gun to the heads of the creators.

Just the opposite. The creation of intellectual property has unleashed an amazing amount of good for society.

In the case of Disney and other major businesses...there still ongoing investment and THAT investment is why the properties have so much current value. Value that rightly goes to the those creating the value.

Time to end all time limits on fiction copyrights.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by leebase

Time to end all time limits on fiction copyrights.

That would be fine, as long as copyright owners have to pay to maintain their intellectual property just like I have to pay to maintain my physical property. (I have to pay property taxes on my house, land and car, I have to maintain my house and car, I have to have a place to store all of my other physical property such as books, clothes, etc, which costs money)

Shari

[hildea]

Originally Posted by MarjaE

Now I'd like everyone involved to get appropriate payment and due credit, but I think more derivative works and more re-workings would be a good thing.

Interesting thoughts! I think noncommercial transformative *) works like fanfiction should be legal, and it seems they probably are, but I'm unsure what to think about commercial transformative works. My gut feeling says that we should treat this differently based on whether the IP is held by an individual creator or a company, but I haven't really examined that view.

What kind of changes in the law would you like to see?

*) I'm not completely clear about where the line is drawn between "transformative" and "derivative" works. In this thread I think we've mostly used "derivative" to mean both.

Originally Posted by leebase

What you won’t have at all is investment. No one can afford to invest in something that has no ownership.

I agree with your other points in that post, but this part is simply not true. A couple of really obivous counter examples: Sherlock Holmes and Jane Austen's works.

Originally Posted by barryem

I didn't comment on your idea about the quality declining due to a lack of professional services such as editing. I'm not a writer and I'm not sure how important that is. I do know that authors say it's important but I wonder if we didn't have good literature before we had good editors. And how much do editors make a book a team effort instead of simply the work of the author. I'm not sure about any of this so I didn't comment. I do think if it becomes a problem authors will find ways to deal with it.

I'm not an author either, but I like reading about writing. Courtney Milan (author) has a breakdown of different kinds of editing, and KJ Charles (both author and editor) writes craft advice, like this one on working with an editor (with a thought-provoking example of the difference between em-dash and ellipsis!)

I'm sure good editing makes a noticeable difference, even for experienced authors. Of course authors will deal with it, but the obvious way to deal with it for those who aren't rich is simply to do without. In other words, reduce the quality of the published books.

I doubt seriously there would be NO new books. There would probably be fewer but those who were writing would be doing so because they want to, not because they hope to get rich.

What about the many, many authors who write not because they hope to get rich but because it's their preferred way of making a living? Many of these love writing, do it really well, and create books which readers enjoy and which sometimes receive literary awards. What advantage do you see in putting these out of a job, thus dramatically reducing the number of books they are able to write and the time and money they are able to put into improving their manuscripts?

Maybe we're having a quantity vs quality discussion.

I'm confused: How will removing copyright improve quality? Is there anything in the current copyright regime that you think prevents people who love writing from doing so? This doesn't sound like quality vs quantity, it's (more quality and more quantity) vs (less quality and less quantity) which should make it an easy choice.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by DNSB

Hmmm... Messages between Frederic Remington and William Randolph Hearst: . . .

The quotation in #456 is a famous fabrication.

See:

Not likely sent: The Remington-Hearst "telegrams"

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by hildea

Interesting thoughts! I think noncommercial transformative *) works like fanfiction should be legal, and it seems they probably are, but I'm unsure what to think about commercial transformative works.

The problem legally is that you still get automatic copyright on works that infringe on copyright. The original author just doesn't have the means to sue. But does the fanfic author have the right to sue someone infringing on his copyright when it is commercially published? Say a fanfic author continues a story, publishes it free of charge. And imagine he was lucky enough to come close enough to how the original author was going to publish the next book. Who is going to be able to sue who?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by leebase

Just the opposite. The creation of intellectual property has unleashed an amazing amount of good for society.

In the case of Disney and other major businesses...there still ongoing investment and THAT investment is why the properties have so much current value. Value that rightly goes to the those creating the value.

Time to end all time limits on fiction copyrights.

You are way, way over stating the ongoing investment for most properties. While you keep pointing to Disney (which might be the only company that you could make that claim for), for the most part, they don't advertise and invest in the old titles, such as Snow White. As I pointed out earlier, LOTR was mostly fan supported from the initial publishing up through the initial Peter Jackson LOTR movie. The Tolkien estate does pretty much zero advertisement or ongoing investment into the property.

Frankly, if we had a two tier copyright system, one for Disney and one for everyone else, the eternal copyright chant would mostly disappear.

[ekbell]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

You are way, way over stating the ongoing investment for most properties. While you keep pointing to Disney (which might be the only company that you could make that claim for), for the most part, they don't advertise and invest in the old titles, such as Snow White. As I pointed out earlier, LOTR was mostly fan supported from the initial publishing up through the initial Peter Jackson LOTR movie. The Tolkien estate does pretty much zero advertisement or ongoing investment into the property.

Frankly, if we had a two tier copyright system, one for Disney and one for everyone else, the eternal copyright chant would mostly disappear.

As I've said a number of times before Disney seems to be doing well enough protecting their rights to Mickey and their other characters using the current trademark laws. Making money off their old films when they enter public domain without breaking trademark laws is going to be an interesting endeavor.

BTW for those who are interested here is the uspto Trademark status page on Snow White

[leebase]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

You are way, way over stating the ongoing investment for most properties. While you keep pointing to Disney (which might be the only company that you could make that claim for), for the most part, they don't advertise and invest in the old titles, such as Snow White. As I pointed out earlier, LOTR was mostly fan supported from the initial publishing up through the initial Peter Jackson LOTR movie. The Tolkien estate does pretty much zero advertisement or ongoing investment into the property.

Frankly, if we had a two tier copyright system, one for Disney and one for everyone else, the eternal copyright chant would mostly disappear.

Have you been to Disneyworld? Snow White is still a huge part.

Of course LOTR got a huge uplift with the movies. As did Harry Potter. Star Wars is still being invested in. Star Trek. James Bond, on and on. All the Marvel and DC super heroes.

But let’s say a book was only ever a book. But it was a great book able to capture interest for generations. Let’s say “To Kill A Mocking Bird”. No one should get to write the sequel except Harper Lee or someone who paid her for the rights....or paid her descendants. If you want to benefit from the love the public has for the original book...vs writing your own story with your own characters and having to earn the public's interest yourself...you pay

[hildea]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

The problem legally is that you still get automatic copyright on works that infringe on copyright. The original author just doesn't have the means to sue. But does the fanfic author have the right to sue someone infringing on his copyright when it is commercially published? Say a fanfic author continues a story, publishes it free of charge. And imagine he was lucky enough to come close enough to how the original author was going to publish the next book. Who is going to be able to sue who?

It's a good question. Do you know if it has actually happened (either a fanfic writer just attempting to sue or also winning the case against the original author)?

The Organization for Transformativ Works says in their FAQ:

I’m a professional creator. Do I need to avoid reading or acknowledging fanworks based on my own works?

This is essentially a personal decision. If it will upset you to read, view, or watch fanworks based on your works, then don’t.

Authors are sometimes advised to avoid reading or acknowledging fanfiction transforming their own work, as it is in theory possible that an author could read a story, go on to write something similar, and face a claim by the fan that they copied the fan’s work. There are many reasons to discount this risk, the least of which is that U.S. case law is all in the first author’s favor: no court is going to be receptive to a claim that a later work by the first author in the same universe infringes the fanwork. Among other things, when people begin with similar premises, it isn’t at all surprising that they will end up with similar ideas — but U.S. copyright law protects the specific expression of an idea, not ideas. Even if a fan work is similar to a later work in the same universe, similarity of ideas (say, how wand magic works in Harry Potter) isn’t sufficient for a copyright claim.

However, not being able to win doesn’t erase the possibility that someone could threaten to sue. The real issue is that it doesn’t take a fanwork to generate a threat! If an author reads fan mail or online reviews, they might encounter a fan’s ideas about what should happen with the characters; if they read other books, they might encounter a storyline or character similar to a storyline or character they might later use. In fact, the typical author-versus-author infringement case involves claims that one work copied another, apparently unrelated work.

The OTW’s mission includes explaining the difference between ideas and expression. A lot of people may have the same idea about what should happen on the next season of House; but if they each write different stories expressing the idea differently, then those stories don’t infringe each other.

Of course, the legal system might not agree with them.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by hildea

It's a good question. Do you know if it has actually happened (either a fanfic writer just attempting to sue or also winning the case against the original author)?

The Organization for Transformativ Works says in their FAQ:


Of course, the legal system might not agree with them.

No, have not heard it happen. The way it sounds though, depending on how a specific judge rules, is that fanfic is not entirely legal. Tolerated, but unequally treated. Unlike flatout copying (aka piracy) fanfic usually limits itself of using the universe and or characters. It still is infringement. Why would fanfic be allowed (legally) when non-profit piracy is clearly not? Also fanfic sites usually honor the original author's wishes if they don't want derivative or transformative works based on their books. To me that is a clear sign that fanfic is not legal, but merely tolerated by certain (not all) authors.