Why public domain

[leebase]

Originally Posted by MarjaE

Barbara musn't print a book just like it, that'd be infringement.

So when people say that material property and intellectual property should be treated the same way, I'm left wondering why?-- it's not like they're the same thing-- and how?

They aren't the same thing. But they are a lot closer to "the same thing" than "your ownership evaporates after a certain amount of time" advocates would have it.

In your own example - two people write books. How hard is it to not write "the same book"? If you write a book with characters named Harry Potter and Hermoine going to wizard school at Hogwarts....you didn't just HAPPEN to infringe copyright. You were COPYING.

And chairs are covered by trademark and copyright. You can indeed "make your own chair" and it be too much like someone else's work.

[MarjaE]

Yeah, I can just write a new creative history book, it'll be just as useful as the locked-down memoirs and articles, published in the 1920s, which are disappearing and/or disintegrating before they can be republished. /s

[leebase]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

People are already doing what Leebase says they can't and won't.

.

People can sue for anything, any time. I've never said otherwise.

There are certainly anecdotes for "patent trolls" and "copy cats" galore. I don't agree with Harlan about A Boy and His Dog....but the Sword of Shanara is a scene for scene direct ripoff of the Lord o the Rings.

So...if you want to say...."American courts are screwey" -- you'll get no debate from me.

If you want to advocate for "the solution is to do away with ownership"....then no.

And yet...EVEN SO....EVEN THOUGH...the Terminator production company paid Ellison....they still made the movie. And it's far far far from being the only book to deal with evil AI machines take over the world.

You can even write a book series where the protagonist is named Jack Reacher, a loner ex-millitary dude who wanders around solving crime....and somebody else can put out a book with a character named John Puller...a loner ex-millitary dude who wanders around solving crime.

As much as Lee Childs was incensed....there is absolutely nothing he can do about David Baldacci's book series. Nobody can own "ex-millitary loner dude going around solving crimes". And while Jake Reasher might have tripped a trademark infringement....John Puller is NOT....Jack Reacher.

There are an infinite number of ways to tell a story. Society is not held back by preventing someone from copying another person's work

[hildea]

Originally Posted by leebase

Either you are trying to write something "original" -- which you'll have no trouble doing. Or you are TRYING to bank on someone else's material.

Or, thirdly: You want to engage with the source material, retell a story you love in a different way or play with it and its characters, for the enjoyment of both yourself and your readers.

Some examples of derivative works which are improved because they are derivative, and would be less enjoyable if the links to the works which inspired them had been removed:

• The book "The Henchman of Zenda" by KJ Charles. A reimagining of "The Prisoner of Zenda". What if the protagonist of Prisoner was a self-serving liar? What if the women in the story had agency, intelligence, and their own motivations? And what if Jasper Detchard (newly hired henchman) had a deep appreciation of the figure Rupert of Hentzau cuts in well-fitted breeches?
• The various films based on Jane Austen's novels. Sure, it's possible to make films about the conflicting demands of love, propriety, duty, and economics in the early 1800s, flavoured with a dry sense of humour and a somewhat cynical view of human nature, from scratch. But Austen was a brilliant author, and a script based on her books has a very strong starting point. Also, it's enjoyable to see different takes on a well-know story.
• The web comic "My life a background Slytherin" by Emily McGovern. This one would be completely meaningless without the context of Harry Potter. If you've read the books or seen the films, it's hilarious. (This one probably is a copyright violation, but fortunately, Rowling hasn't chosen to go after her.)

And, fwiw, there's only value in these characters because everyone CAN'T copy them. If everyone COULD...then the value would quickly evaporate. What people want is to be able to horn in on Disney's built up value....but if they could then everyone could....and then there'd be no value.

This is obviously not true. There's a lot of value in characters which are in the public domain. Or are you telling me that noone enjoys dressing up as Santa Claus, or that it's impossible to make any money by making films, TV series, or novels retelling the stories of Sherlock Holmes, or that noone bothers to produce plays by Shakespeare anymore?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by hildea

Or, thirdly: You want to engage with the source material, retell a story you love in a different way or play with it and its characters, for the enjoyment of both yourself and your readers.

No problem with that, just as long as you pay the rights holder for use of their material.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Since you can't copyright values, new characters can pass along the same values as established characters.

Robin Hood represents a certain set of values to us. The name "Robin Hood" has become part of our language and describes those values. When you say his name everybody knows not just who but what you're talking about. You can't easily replace that.

Barry

[barryem]

Originally Posted by leebase

And...you CAN build on someone else's work by licensing....like movies do all the time when they secure the rights to a book.

Here's a Youtube video describing how that can be a trap. I'm giving this link to illustrate a reply to your statement, not to enter her solution into this discussion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO9FKQAxWZc

Barry

[leebase]

Originally Posted by barryem

Robin Hood represents a certain set of values to us. The name "Robin Hood" has become part of our language and describes those values. When you say his name everybody knows not just who but what you're talking about. You can't easily replace that.

Barry

Actually...Robinhood, like Santa, can be and has been anything anyone wants the character to be. There is no value control, no quality control. People are free to remake or pervert the character any way they wish.

If you can’t create a character and bring out whatever values you wish...perhaps writing isn’t for you.

[leebase]

If you need someOne else's work to give meaning to your own...then they are owed a licensed fee. Or not...depending on the rights holder.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by leebase

Actually...Robinhood, like Santa, can be and has been anything anyone wants the character to be. There is no value control, no quality control. People are free to remake or pervert the character any way they wish.

If you can’t create a character and bring out whatever values you wish...perhaps writing isn’t for you.

I'm not talking about the character, per se. I'm talking about his values and what they represent in our culture.

I'm wondering if you really fail to see that or are just twisting things.

Here's how I see the things being discussed in this thread. Copyright has benefits that may outweigh it's ills. It does infringe on free speech but maybe not too much and maybe it's worth it. But not if we get too carried away with it.

Literature, good or bad, is more important to me than the question of whether and how writers get paid. We do have to be fair to writers if we can. We can't let that get in the way of creativity. We have been doing that for a long time.

Barry

[doubleshuffle]

Originally Posted by hildea

Or, thirdly: You want to engage with the source material, retell a story you love in a different way or play with it and its characters, for the enjoyment of both yourself and your readers.

Some examples of derivative works which are improved because they are derivative, and would be less enjoyable if the links to the works which inspired them had been removed:

• The book "The Henchman of Zenda" by KJ Charles. A reimagining of "The Prisoner of Zenda". What if the protagonist of Prisoner was a self-serving liar? What if the women in the story had agency, intelligence, and their own motivations? And what if Jasper Detchard (newly hired henchman) had a deep appreciation of the figure Rupert of Hentzau cuts in well-fitted breeches?
• The various films based on Jane Austen's novels. Sure, it's possible to make films about the conflicting demands of love, propriety, duty, and economics in the early 1800s, flavoured with a dry sense of humour and a somewhat cynical view of human nature, from scratch. But Austen was a brilliant author, and a script based on her books has a very strong starting point. Also, it's enjoyable to see different takes on a well-know story.
• The web comic "My life a background Slytherin" by Emily McGovern. This one would be completely meaningless without the context of Harry Potter. If you've read the books or seen the films, it's hilarious. (This one probably is a copyright violation, but fortunately, Rowling hasn't chosen to go after her.)

Originally Posted by leebase

If you need someOne else's work to give meaning to your own...then they are owed a licensed fee. Or not...depending on the rights holder.

You can't be bothered to read what people write in this thread, can you? Hildea's post is just the last of several trying to explain to you how authors draw on older texts NOT because they lack creativity or want to make a profit from others' success.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by barryem

Robin Hood represents a certain set of values to us. The name "Robin Hood" has become part of our language and describes those values. When you say his name everybody knows not just who but what you're talking about. You can't easily replace that.

Barry

Sure you can. Write a similar story with a new set of characters in a different time period.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

Hildea's post is just the last of several trying to explain to you how authors draw on older texts NOT because they lack creativity or want to make a profit from others' success.

It's because they lack creativity and want to profit off of someone else's work.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Sure you can. Write a similar story with a new set of characters in a different time period.

Then you have the task of making sure everyone, everywhere knows who your new character is and what he represents. And then making sure his name becomes part of our language and our culture. How do you plan to do that?

My point isn't about Robin Hood as a character in a story it's about Robin Hood as a meaningful icon in our culture and our language.

Barry

[leebase]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

You can't be bothered to read what people write in this thread, can you? Hildea's post is just the last of several trying to explain to you how authors draw on older texts NOT because they lack creativity or want to make a profit from others' success.

Oh....I fully I understand “I want free and I want to copy” - it’s not a hard concept.

We’ve long past handing down stories verbally. If you want to write a Slytherine comic it’s because JK Rowling wrote a terrific book that her publishers marketed ... and she sold the rights to great movie producers. Money...money...big money turning those characters into household names. And some guy thinks he gets to create a Slytherin comic because it's “cultural heritage”.

To borrow from my culture...Bitch Please.

Not calling you a name....just borrowing a phrase that means “gurl, you cray cray”