The Fall of Gondolin

[Apache]

If your product is unique you get a patent and others can not copy it. If you literary product is unique you get a copyright. They are different yet the same.
Just last year Nintendo lost in a lawsuit brought by a medical company for infringing on their patent. (See iLife vs Nintendo)
Apache

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by rcentros

I'm not a crank on this subject and don't plan to go on forever with it ... but this seems like a specious argument to me. Words are not random. By creating a character and story, the writer has produced something unique. Not only should he own (and be able to sell) his own UNIQUE production but he should have the right to control how his creation is used by others — and he should have the ability to pass his production (his creation) down to his children.

As for building a chair that can't be copied... Manufacturers can patent specific designs that can't be copied. Or make smartphones that can't be copied. (Try to manufacture an iePhone — the "e" is silent — sometime and see how far this "free to copy" concept takes you). Every unique character and story is automatically specific. I just think a writer should have the right to his or her own work. It wasn't written by the "Collective," it was written by one person. That person should control what they produce.

But why should a writer uniquely be able to do so, other than you assert that is the way it should be? Patents and copyrights are embedded in the US Constitution which is why they are uniquely protected under US law, but it also expressly says that this government granted monopoly is for a limited time.

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by rcentros

I've never been able to quite figure this out. If a man creates something that makes people money (has value), why shouldn't he be able to pass that valuable property on to his heirs? If a man creates a profitable corporation, should his family be forced to give it away fifty years after his death?

Should Shakespeare's heirs still have exclusive publication rights to his work?

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

But why should a writer uniquely be able to do so, other than you assert that is the way it should be? Patents and copyrights are embedded in the US Constitution which is why they are uniquely protected under US law, but it also expressly says that this government granted monopoly is for a limited time.

I'm just stating my opinion. I think writers, the creators of a product should have the same rights to their product as other producers of other products. And that they should be able to pass those rights on to their heirs. I know that's no the way it is, but it's the way I believe it should be.

Now that I've said my piece, I'll let it go at that. My hold for The Fall of Gondolin has come through so (hopefully) my next post in this thread will be on the original topic.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by GlennD

Should Shakespeare's heirs still have exclusive publication rights to his work?

Depends on what publication rights Shakespeare sold in the first place. But if Shakespeare retained rights to what he wrote then — in my opinion — his descendants should have inherited those rights.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by GlennD

Should Shakespeare's heirs still have exclusive publication rights to his work?

Shakespeare has no living heirs. One daughter was married and had kids I believe but that line stopped with a grandchild. The other (I think) never married and his son Hamnet died as a child.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by GlennD

Should Shakespeare's heirs still have exclusive publication rights to his work?

Which would be rich because Shakespeare never actually published his plays. The plays were not published until some 7 years after his death when two of the King's Men players collected the plays and took them to a publisher. Imagine where we would be if that hadn't happened!

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by rcentros

I'm just stating my opinion. I think writers, the creators of a product should have the same rights to their product as other producers of other products. And that they should be able to pass those rights on to their heirs. I know that's no the way it is, but it's the way I believe it should be.

Now that I've said my piece, I'll let it go at that. My hold for The Fall of Gondolin has come through so (hopefully) my next post in this thread will be on the original topic.

Of course, the original topic wasn't the Fall of Gondolin, per se (btw, I hope you enjoy it. I found it fascinating), but rather the wealth of material that Tolkien left unpublished that I would love to see used as source material by other artists (i.e. the purpose of public domain).

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Of course, the original topic wasn't the Fall of Gondolin, per se (btw, I hope you enjoy it. I found it fascinating), but rather the wealth of material that Tolkien left unpublished that I would love to see used as source material by other artists (i.e. the purpose of public domain).

I really don't want other people monkeying around with Tolkien's characters and world. That seems like a violation to me.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by rcentros

I really don't want other people monkeying around with Tolkien's characters and world. That seems like a violation to me.

I can understand that. The specter that Disney likes to throw up is a pornographic Mickey Mouse if the Mouse ever goes into PD. I certainly think you have a valid concern. There have been some real clunkers in the Sherlock Holmes universe, on the other hand, there has been some really good stuff as well.

[Apache]

There have been pornographic Mickey Mouse cartoons for years.
Apache

[issybird]

Originally Posted by rcentros

I really don't want other people monkeying around with Tolkien's characters and world. That seems like a violation to me.

You can always ignore them. I have a strict definition of canon myself, which doesn't include any of J.K. Rowling's witterings outside the books either.

Still, you have a point. Because, oh, the irony:

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I can understand that. The specter that Disney likes to throw up is a pornographic Mickey Mouse if the Mouse ever goes into PD.

Which is rich, given how Disney has totally warped the public perception of classic fairy tales and other stories.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I can understand that. The specter that Disney likes to throw up is a pornographic Mickey Mouse if the Mouse ever goes into PD.

Aside from whatever Mickey Mouse Tijuana bibles I'm sure exist, there's already famously been Air Pirates Funnies and Wally Wood's Disneyland Memorial Orgy poster.

Disney's concern about their IP falling into the public domain is rich considering Walt's empire was built on the public domain works of the brothers Grimm, Hans Christian Andersen and Charles Perrault, though I'm far from the first to point that out.

[Conan46]

Originally Posted by issybird

You can always ignore them. I have a strict definition of canon myself, which doesn't include any of J.K. Rowling's witterings outside the books either.

Still, you have a point. Because, oh, the irony:



Which is rich, given how Disney has totally warped the public perception of classic fairy tales and other stories.

That was my thought exactly. I would love to see how much--what percentage--of the Disney empire is based upon public domain stories and characters.
We have had so many wonderful books, stories, and movies based upon "Robin Hood" that would not exist if the original story had been copyrighted forever.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Apache

There have been pornographic Mickey Mouse cartoons for years.
Apache

I know. I was in a bit of a hurry this morning, so kept my post short.

Yes, I agree with the points made by other posters about Disney using lots of PD stories and the like. Really I suspect that many authors take the same approach towards things like fanfic that Rowlings does, i.e. turn a blind eye to it as long as they don't try to make money off of it and don't force her to take action. I also don't think that Doyle or Lovecraft's legacies have been harmed by the mass of works written in those two universes.