Copyright Reform Poll

[Quoth]

Disney.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I would like to argue against basing copyright on the lifetime of the author.

Why should some works obtain a longer copyright than other works? Why should two works published in the same year have different copyright lengths? Is there any benefit to society that this should be so?

Could it be that we're awarding longer copyright to the best of an author's output? This seems unlikely. An author's first works are rarely their best. Why give juvenilia twenty or thirty years more protection than the work an author produces in their prime?

Why add this uncertainty to copyright? The vast majority of works make all the commercial success they're going to make in the first year. A few make money for a decade. A very rare few continue to make money for decades. Surely 50 years is a long enough time to make money from a work, before it's released to the public domain so that others can create new works without worries about possible infringement of something they read decades ago.

I have long felt that lifetime + a term a years was a nonsense. I now feel that any use of lifetime in copyright length calculations is foolish, and we should go to a simple time from publication.

I pretty much agree. I went with 28 plus a 28 year renewal because I think that allows authors with a bit of staying power to get a few reissues out while letting the vast majority of works go into PD earlier. I could go with multiple renewals that cost money just to try to keep corporations appeased so the vast majority has what I consider to be a sane copyright. I still think that the caveat that works must remain available to be in copyright is a must. Of course, none of this will come to pass.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

So I'd go for 50 years for the fixed length from publication. So yes, I think that anything published before 1970 should now be in the public domain. And I think that everyone (except large corporations who have bought up copyright) would benefit from this change. ESPECIALLY that vast majority of creative people.

I've already said why I don't think it should depend on publication. I like the way it is now in that aspect. But I actually think assuming the big media corporations would NOT benefit from the kind of reform we're talking about is short-sighted (which is sadly how many companies operate). If copyright serves its purpose in fostering the creation of more good work, big companies will benefit as much as anyone. Aside from indirect benefits like having a society full of better people to hire, recall that most of Disney's most profitable stuff is all derivative of public domain stories.

And I agree with you about leaving "lifetime" out of it.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I think it is interesting that only six people voted for any of the options that could lead to indefinite copyright.

Originally Posted by issybird

I wonder how many would change their votes based on the discussion? Which is a sign of a good discussion.

The lifetime of the author, plus a number of years renewable indefinitely.

No change for me. I make no distinction between between physical property and intellectual property. Life of author gives authors complete control of their works while they're alive. Number of years renewable indefinitely allows orphaned works to fall into the public domain.

[library addict]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

But is that your ideal, or just what you'd agree as a compromise to try to get corporate backing?

What I'd settle for as a compromise.

On the one hand I understand where Disney is coming from. The mouse is their brand and they don't want people making cartoons, etc. with him, Minnie, etc. that they don't approve of. But the length of copyright has gotten ridiculous and in order for them to keep Mickey and co this has resulted in unintended consequences for other things. Plus they own so many franchises now it is ridiculous.

I think 30 year initial with the option to renew once for 20 years should be the limit. Nice even numbers for easy adding. If something is a big money maker or discovered later in the initial time period, the option for a one-time renewal will allow for more cash for the creator and their heirs. 50 years on the outside should be long enough.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by ApK

I've already said why I don't think it should depend on publication. I like the way it is now in that aspect.

How copyright applies to unpublished works is certainly something that would need to be set out in copyright law.

The copyright status of unpublished works, when the author is alive and after the author is dead, needs to be set in such a way that publication is encouraged but not overly enforced. That is, there should be some financial incentive (i.e. some period of copyright) given to the first publication of unpublished works, but not so much that it encourages hoarding, or otherwise discourages publication.

Here's my ideal:

1. Copyright is automatic, and applies as soon as a work is in a fixed form.
2. For unpublished works, if published within the authors lifetime, copyright then continues for 50 years from date of publication.
3. For unpublished works, published posthumously, copyright continues for 10 years from publication, or for 50 year after the author's death, which ever is longer. If published within 50 years of the author's death, the copyright belongs to the estate, which is the only body able to publish the work. If published more than 50 years after the author's death, the copyright belongs to the person publishing the work.

This has the following advantages
1. Copyright is automatic, as at present.
2. During their lifetime, the author has full control over publication, and there's no penalty for not publishing - the author gets the same copyright length from publication whenever the work is published.
3. For posthumous works, there's an incentive to publish the work, no matter when it's published. The sooner it's published after the author's death, the longer the copyright period, encouraging publication. But limiting the estate's copyright ownership to 50 years after the author's death means that unpublished works (e.g. old diaries) discovered by people unrelated to the author can be legally published.


Although there is a small element of the author's lifetime involved, it's minor. Every published work is in the public domain no more than 50 years after publication. Some posthumously published works will be in the public domain sooner than that.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

How copyright applies to unpublished works is certainly something that would need to be set out in copyright law.

Here's my ideal:

1. Copyright is automatic, and applies as soon as a work is in a fixed form.
...
1. Copyright is automatic, as at present.

Actually it also applies to music, software, electronic designs, paintings, sculpture, building plans, photography, movies/TV and many other things.
It exists as soon as the "work" starts to be created. It can't be linked to being published. Often software and electronic designs are not published in source form ever, but the source is still copyright.

Trade Secrets may include content that is copyright, thus use of leaked or stolen information that's never been published is copyright violation.

Other Issues:
See Hardy Boys etc. Copyright should only be LICENSED to a company; even if the writers, programmers, engineers are employed. In the case of a software team the bulk should belong to the designers, but for writers it should be the writers, not the person who did the plot, outline etc as those are often very generic and not very original.
I actually had an employee contract once where the company would have exclusive rights for x period of time, pay a royalty based on sales, not "profit" (as profit can be creatively vanished) and lose all rights if the development wasn't commercially used.
Most patents are a scam. The USPTO is a failure. Most should only be covered by copyright and no franchise process should be patentable or copyright, no software should be patentable.

Patents:

• No prior art.
• Not obvious in a few days study to anyone versed in the art.
• Sufficiently novel.
• Not broad.
• A working prototype, or if very expensive, agreement by 3rd parties (peer review) that it should work (e.g. Starship, Fusion Reactor).
• Not software, mathematics or organisational (Franchise, management), but a physical thing, including a manufacturing process for things or stuff.

Disclaimer: I wrote a patent. I designed all it. It was assigned to the company. It shouldn't have been approved by the USPTO.

All of those are currently being ignored by the USPTO. They USED to be the requirements. Design Patents (UK = Registered Design) should need to pass a higher bar than copyright for unique appearance, i.e. the fluted Coke bottle is OK, the iPhone case is not, nor is any GUI. The USPTO Design Patents is particularly bad. This has happened because they make more money from approvals than rejections, expert searches and review is costly and the attitude that it can be tested in court. The "testing" in court favours the big rich company and the local one vs foreign.

You can't ignore Corporate funded production, patents, registered designs (US Design Patents, appearance of a product) and Trademarks in any copyright review and revision.

I'd like to see copyright being 25 years from creation (not publishing). The best that can be hoped for is to slap down the Corporations that keep lobbying to extend it. It's already too long in USA and countries bullied by their trade treaties. Fair Use needs better defined. It's too broad in USA and in some countries (UK?) there is really no legal Fair Use defined, it's being set by publishers. Maybe the best that can be achieved is not eroding consumer rights further, or limiting to life + 50 for individuals, or creation + 50 for Corporate works. I think real reform is impossible due to the lack of regulation of Multinational companies and the fact many are more powerful than all but China, Russia, USA or the EU. Also generally only China, Russia, or the EU are prepared to oppose them. Sometimes the State of California, see "dot org" sell off contemplated by ICANN. ICANN is a microcosm of the ills of Corporate regulation in the world.


Google, Social Media etc are obviously publishers and should be treated the same as newspapers, magazines and TV/Streaming channels with regard to copyright. Safe harbour should only apply to providing hosting, connectivity, not public facing services and websites, which was the original intention.

[JSWolf]

When the mouse's copyright time is nearly up, Disney will just buy more [politicians]. Problem solved.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

When the mouse's copyright time is nearly up, Disney will just buy more [politicians]. Problem solved.

Sadly this is the heart of the problem. They also have been buying up all the competing studios. Cultural Imperialism. It's like one of those dystopian SF "House" novels, but without the troopers or spaceships.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

When the mouse's copyright time is nearly up, Disney will just buy more [politicians]. Problem solved.

Originally Posted by Quoth

Sadly this is the heart of the problem. They also have been buying up all the competing studios. Cultural Imperialism. It's like one of those dystopian SF "House" novels, but without the troopers or spaceships.

This is why I chose "fixed length, renewable indefinitely". It keeps the mouse house happy, so that they don't keep trying to get the law changed, and it should stop orphaned works.

It does require that there be a searchable database of registered copyrights, but come on now...that's hardly a burden to maintain, and searching it could/should be accessible from the copyright office's website.

Shari

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Actually it also applies to music, software, electronic designs, paintings, sculpture, building plans, photography, movies/TV and many other things.
It exists as soon as the "work" starts to be created. It can't be linked to being published. Often software and electronic designs are not published in source form ever, but the source is still copyright.

As I said, copyright only applies once the creation is committed to a fixed form. Whether that fixed form is the written word, a score, a recording, or a file save on a computer is irrelevant.

Copyright does not exist as soon as the work starts to be created. You can think all you want about a work, imagine the storyline and the words you're going to use, or come up with a tune, and even whistle it. None of those things will be protected by copyright. Only when you write it down or otherwise record it in fixed form does a creation gain copyright protection.

Patents are an entirely separate issue. If you'd like to discuss patents, please start a different thread.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by shalym

This is why I chose "fixed length, renewable indefinitely". It keeps the mouse house happy, so that they don't keep trying to get the law changed, and it should stop orphaned works.

That is anti-consumer. Essentially everything not orphaned would be renewed forever unless the annual fee was like x100,000 per unit profit.
Genuinely orphaned works, despite what Google claims, are rare. Most common after the days when there were a lot of game developers that went bust and no bigger studio took over the IP because the game platform was dead or gamers wanted more features eye/candy.
Very very rare with Cinema, TV, books, music.

Anyone want an Apple Pippin? Or an MSX console? Or a Dreamcast? Or even a GP2X?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Very very rare with Cinema, TV, books, music.

You underestimate how difficult it is to trace the heirs of people who have died.

There are lots of orphaned books. There are also lots of orphaned films and photographs.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Copyright does not exist as soon as the work starts to be created. You can think all you want about a work, imagine the storyline and the words you're going to use, or come up with a tune, and even whistle it. None of those things will be protected by copyright. Only when you write it down or otherwise record it in fixed form does a creation gain copyright protection.

Patents are an entirely separate issue. If you'd like to discuss patents, please start a different thread.

As soon as it starts to be written or recorded in any fashion, it's copyright today. It doesn't have to written, a chapter of a book dictated (using ANY recording method) has the same rights as a published book.
Also Patents and Design Patents/Registered Design are absolutely copyright ALSO and that mess is an extension of copyright. An expired patent or invalid patent, unless plagiarised, is absolutely copyrighted. You can't at all discuss copyright reform without also considering Patents and Design Patents/Registered Design and even to an extent Trademarks, including the text, style and logo.
You can't copyright a title. Yet no-one can use the names of the Seven Dwarves in Disney's version of Snow White as the names of dwarves. Though that was written in maybe 1936. The actual non-Disney story is in the Public Domain.

Copyright isn't just the manuscript source of books, or books.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

You underestimate how difficult it is to trace the heirs of people who have died.
There are lots of orphaned books. There are also lots of orphaned films and photographs.

Proportionately, compared with the expiry terms of Berne Convention, before USA interference, actually very few. Google blew that up with the intention of making it easier for them to grab works.