Why public domain

[Alanon]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Obviously this discussion can go into the various legalities of copyright, derivative works (in some countries derivative works are not covered under copyright, in others they are) and the like, but that's not really what I want to focus on. Instead I want to focus on two ideas. The first being that when a work goes into public domain, anyone can make a copy and the second the idea of new works using the characters or universe of a previous work.

For some reason, there hasn't been much discussion about your second point, which I find by far the more interesting one, and it's been in the centre of some of my research. I beg forgiveness for the wall of text that is to follow, when I'm intrigued by something I find it difficult to stop.

One could make the argument of there being a novel understanding not of the concept of "derivative" but rather of the concept of "work" (as in work of art). At the core of what's called transmedal narratology there's an understanding that modern stories by and large are no longer created in a singular medium, but in one of two ways - either through what's been called the "snowball effect", where a single-media creation grows so popular that it spills over into other media (think Harry Potter), or as a true transmedial project, with parallel stories across media, each, ideally developing a distinct part of the story (think Dragon Age). What's central in both of these approaches is an understanding that the audience somehow constitutes the body of work and engages with it in a much more active way. This has untold implications on the way the idea of an author is perceived, be it consciously or subconsciously. Fanfic is a prime example - the Harry Potter fanfic authors by and large hate the fact J.K. Rowling is "writing fan fiction of her own work" because they see it as an intrusion, or even unearned privilege of destroying everything they've created. How would one even begin to disentangle this situation from a traditional copyright position? There is an expectation (one would argue it was there from the very beginning, let's not forget the Sherock readership and Doyle's reversal) that an audience has a right to impact the franchise they love. More often than not such an attitude spills over into a new breadth of creativity. Corporate copyright laws allow for it - Universal's "transformative" green, flat-topped Frankenstein's monster is under copyright - despite the fact Mary Shelley's book is not. Fifty shades started of as a Twilight fanfic and is now happily being sold by Amazon, expunged from any vestiges of the original characters. Something is changing in our media landscape, and the way which we perceive media has, I believe, also changed the way we see authors.

The plain fact is that the figure of the author - or should I say, auteur - has been fictionalised and propped up beyond measure. We relish the creative genius living in a decrepit shack, starving and ill, whose self-made creation soares to the heavens. Walt Disney, esq. may have thought Mickey up all on his lonesome, but most of his subsequent creations are a conglomeration of a great many people contributing ideas. Yet we were more than OK with a single man carrying the banner of an entire creative industry, and awarded him dozens of Oscars. I don't think it would happen today, certainly not so easily. Still there are people across the thread taking him as a poster boy of why copyright should be adhered to, or even lengthened? All the while, the paradoxes and inconsistencies of this reasoning are apparent - architects, craftsmen, jewellers, all of them engaged in creative and impactful intellectual work without anyone so much batting an eye. As far as I know, there is no copyright for an inventive diamond cut. A point can be made in the standard creative lane - can anyone justify why Stan Lee, being a creative genius and immense influence - was not a billionaire like good ol' Walt? Should the fact he signed away his rights due to the place where he was employed and the nature of his industry matter to copyright absolutists? Should it matter to his audience, or the people influenced by him? What I believe is changing is that the moralistic, Messianic, romanticist notion of the individual creative genius (as opposed to sell-outs that compromise their artistic integrity for creature comforts like food), is being challenged by contemporary new art forms like video games, which influence our ideas as to what authorship means. Should this not somehow be reflected in copyright legislation?

A central hindrance in communication in the thread, as I see it, seem to be the art and property inheritance parallels. Art is only valuable insofar as it is unique - be it the original, or a unique reproduction by a famous forger, etc. The correct comparison between a Rembrandt portrait and Shakespeare is the portrait vs. an actual Shakespeare manuscript, not Rembrandt and the untold Penguin Classics printed editions. A sculpture loses value when reproduced. It has not been so in printed books, save for vaunted exceptions, and even in such cases it is due to rarity or historical significance as much - if not more - than the actual content. As I see it, the palliative backbone of print copyright infringement is in revenue lost from unauthorised reproduction and sales, the argument being - if you lot buy the Harry Potter films you might not buy the books. However, when the storyworld expands to include content from wildly different sources, all contributing to the general landscape, the waters get muddied, and it becomes unclear who, exactly, is the most appropriate rights holder - Rowling, the film studios, comic artists, merch designers... the list goes on. Problem is, these are never copies, but creative adaptations, and the "he was here first" argument of yesteryear seldom when cuts it. As the media landscape changes, so will the incentives of corporations. Public domain works were once reprinted because that was the only way to obtain them. The internet and places like this forum are testaments to the shifting sands. The internet has made available books that would in no way have been readable, if not for the uncompensated effort of places like Gutenberg. Heirs peter out, only corporations are forever. Finally, to all those claiming that modern copyright best protects the intellectual labour and interests of authors, I point to the sorry state of academic publishing paywalls, which protect only the corporate interests that made the rules in the first place.

[ekbell]

Originally Posted by shalym

Ok...so how do you define "economic life"? How do we (as regular consumers) know whether or not a book is in the public domain? Should the government create a database of books that are in the public domain? How does the government know? These days, copyright doesn't have to be "registered" anywhere in order for anything to be covered by copyright, so again...who keeps track of what books are or aren't in the public domain?

I think that we really need to go back to the days when copyright had to be registered, and renewed for a nominal fee every 10-20 years or so. If it's not renewed, then it goes into the public domain. Any work could be renewed forever, which would satisfy those who want to keep control of popular works, and it would solve the problem of orphan works.

Shari

My concern with changing copyright laws to require registration and renewal is that the law would need to account for private writings that would not be registered (because one of the functions of current copyright laws is allowing people to keep private correspondence/diaries/old manuscripts etc. from being published) and the fact that in this global economy such laws would arguably require international agreements and an international database to be effective.

BTW the grandfather's watch analogy started me wondering what the current prices would exist for original manuscripts from nearly any public domain author still being published by main-stream publishers.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

Let's cancel it, then. Rescind the concept of copyright. Take away the protection that we currently provide. Let's see how that benefits creators and their widows and orphans. Then, once that sinks in, let's see what they're willing to do to get it back. See what bargain they're willing to accept.

Nobody is saying to do away with copyright. But life+95 is crap.

The thing is, give what copyright was designed to do, let's go back to that. Let's have copyright be the life+life of wife and kids.

That would put copyright right back to what it was designed to do.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The thing is, give what copyright was designed to do, let's go back to that. Let's have copyright be the life+life of wife and kids.

Only straight men and lesbians, then?

[leebase]

If something has value, why should not the creator of the value or those the creator assigned the rights to the value....maintain ownership of the value?

The public has no right to your bank account or your lawn or your fields or your house. There are various taxes to enable "public good" to come from "private ownership"....but the ownership itself is understood.

If an author makes a bad deal for himself....that doesn't change the concept of ownership or intellectual property. If I sold a watch only to find out that it had far more value than what I sold it for....too bad for me. I got my price and now someone else is the owner.

If you work for a company in a creative role....you can bet that it's the company that owns your work....not you. But that doesn't change what ownership is. Disney, the corporation, is who owns the work coming out of the many Disney employees...according to their employment agreements.

Having economics allows growth as it spurs investment.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

I have come up with an argument for extending copyright for a few years after the author's death. Say an author dies, having just finished a book for which they were paid a large advance; perhaps the publisher has already spent money to advertise the book as well - it's only fair if the publisher has exclusive rights to the book for a while, isn't it?

I think reasonable copyright periods of a few years would cover this situation.

Barry

[doubleshuffle]

Originally Posted by barryem

I think reasonable copyright periods of a few years would cover this situation.

Barry

Oh, of course. I'm definitely not in favour of long posthumous copyrights; this just popped into my mind as a possible argument to have copyright last after the author's death at all.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by leebase

There is no societal need to build upon fictional characters.

There are societal needs and societal benefits. Fictional characters help form shared values. How much less we'd be if we didn't have Sir Lancelot, Robin Hood, Sam Spade, Bugs Bunny, Santa Claus, Peter Pan, Sherlock Holmes and Long John Silver.

Barry

[doubleshuffle]

And Susan Sto-Helit.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I've still got a copy of the Abrash book. It was a classic of it's time, but like most computer books it had a very limited shelf life. His book on computer graphics was very good as well.

I would point out that in both cases, the issue isn't copyright, it is the contract that the writer signed with the publisher. Standard advice is to make sure that there is a clause in the contract that the rights revert back to you, the author, under certain circumstances, such as the yearly sales drop below a certain figure.

You're probably right. I shouldn't have included the Abrash book. The Gruenwald novels, though, would be out of copyright soon if copyright terms were much shorter. Although I think this might be a less than ideal example as well.

Barry

[barryem]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The USA copyright system is not driven by books. It's driven by Mickey Mouse and the bribes the mouse can pay to lawmakers.

If you're right then it's time to call the exterminator.

Barry

[leebase]

Originally Posted by barryem

There are societal needs and societal benefits. Fictional characters help form shared values. How much less we'd be if we didn't have Sir Lancelot, Robin Hood, Sam Spade, Bugs Bunny, Santa Claus, Peter Pan, Sherlock Holmes and Long John Silver.

Barry

No one has made the case that with copyright, there'd be no shared story telling. We have plenty of evidence to the contrary. Every movie that came from a book. Every author that writes "Star Wars" books - legitimately.

We also have ample, overwhelming, evidence that folks can tell "the same story" using their own characters and plotlines. Every Cop Buddy movie, every "medical drama" tv show.

Someone else already demonstrated with a listing of all the cartoon mice character's that copyrighted MickeyMouse was no barrier toward.

You want to make a movie in the Avatar universe....go talk to James Cameron or his company and secure rights. If he doesn't agree or you don't want to pay the price....then create your OWN "humans riding in Alien Android hybrid machine" story.

Want to write a book in the Halo universe? Talk to microsoft and secure a license. They won't play ball or you don't want to pay the price? Then write your own "man rides inside large mechanical fighting machine" story....like the THOUSANDS that exist.

There is no limit on fiction. There is no societal good that comes from putting a term on copyright for fiction that wouldn't ALSO come from just taking things other people own and saying "this is now the public's".

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Alanon

For some reason, there hasn't been much discussion about your second point, which I find by far the more interesting one, and it's been in the centre of some of my research. I beg forgiveness for the wall of text that is to follow, when I'm intrigued by something I find it difficult to stop.
...
cut out a bunch of stuff
...
.

I also find the second point the more interesting point and the point that has the greatest effect on society. It's also the point where aggressive copyright holders can make the most mischief. Who would risk writing about a boy wizard in wizard school if you know that J.K. Rowlings, inc is going to tie you up in court for the next decade, win or lose? In general, it's not happening at the moment, except in a few cases, such as Harland Ellison, but it will come. If I recall correctly, J.K. Rowlings had several people sue her claiming that they came up with the idea of a wizard school first. Now, there is a whole sub-genre based on wizard schools. As we have seen in the US with patent trolls, all it takes is a few sympathetic judges, or at least judges unwilling to simply throw the case out of court quickly and a law firm that goes out and buys the copyrights to a diverse group of books can have a pretty nice little business model.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by leebase

No one has made the case that with copyright, there'd be no shared story telling. We have plenty of evidence to the contrary. Every movie that came from a book. Every author that writes "Star Wars" books - legitimately.

We also have ample, overwhelming, evidence that folks can tell "the same story" using their own characters and plotlines. Every Cop Buddy movie, every "medical drama" tv show.

Someone else already demonstrated with a listing of all the cartoon mice character's that copyrighted MickeyMouse was no barrier toward.

You want to make a movie in the Avatar universe....go talk to James Cameron or his company and secure rights. If he doesn't agree or you don't want to pay the price....then create your OWN "humans riding in Alien Android hybrid machine" story.

Want to write a book in the Halo universe? Talk to microsoft and secure a license. They won't play ball or you don't want to pay the price? Then write your own "man rides inside large mechanical fighting machine" story....like the THOUSANDS that exist.

There is no limit on fiction. There is no societal good that comes from putting a term on copyright for fiction that wouldn't ALSO come from just taking things other people own and saying "this is now the public's".

The fallacy of your argument is shown in two simple words - patent trolls. Before the district court of North Texas showed itself to be sympathetic to patent infringement cases, patent trolls weren't a thing. Now, it's a major industry and a major issue.

Eventually, some clever lawyer is going to convince a jury that yes, any man rides inside large mechanical fighting machine story is an infringement of the copyright on Halo and boom, instant copyright infringement industry. Harland Ellison got them to pay him off for the idea of someone goes back in time to stop something from happening simply because the threat of the lawsuit could have put the project on hold.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I also find the second point the more interesting point and the point that has the greatest effect on society. It's also the point where aggressive copyright holders can make the most mischief. Who would risk writing about a boy wizard in wizard school if you know that J.K. Rowlings, inc is going to tie you up in court for the next decade, win or lose? In general, it's not happening at the moment, except in a few cases, such as Harland Ellison, but it will come. If I recall correctly, J.K. Rowlings had several people sue her claiming that they came up with the idea of a wizard school first. Now, there is a whole sub-genre based on wizard schools. As we have seen in the US with patent trolls, all it takes is a few sympathetic judges, or at least judges unwilling to simply throw the case out of court quickly and a law firm that goes out and buys the copyrights to a diverse group of books can have a pretty nice little business model.

We need to tighten down on what's allowed to be copyrighted. The concept of a wizard school should not be allowed to be copyrighted. It's too broad of a term. The school needs to be be narrowed down to a certain set of characters or events or places or time frame, etc.