Green Party on copyright

[ponderingturtle]

That's the problem, isn't it? It's got nothing to do with making the actual art or music available, but with how much profit can be achieved from it.

The way companies are folded into companies and corporations buy portfolios of copyrights makes it almost impossible to use a post-1923 image, or a post-1895 "corporate work-for-hire" unless you can afford someone on staff to research every single item.

Otherwise you risk somebody suing you for using a piece of newspaper from the 1930s as a background in an art piece.

Andy Warhol's pop art would never have been able to exist in our current copyright climate.

Walt Disney's been dead nearly 50 years now. I think it's time to let his mouse go instead of continuing to milk it for every possible cent.

(Seriously, you can be sued for a black silhouette comprised of 3 circles like the Mickey logo)

Worhol would be much more an issue with trademark rather than copy write. A very different set of intellectual property laws.

And the three circles thing is also Trademark not copy write.

 

[Information Analyst]

Ok nothing of significant monetary value.

Nope, anything written by someone who died more than 70 years ago is now public domain, and each year sees more such works released. There's no exemption for the "valuable" stuff. As mentioned previously, H.G. Wells will be PD in 2017, and so will George Orwell and George Bernard Shaw in 2021. These are writers who still get published and sell on a significant scale.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Nope, anything written by someone who died more than 70 years ago is now public domain, and each year sees more such works released. There's no exemption for the "valuable" stuff. As mentioned previously, H.G. Wells will be PD in 2017, and so will George Orwell and George Bernard Shaw in 2021. These are writers who still get published and well on a significant scale.

Well maybe maybe not. We will see if the estates use the ways that one can extend copy write that the music and movie industry has pioneered.

 

[Information Analyst]

Well maybe maybe not. We will see if the estates use the ways that one can extend copy write that the music and movie industry has pioneered.

Why should we expect them to do that, when other estates previously haven't? There's no way to extend copyright in UK law other than changing the law itself, and that's not happening any time soon. If anything, there are pressures to relax, rather than further restrict.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Why should we expect them to do that, when other estates previously haven't? There's no way to extend copyright in UK law other than changing the law itself, and that's not happening any time soon. If anything, there are pressures to relax, rather than further restrict.

That is the wonder of international copy write law, you just need to find one jurisdiction that will extend it and then it gets extended everywhere. The holders of those intelectual properties may or may not decide to extend it.

Though I note this shifted from being about music and movies to being solely about novels.

 

[Information Analyst]

That is the wonder of international copy write law, you just need to find one jurisdiction that will extend it and then it gets extended everywhere.

I don't see anyone rushing to emulate the 95 year terms the United States has on some works. Parity is also not adopted on identical terms, e.g. Australia moved to death + 70 years, but did not make it retroactive, so works produced before the new legislation was enacted still lapsed under the previous terms (generally death + 50 years).

The holders of those intelectual properties may or may not decide to extend it.

That makes no sense. Rights holders don't get to choose whether or not to extend copyright terms, although they can of course choose whether or not to enforce them.

Though I note this shifted from being about music and movies to being solely about novels.

No, the thread started off in general terms, but literary copyright is the easiest to deal with, since there is generally only one person whose death starts the clock ticking. Music is falling into the UK public domain all the time, and we're approaching a point where many more films will, as well.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't see anyone rushing to emulate the 95 year terms the United States has on some works. Parity is also not adopted on identical terms, e.g. Australia moved to death + 70 years, but did not make it retroactive, so works produced before the new legislation was enacted still lapsed under the previous terms (generally death + 50 years).

So is the clock started on the Beatles music or not? Micheal Jackson is dead after all and he owned the rights.

So how does this work when the rights get sold?

 

[Information Analyst]

So is the clock started on the Beatles music or not? Micheal Jackson is dead after all and he owned the rights.

So how does this work when the rights get sold?

The clock starts when the original writers die, regardless of who ends up actually owning the copyright. Certainly anything written solely by Lennon should be public domain in 2051, and Harrison in 2072.

I think, though, that you are suffering a bit from recentism. Copyright and public domain is a long game - it's not about stuff that got produced only a couple of decades ago.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The clock starts when the original writers die, regardless of who ends up actually owning the copyright. Certainly anything written solely by Lennon should be public domain in 2051, and Harrison in 2072.

I think, though, that you are suffering a bit from recentism. Copyright and public domain is a long game - it's not about stuff that got produced only a couple of decades ago.

That is for the copy write of the song, not the copy write of the recording. It certainly used to be for recordings, those used to enter public domain at 50 years.

And of course this would also mean all of the works of Walt Disney should enter public domain next year.

 

[Information Analyst]

That is for the copy write of the song, not the copy write of the recording. It certainly used to be for recordings, those used to enter public domain at 50 years.

That's a chicken-and-egg, though. If copyright in the music subsists, whoever owns the recording copyright (creation + 70 years) can't exploit it without permission, and the same is true when the recording becomes public domain. There is now a growing market for original early sound recordings (i.e. everything recorded on or before 31 December 1944) precisely because they are now a lot easier to clear, needing only one set of permissions.

And of course this would also mean all of the works of Walt Disney should enter public domain next year.

Works solely attributable to Disney - or to him and other authors who pre-deceased him - in applicable categories (writer, director, composer) will be public domain after the end of next year, i.e. on 1 January 2017.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That's a chicken-and-egg, though. If copyright in the music subsists, whoever owns the recording copyright (creation + 70 years) can't exploit it without permission, and the same is true when the recording becomes public domain. There is now a growing market for original early sound recordings (i.e. everything recorded on or before 31 December 1944) precisely because they are now a lot easier to clear, needing only one set of permissions.


Works solely attributable to Disney - or to him and other authors who pre-deceased him - in applicable categories (writer, director, composer) will be public domain after the end of next year, i.e. on 1 January 2017.

And if you believe that Steam Boat Willy will enter the public domain you are rather naive.

 

[Information Analyst]

And if you believe that Steam Boat Willy will enter the public domain you are rather naive.

It will in the UK. It is arguable that it already is in the US, and has been for some time.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It will in the UK.

It will be interesting to see what happens then.

 

[deadrose]

Unfortunately, I live in the US, so the number of things entering the public domain here is far smaller than that in the UK. I would also be bound by US copyright if I lived in the UK and sold work in the US. Besides, the TPP will be expanding that 95-year law to far more countries, with a goal of forcing it worldwide.

I know the Mickey logo is a trademark issue, I just used it as an example of how zealously they pursue people they perceive to be violators. See the changes forced on the Howard the Duck cartoons by Disney as another example. Coincidentally, they now own the rights to the movie, so I don't expect we'll see that unburied any time soon.

 

[Damien Evans]

Unfortunately, I live in the US, so the number of things entering the public domain here is far smaller than that in the UK. I would also be bound by US copyright if I lived in the UK and sold work in the US. Besides, the TPP will be expanding that 95-year law to far more countries, with a goal of forcing it worldwide.

I know the Mickey logo is a trademark issue, I just used it as an example of how zealously they pursue people they perceive to be violators. See the changes forced on the Howard the Duck cartoons by Disney as another example. Coincidentally, they now own the rights to the movie, so I don't expect we'll see that unburied any time soon.

Of course they do. Disney own Marvel outright. All the recent Marvel Cinematic Universe movies, including Guardians Of The Galaxy, which Howard the Duck makes a small appearance in, are Disney movies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_Comics#Disney_conglomerate_unit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_Entertainment

Or did you mean they won't put out the old movie on DVD? No great loss in that case, I've heard it was awful.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Or did you mean they won't put out the old movie on DVD? No great loss in that case, I've heard it was awful.

It's a loss for fans of bad films, like me, though. =(

 

[Information Analyst]

Unfortunately, I live in the US, so the number of things entering the public domain here is far smaller than that in the UK. I would also be bound by US copyright if I lived in the UK and sold work in the US. Besides, the TPP will be expanding that 95-year law to far more countries, with a goal of forcing it worldwide.

It can work both ways, though. There's a particular unpublished manuscript languishing in a US university library that I'm keep to push them into publishing for critical purposes when the US copyright runs out in a few years, because unless there is a change in the law, it won't become public domain in the UK until after the end of 2039.

 

[Darat]

I guess I don't understand your argument.

That's probably because they are arguments of the strawman variety.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Walt Disney's been dead nearly 50 years now. I think it's time to let his mouse go instead of continuing to milk it for every possible cent.
(Seriously, you can be sued for a black silhouette comprised of 3 circles like the Mickey logo)

There would be nothing stopping Disney continuing to make money from Mickey Mouse because he entered public domain.

 

[Darat]

That without copyright protection, those shows would never have been produced.

...snip...

And no one in this thread has argued to do away with copyright.....