Coming Soon to Life Plus 70

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I don't know about that.

In many people's eyes, Mickey Mouse is Disney. And after Air Pirates Funnies, I doubt Disney will stand by and let Mickey fall in to the public domain, where anyone can use the character as they see fit. Especially when the cost to extend the copyright with politicians they already have in their back pocket is likely trivial, to them.

Perhaps, but I don't think that just because Steamboat Willie goes into PD means that Mickey and Friends are suddenly in PD. Just the movie goes into PD. Anyone who tries to use Mickey will have to tread a very fine line.

I don't really expect the next big fight to be over early talkies, but rather when the movies from the 30's onward roll towards PD. Call it 1930.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Perhaps, but I don't think that just because Steamboat Willie goes into PD means that Mickey and Friends are suddenly in PD. Just the movie goes into PD. Anyone who tries to use Mickey will have to tread a very fine line.

I don't really expect the next big fight to be over early talkies, but rather when the movies from the 30's onward roll towards PD. Call it 1930.

In the UK, the length of copyright protection of a film is the usual "life+70" term applied to the following people:

• The principal director.
• The author of the screenplay.
• The author of the dialogue.
• The composer of any original music.

So when the last of these four people dies, that's when the 70 year clock starts "ticking".

[darryl]

Consider the following "thought bubble". Under this model we could even keep the life + 70, though life plus 5 or 10 would be better. For books, any assignment of exclusive rights would be for a 10 year period only with no right of renewal. After that the rights would revert to the author. However, the author cannot again assign or licence the book exclusively. For the rest of the copyright term the work would be subject to a statutory non-exclusive licence which anyone wanting to publish could take out.

I'd suggest Royalties payable would be 70% for ebooks and 50% for print books. Royalties would be calculated on the higher of the actual selling price and a minimum selling price to be set, indexed and reviewed regularly. Government or statutory bodies could administer the scheme, perhaps taking say a 1% share to cover costs. Security for payment of royalties could be required in appropriate cases. Movies we should simply stop considering irrelevant lifetimes and give copyright directly to the studio, with a term of say 20 years, possibly followed by a similar statutory licence regime. Real consideration of what is appropriate for each category and even sub-category of intellectual property can be considered in setting the terms and conditions.

I have not had the chance to consider the implications of this type of scheme in detail. It is just a "thought bubble". But it has the very real advantage of limiting the power of rights-holders, who have become basically a blight on the system and lead to real distortion. It would also see much more money going to the creators rather than the rights-holders. It also creates a further source of publicly available books at potentially very reasonable prices, a sort of quasi public domain. It seems to me such a system would be much closer to fulfilling the ideals contained in the US Constitution. It would not of course be perfect, but I suspect it would be a vast improvement. But even more unlikely than a return of life + 70 countries to life + 50.

It will of course be argued that the one time 10 year exclusive licence will not be enough for publishers to get an adequate return on their investment, and therefore will drive the offers to authors down or even eliminate them. Given the pattern of the vast majority of book and ebook sales this argument would not appear to be a very good one.

These ideas are not set in concrete. Perhaps I am mistaken and I have overlooked something which would make it unworkable. Perhaps others have ideas that would improve it. I'd be interested to hear opinions.

[DiapDealer]

The only thing you've overlooked is that copyright law will never be expanded to dictate author/publisher contractual details.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Perhaps, but I don't think that just because Steamboat Willie goes into PD means that Mickey and Friends are suddenly in PD. Just the movie goes into PD. Anyone who tries to use Mickey will have to tread a very fine line.

I don't really expect the next big fight to be over early talkies, but rather when the movies from the 30's onward roll towards PD. Call it 1930.

Which is 7 years from now . . .

Mickey Mouse proper is protected by trademark, which is perpetual.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

In the UK, the length of copyright protection of a film is the usual "life+70" term applied to the following people:

• The principal director.
• The author of the screenplay.
• The author of the dialogue.
• The composer of any original music.

So when the last of these four people dies, that's when the 70 year clock starts "ticking".

In the US, it is under a different set of copyright rules, for collaborative works. Somewhere here there is a sticky describing them. (I know, I wrote it. . . .)

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by darryl

Consider the following "thought bubble". Under this model we could even keep the life + 70, though life plus 5 or 10 would be better. For books, any assignment of exclusive rights would be for a 10 year period only with no right of renewal. After that the rights would revert to the author. However, the author cannot again assign or licence the book exclusively. For the rest of the copyright term the work would be subject to a statutory non-exclusive licence which anyone wanting to publish could take out.

I'd suggest Royalties payable would be 70% for ebooks and 50% for print books. Royalties would be calculated on the higher of the actual selling price and a minimum selling price to be set, indexed and reviewed regularly. Government or statutory bodies could administer the scheme, perhaps taking say a 1% share to cover costs. Security for payment of royalties could be required in appropriate cases. Movies we should simply stop considering irrelevant lifetimes and give copyright directly to the studio, with a term of say 20 years, possibly followed by a similar statutory licence regime. Real consideration of what is appropriate for each category and even sub-category of intellectual property can be considered in setting the terms and conditions.

I have not had the chance to consider the implications of this type of scheme in detail. It is just a "thought bubble". But it has the very real advantage of limiting the power of rights-holders, who have become basically a blight on the system and lead to real distortion. It would also see much more money going to the creators rather than the rights-holders. It also creates a further source of publicly available books at potentially very reasonable prices, a sort of quasi public domain. It seems to me such a system would be much closer to fulfilling the ideals contained in the US Constitution. It would not of course be perfect, but I suspect it would be a vast improvement. But even more unlikely than a return of life + 70 countries to life + 50.

It will of course be argued that the one time 10 year exclusive licence will not be enough for publishers to get an adequate return on their investment, and therefore will drive the offers to authors down or even eliminate them. Given the pattern of the vast majority of book and ebook sales this argument would not appear to be a very good one.

These ideas are not set in concrete. Perhaps I am mistaken and I have overlooked something which would make it unworkable. Perhaps others have ideas that would improve it. I'd be interested to hear opinions.

Simpler (and it follows the current legal concepts) is - a property tax on copyrights. Corporations want to have perpetual copyright, then they have to pay to keep it every year. Don't pay and it gets seized by the government, and put into the public domain.

The cost of running this would come from the copyright tax itself. . . .

[darryl]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

The only thing you've overlooked is that copyright law will never be expanded to dictate author/publisher contractual details.

You are unfortunately correct. I of course have no expectation that this will ever happen. I don't think we will ever see a return to life plus 50 either. It's a nice though experiment only. And I think it is worthwhile to talk about better models, even though there is no reason to believe that the lobby groups will ever cease to have things mostly their own way.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Simpler (and it follows the current legal concepts) is - a property tax on copyrights. Corporations want to have perpetual copyright, then they have to pay to keep it every year. Don't pay and it gets seized by the government, and put into the public domain.

The cost of running this would come from the copyright tax itself. . . .

Not a bad idea Ralph, though it still leaves many problems unsolved.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Which is 7 years from now . . .

Mickey Mouse proper is protected by trademark, which is perpetual.

According to the link that Zop give, the judge rejected the trademark violation claim in the Air-pirates case.

If you want to look at how complex copyright and trademark law can be, take a look at the legal history of Doyle estate and the various lawsuits over Sherlock Holmes. Its really interesting stuff.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Simpler (and it follows the current legal concepts) is - a property tax on copyrights. Corporations want to have perpetual copyright, then they have to pay to keep it every year. Don't pay and it gets seized by the government, and put into the public domain.

The cost of running this would come from the copyright tax itself. . . .

That certainly would be an amusing way to hoist the IP crowd on their own petard. But it does concede the theory that copyright and patents are property rather than being the simple government granted monopolies that they are. A dangerous legal step.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

Consider the following "thought bubble". Under this model we could even keep the life + 70, though life plus 5 or 10 would be better. For books, any assignment of exclusive rights would be for a 10 year period only with no right of renewal. After that the rights would revert to the author. However, the author cannot again assign or licence the book exclusively. For the rest of the copyright term the work would be subject to a statutory non-exclusive licence which anyone wanting to publish could take out.

I'd suggest Royalties payable would be 70% for ebooks and 50% for print books. Royalties would be calculated on the higher of the actual selling price and a minimum selling price to be set, indexed and reviewed regularly. Government or statutory bodies could administer the scheme, perhaps taking say a 1% share to cover costs. Security for payment of royalties could be required in appropriate cases. Movies we should simply stop considering irrelevant lifetimes and give copyright directly to the studio, with a term of say 20 years, possibly followed by a similar statutory licence regime. Real consideration of what is appropriate for each category and even sub-category of intellectual property can be considered in setting the terms and conditions.

I have not had the chance to consider the implications of this type of scheme in detail. It is just a "thought bubble". But it has the very real advantage of limiting the power of rights-holders, who have become basically a blight on the system and lead to real distortion. It would also see much more money going to the creators rather than the rights-holders. It also creates a further source of publicly available books at potentially very reasonable prices, a sort of quasi public domain. It seems to me such a system would be much closer to fulfilling the ideals contained in the US Constitution. It would not of course be perfect, but I suspect it would be a vast improvement. But even more unlikely than a return of life + 70 countries to life + 50.

It will of course be argued that the one time 10 year exclusive licence will not be enough for publishers to get an adequate return on their investment, and therefore will drive the offers to authors down or even eliminate them. Given the pattern of the vast majority of book and ebook sales this argument would not appear to be a very good one.

These ideas are not set in concrete. Perhaps I am mistaken and I have overlooked something which would make it unworkable. Perhaps others have ideas that would improve it. I'd be interested to hear opinions.

Certainly that's an idea that I could support, though you do run into the issue of licensing which is where the big money is for the major properties like Harry Potter and LOTR. I still think that if you could figure out a way to carve out an exception for the major money making properties, then politically it would be quite viable to implement such a scheme, though perhaps going with the old US standard of 27 years rather than 10 years.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

According to the link that Zop give, the judge rejected the trademark violation claim in the Air-pirates case.

If you want to look at how complex copyright and trademark law can be, take a look at the legal history of Doyle estate and the various lawsuits over Sherlock Holmes. Its really interesting stuff.

But Mickey Mouse has clearly been used as a trademark (along with Tinkerbell) for decades and is still used today. I think Disney would win that one. . .

[darryl]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Certainly that's an idea that I could support, though you do run into the issue of licensing which is where the big money is for the major properties like Harry Potter and LOTR. I still think that if you could figure out a way to carve out an exception for the major money making properties, then politically it would be quite viable to implement such a scheme, though perhaps going with the old US standard of 27 years rather than 10 years.

Interesting and intelligent comments. It would certainly be feasible to carve out at least most major properties by reference to the amount of revenue during the initial period. Do you see any benefit to doing this other than to make it politically possible. Leaving the rights holders there big money makers in return for their acquiescence. This alone would be quite adequate justification on the basis that it would still be a very significant improvement on the existing situation.

Also, any particular reason for 27 years? My suggestion of 10 was based on my understanding that most books have made virtually all of the revenue they are going to make well within the first 5 years, though on reflection this may no longer be true now books need never go "out of print".

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by darryl

Interesting and intelligent comments. It would certainly be feasible to carve out at least most major properties by reference to the amount of revenue during the initial period. Do you see any benefit to doing this other than to make it politically possible. Leaving the rights holders there big money makers in return for their acquiescence. This alone would be quite adequate justification on the basis that it would still be a very significant improvement on the existing situation.

Also, any particular reason for 27 years? My suggestion of 10 was based on my understanding that most books have made virtually all of the revenue they are going to make well within the first 5 years, though on reflection this may no longer be true now books need never go "out of print".

Actually 28 years. Pre-Bern the copyright was 28 years plus another 28 years extension, if an extension was filed for.