US Copyright Office report: Legal Issues in Mass Digitization

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Disney is a perfect example. What jobs would be created if their early works were available for free?

Potential commercial uses currently hampered by copyright monopoly:
1) Sequel movies--what happens five years after Whatzername marries The Handsome Prince? Are they still happy? What are their kids like? These sequels would be free to imitate the art style of the original, use the same character names & descriptions, and build on the history of the first movie.

2) Condensed versions of movies, a.k.a. the Reduced Shakespeare Company goes digital: Snow White in 3 minutes, Sleeping Beauty in 45 seconds, and so on.

3) Sociological studies: removed from fear of copyright lawsuits, students & educators could copy and discuss movies scene-by-scene, sometimes frame-by-frame, to understand the societal norms when the movies were made, and how folklore was edited when it hit the big screen. While these studies currently exist, they are limited in the amount of the original they dare copy, which limits their ability to coherently explain and discuss them. In one case, a student was told she couldn't quote a 15-word TV Guide entry for a movie because of the risk of copyright infringement.

4) Comedy: take the whole movie & re-script the whole thing. "What's Up Tiger Lily" for Disney.

5) Reenactment: plays can pull from the Disney scripts--or from folklore that Disney copied directly--without fear of infringement lawsuits.

6) Remix: DVDs of dozens of favorite Disney cartoons or movie scenes, selectively assembled to personal taste. Some digital entrepreneur would love to make a "build your own cartoon DVD" website with over 200 clips available, which you pick-and-choose to make your own hour-long collection.

7) Crossover: What if Dumbo's circus were really Haly's circus, where Batman found (the first) Robin? Pre-1955 isn't limited to Disney, after all. The story of Robin and his flying elephant would make an excellent cartoon & comic book--if copyright allowed it.

8) Merchandise: Dresses to match Disney princesses. (Of real clothing quality, not the costume junk.) Robin Hood outfits from the movie. Dolls and toys--I know of a woman who lost her house to legal fees for selling a set of crocheted Winnie-the-Pooh stuffed toys. Disney doesn't bother with merchandise that can't be produced by the truckload; the economic niche for unique or at least specialized replications is wide open.

9) Educational materials (movies & books) using characters children love and trust.

10) Music: Nevermind Disney's limited best-of collections; people would be free to repackage the entire set of early Disney songs, or make limited themed collections. These could be sold as albums or single songs, or remixed into fan videos using other than the original footage.

... and that's off the top of my head. I know there are dozens, maybe hundreds, more commercial uses for any popular movie; add to that all the books, cartoons, tv shows, music, radio teleplays, and comic books from the first half of the 20th century, and we'd have a gold mine of material for our entertainment, educational and pop-culture-studies industries.

[HansTWN]

You are being too idealistic. I think that creative efforts would not be encouraged, but rather a repackaging of existing works instead of developing new ideas. Super cheap merchandising of Disney icons by everybody and his dog would make it all worthless. And no value will be created for society anymore. As it is in here in Asia already --- in most Asian countries nobody cares about copyrights! Which means that people only trust foreign brands and very exclusive stores. For everything else prices are always rock bottom, which means that factories have to keep wages and benefits for their workers to a minimum and produce products of inferior quality or they lose money. It is not good for general living standards.

Creativity means new ideas, not just slight variations on existing themes. You would just be encouraging people to rehash existing ideas over and over again. And if Disney characters were not copyrighted in the US it really would make no sense for Americans -- any new job creation as a result of freeing up the designs wouldn't happen there. Yes, I know all the manufacturing is done in China at the moment already, but the major part of the value created is still in the US. Manufacturing costs are peanuts for such items.

The only thing I can fully agree on is the education part -- but I am sure that corporations like Disney like to have their characters used in educational materials.

Now as for books, that is quite a different story, there is no great advantage to keeping those under copyright for too long.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

You are being too idealistic. I think that creative efforts would not be encouraged, but rather a repackaging of existing works instead of developing new ideas.

There'd be that, too. (In addition to, not instead of.) Again: jobs + money changing hands = better for the economy. It'd be small amounts of money going to thousands or millions of tiny businesses, instead of larger amounts only going to Disney.

Monopolies are bad for the economy; they're only permitted when there's some overwhelming benefit to allowing them. "Encourage creative productivity" is a reasonable benefit--but there's *no* indication that copyright lengths over 50 years are necessary for that.

Super cheap merchandising of Disney icons by everybody and his dog would make it all worthless.

What's the "it" in that sentence?

And no value will be created for society anymore. As it is in here in Asia already --- in most Asian countries nobody cares about copyrights!

And no new novels or songs are being created? No movies are being made? The publishing industry is reserved for books previously published elsewhere?

Opening copyright won't end schlock reproduction--but it will make them subject to quality standards in the open market. And it *would* open a large array of creative possibilities that are currently locked down.

Are we better off waiting another 70 years for the sequel to Salilnger's book to be released in the US? Is Salinger's lock on his book somehow enhancing society's literary culture?

Creativity means new ideas, not just slight variations on existing themes. You would just be encouraging people to rehash existing ideas over and over again.

Like Disney's been doing for the last century, grabbing Grimm's Fairy Tales rather than paying anyone to come up with a new story?

If you feel that rehashing existing works is pointless, why teach the classics at all?

The only thing I can fully agree on is the education part -- but I am sure that corporations like Disney like to have their characters used in educational materials.

Disney doesn't like their characters to be used as examples of sexism, racism, and classism.

Now as for books, that is quite a different story, there is no great advantage to keeping those under copyright for too long.

Are you arguing that Disney should keep its copyrights indefinitely, to keep us from wasting time on frivolous derivatives, but books should be open after 50 years because we'd get real creative use out of those?

I don't particularly care if Disney gets its copyrights forever. I'd *really* like a requirement to re-register after a certain number of years (say, 20 or so), so that works--books, movies, plays, photographs, magazines, etc.--that aren't being groomed for specific commercial purposes are released to the public.

[HansTWN]

Thousands of tiny business selling exactly the same things means nobody makes any money at all and no value is created. Disney doesn't really have a monopoly, there are other competing characters, movies, etc. And not just Disney makes money on Disney items, so do the retailers, all the places where Disney advertises, manufacturers that work for Disney (now they uphold certain labor standards in factories, all that would be gone in a free for all), and Disney employees. Nobody would make money if a Donald Duck doll could be sold for 99 cents, and that is what it would come down to. That is the "it" I was talking about --- all items sold with the Disney brand. The Disney icons are almost like the company's brand. I see more value for society the way things are.

My main argument is that it would make sense to keep copyright for companies like Disney (who hold copyrights over images and characters) separate from copyrights for books, music, and movies. The problem I see happening is that due to the pending expiration dates for Disney's early works GENERAL copyright is being pushed back. As I mentioned, life +70 is much too long for books. So, as you have mentioned, separating the two makes sense to me. Virtually unlimited copyright on books and movies does not serve the public, expecially since often no income is being generated from them and many items actually have been "abandoned".

I don't care about Disney personally, but I believe that there is just this general trend "corporations are evil" and people tend to imagine how wonderful it would be if they had less power. This is true in many cases, but definitely not all. Sometimes you need them, too.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I want someone who's fluent in PoliticoSpeak to go to Congress and say, "want to make big inroads on the unemployment problem, and herald in an era of creativity and commerce the likes of which have not been seen since the advent of the printing press?

"Remove retroactive copyright extensions and announce that everything published is subject to the length of copyright protection at the date of publication + 56 yrs max; throw everything published before 1955 into the public domain.

Waiting around for big changes from big organizations usually means you end up doing a lot of waiting... Better to simply act as though the change has actually occurred.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Thousands of tiny business selling exactly the same things means nobody makes any money at all and no value is created.

This is just false.