Copyright Expiration: Good or Bad?

[Bunch of Coconuts]

You would literally have to ask a Disney executive how much Mickey Mouse stuff they sell and how watched his programs are.

Yes, I realize it was mostly a rhetorical question.

Or, rather, a question to which I wouldn't receive the answer from anyone here.

[Farealmer]

But the people who own Conans copyright have control over how his stuff is distributed. If they feel as if the company that currently has the copyright isnt doing a good job or not paying enough for the rights they can go somewhere else. I see the arguments on both sides. I dont really get people who say well someone shouldn't be able to use someones creations the way they want as long as that person who created it lives. Like why is that? If you dont believe in copyright then why should the guy who created Game of Thrones have control of it? Or he should but his relatives should not? There needs to be consistency there. You cant say well Walt Disney should have complete control over his characters but once hes dead no one should. I just find the issue complicated and not black and white at all. Probably why it gets argued about all the time.

Are you really saying you don't get the difference between when the owner is alive and when they are dead?

[inisideguy]

Are you really saying you don't get the difference between when the owner is alive and when they are dead?

I think you misunderstand me. Of course no one should be able to take someones creations from them before they die. But many of you seem to be like its ok for anyone to have them after they do. Regardless of what that persons wishes may be. If George Lucas sells Star Wars and Indiana Jones to Disney thats his right. And Disney paid good money for those properties. The Howard estate has kept control of Conan. Thats fine by me. I see nothing wrong with that. Apparently many of you guys want to take creations away from people or companies for the " public" good.

I mean maybe if some of you were actually heirs or related to some of these creators you might have a different opinion. Its always easy to be like ahhhh who cares when you are not involved.

[Tuck]

I think you misunderstand me. Of course no one should be able to take someones creations from them before they die.

Why not? Before the 20th century, copyrights expired within an author's lifetime. As they were intended to.

Sitting on a copyright is basically rent-seeking. And even when a work goes into public domain, any new works produced by the original author or company gets its own copyright.

[Farealmer]

I think you misunderstand me. Of course no one should be able to take someones creations from them before they die. But many of you seem to be like its ok for anyone to have them after they do. Regardless of what that persons wishes may be. If George Lucas sells Star Wars and Indiana Jones to Disney thats his right. And Disney paid good money for those properties. The Howard estate has kept control of Conan. Thats fine by me. I see nothing wrong with that. Apparently many of you guys want to take creations away from people or companies for the " public" good.

If they didn't create them then it wasn't really theirs to begin with. It's one thing to make a house for your family to live in. It's another when your relatives or some company inherit a story or character they may neither care about nor respect. You seem to be going with the worst possible interpretation of a dying person telling their family to take care of their work and then before their body is even cold the public domain vultures are swooping in to ruin it. That feels too fear mongering to me.

I mean maybe if some of you were actually heirs or related to some of these creators you might have a different opinion. Its always easy to be like ahhhh who cares when you are not involved.

I would rather my works go public than be in the hands of my relatives.

[inisideguy]

If they didn't create them then it wasn't really theirs to begin with. It's one thing to make a house for your family to live in. It's another when your relatives or some company inherit a story or character they may neither care about nor respect. You seem to be going with the worst possible interpretation of a dying person telling their family to take care of their work and then before their body is even cold the public domain vultures are swooping in to ruin it. That feels too fear mongering to me.


I would rather my works go public than be in the hands of my relatives.

Its not fear mongering. Apparently opinion is once a person dies then his creation should go to whomever whenever. If thats the wish of a creator I dont have a problem with that. Its not so cut and dried when you actually work in these companies or are related to a creator. I personally have issues with taking rights away from peoples families. I dont really like that, and im not related to any of these people.

I dont know what the copyright laws were with Arthur Conan Doyle or others back in the day. Or when something " should " go into the public domain. But its not as simple as well Howard died in 1936 therefore everyone should be able to use Conan as they wish the end..

[Farealmer]

Its not fear mongering. Apparently opinion is once a person dies then his creation should go to whomever whenever. If thats the wish of a creator I dont have a problem with that. Its not so cut and dried when you actually work in these companies or are related to a creator. I personally have issues with taking rights away from peoples families. I dont really like that, and im not related to any of these people.

I dont know what the copyright laws were with Arthur Conan Doyle or others back in the day. Or when something " should " go into the public domain. But its not as simple as well Howard died in 1936 therefore everyone should be able to use Conan as they wish the end..

I would agree if the new holder was a writer themselves and was continuing to produce content for that IP. But let's be honest, the vast majority of the time that is not the case. Someone else is putting in work and having to share the results with someone who did nothing but sign a paper. Even when the nonholders are taking all the financial risk. Work, creativity, and risks, which in some cases may equal or even exceed what the original creator did. I don't really like that.

[inisideguy]

I would agree if the new holder was a writer themselves and was continuing to produce content for that IP. But let's be honest, the vast majority of the time that is not the case. Someone else is putting in work and having to share the results with someone who did nothing but sign a paper. Even when the nonholders are taking all the financial risk. Work, creativity, and risks, which in some cases may equal or even exceed what the original creator did. I don't really like that.

I dont pretend to have all the answers. I know that these things have been fought over for a century. I think the OP asked an honest question. Im just trying to give my honest answer.

[Tuck]

I would agree if the new holder was a writer themselves and was continuing to produce content for that IP.

Those new works would have their own copyrights, regardless of whether the IP had entered into public domain. And any new elements added to the IP would be under new copyright too.

The reason companies want to maintain copyrights is to hold a monopoly on an IP and to be able to monetize other people's work. The expiration of a copyright doesn't prevent an original author from creating more works and monetizing them.

[inisideguy]

Those new works would have their own copyrights, regardless of whether the IP had entered into public domain. And any new elements added to the IP would be under new copyright too.

The reason companies want to maintain copyrights is to hold a monopoly on an IP and to be able to monetize other people's work. The expiration of a copyright doesn't prevent an original author from creating more works and monetizing them.

Why then have the Howard Estate kept control of his properties? I mean they could easily sell it for hundreds of millions and walk away. This is what I was talking about. Its not all black and white.

[thwhtGuardian]

Why then have the Howard Estate kept control of his properties? I mean they could easily sell it for hundreds of millions and walk away. This is what I was talking about. Its not all black and white.

Because it's not worth hundreds of millions. They probably make a decent amount each year, but probably not that much.

95 years is a long time for the family to have exclusive control.

[Gaastra]

And disney and youtube striking down steamboat willie pd videos on youtube even though they are pd. Turns out youtube and disney didn't bother to update the copywrite bots to the cartoon as pd so tons of people are getting strikes for something they can share for free by law by the bots.

Oops.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techn...e5cc61e0&ei=16

[DrNewGod]

Disney is built on public domain.

And frankly, the way Siegel and Shuster, Finger, Kirby, Ditko, and others were treated, I'd be quicker to call Marvel and DC leeches.

Funny enough, the Siegel and Shuster families could pull the plug on Superman if they wanted.

S&S are an interesting case b/c their Superman liberally borrowed from a number of sources that were still in print at the time (Doc Savage and Gladiator most prominently.

[Deathstroke]

I really go against the grain on this one.

I feel if the Direct Heirs of the Creator or Company/Corporation is still active then the property should stay the property of the owners unless the creator wanted otherwise upon their death. I mean personally if I created something I'd either want to continue on to benefit my family or benefit the company I created it for.

I'm pretty much in agreement here. Not necessarily regarding the benefit to a particular company but certainly for myself and whatever heirs I might designate. I created the damn thing, I should forever be in control of what can and cannot be done with it. No one should get to profit in anyway off my creation unless I (or the heirs) give permission, in perpetuity.

[Gaastra]

Batman was the same. "borrowed" from shadow, (his full comic story was a stole shadow story and art traced from shadow and other comics!) Joker took from a shadow bad guy and movie man who laughs, (now in pd!) and batcave stole from phantom something phantom creator called dc out on a few times!

Early batman took a few things from past heroes also.