Copyright Expiration: Good or Bad?

[Tuck]

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.

And authors owe nothing to creators who preceded them? Whom they drew from? Creative work is very much in the same "standing on the shoulders of giants" position as science.

In any case, permanent copyright has never been on the table. Even under today's very long copyright terms, a copyright expires 70 years after the author's death if it's not a work-for-hire.

[Tuck]

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.

You can also take something like Disney's Once Upon a Time. How many ideas like that never come to fruition because a creator can't get the ear of the IP owner(s) or convince them?

You also have things like Who Framed Roger Rabbit? not being able to secure rights for Popeye and a few others. The Wonder Years streaming version had to change most (all?) of the music because they had to renegotiate all the rights. And the music is absolutely crucial to that show. The Jack Black-starring video game Brutal Legend couldn't get Iron Maiden, AC/DC, or Metallica in the game, which is an absence you can feel. (I mean, if Ozzie and Lemmy are doing the game, you should just go ahead. ) At least with that last one, however, those works would still be under copyright even under shorter copyrights. But it does show where creativity can be limited by gumming up all these works in copyright for excessive periods.

[thwhtGuardian]

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.

And why is that?

Especially as it has never been that way, why should it be the case now?

[Angilasman]

If these companies want to keep making money off of these characters after they become public domain the obvious solution is just to make good new movies/shows/comics with them.

Imagine Godzilla in the public domain (which'll happen in a few decades). Toho just produced a new movie that everyone loves, is a big hit, and now all the merchandise and licensing is going to orient itself around the new movie. Similarly, the Norse God Thor is public domain, but that doesn't stop Marvel from making money off action figures and t-shirts with Hemsworth's likeness.

[thwhtGuardian]

If these companies want to keep making money off of these characters after they become public domain the obvious solution is just to make good new movies/shows/comics with them.

Imagine Godzilla in the public domain (which'll happen in a few decades). Toho just produced a new movie that everyone loves, is a big hit, and now all the merchandise and licensing is going to orient itself around the new movie. Similarly, the Norse God Thor is public domain, but that doesn't stop Marvel from making money off action figures and t-shirts with Hemsworth's likeness.

Exactly this, competition isn't a bad thing.

[Mister Mets]

Personally, I think 40 years after initial publication is more than enough for copyright purposes.

This has always been my main arguement. When you have an IP that has never really gone out of use that is very different from something that has been gathering dust for 20 years. Mikey is still the face of Disney and always has been. Same with most superheroes like Superman or Batman. Thos companies have spent decades building up the brand and taking care of it. For someone then to come in and leech off that to tell "their" Superman story is just a lazy money grab.

Any recent work that was done taking care of the brand is copyrighted.

Steamboat Willie is now public domain. But the later shorts are still covered by copyright. A new Disney comic with Mickey would still have a 2024 copyright.

Because William Shakespeare or whomever created King Arthur didnt build a company around their creations. Personally the guy who created Conan the Barbarian died almost 100 years ago. I dont really feel like anyone should be able to use Conan anyway they want without paying for a licensing fee to his family. I see nothing wrong with that.

In Conans case, his family doesn't want every John Doe making up Conan stories with no approval of how it affects his legacy. You have people pump out a bunch of garbage with no over site and it deludes the creation and the hurts the legacy of the creator. Thats the way some people feel. If my grandfather was Robert Howard I would feel some responsibility to his creation and try my best to honor it and keep control over it.

Shakespeare often adapted existing material.

Many of his plays are an adaptation of stories from Holinshed's Chronicles.

Robert Howard had no children when he killed himself in 1936. He was an only child.

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.

This is an extreme view.

It would close off so much art, if nothing is ever public domain (unless an artists or his heirs makes that call.)

[Gaastra]

Mickey has a new comic strip from the popeye strip newer artist. Popeye is still going? Not by disney at all of course. He says like the old disney comics mickey will face some scary monsters at times, but he says it's a family comic his kid can read.

Is it any good? Beats me. Looks like it long story arks like the dick tracy or spider-man strips over one strip gags like garfield or blondie.

https://www.superherohype.com/comics...eamboat-willie

At least it's not a crappy low budget horror movie.

[Psy-lock]

Public Domain is gonna be real good for DC and Marvel. So many characters have been mistreated or overlooked by the companies that own them.

[Jokerz79]

I still look at this from the POV of a creator why should the owner lose the rights to their creation because of the passage of time? Why do we treat Intellectual Property differently than we do Physical Property? No one thinks Disney Land or World should become public parks, but many seem to feel the characters they created should become public domain.

[Psy-lock]

I still look at this from the POV of a creator why should the owner lose the rights to their creation because of the passage of time? Why do we treat Intellectual Property differently than we do Physical Property? No one thinks Disney Land or World should become public parks, but many seem to feel the characters they created should become public domain.

Disney didn't create the vast majority of the characters they own. Most of their famous properties are public domain characters they trademarked, so the multi-billion company should be the last to complain about other people using their IPs

[Jon Clark]

I still look at this from the POV of a creator why should the owner lose the rights to their creation because of the passage of time? Why do we treat Intellectual Property differently than we do Physical Property? No one thinks Disney Land or World should become public parks, but many seem to feel the characters they created should become public domain.

Because physical items are finite. You and I can't both, for example, drive the same car at the same time. My driving the car means you can't drive the car. But we can both simultaneously drive cars built off the same design. Someone else having the right to use your car limits your ability to use it. Someone else having the right to use the idea of your car (the design) doesn't prevent you from using it.

To use your Disneyworld/Disneyland example if you make them public parks then no one profits (or one entity profits if an admission is still charged). But if you build Jokerz79-land up the street from Disneyland then Disney still can make a profit providing their park is better than your park- but you both get an equal shot at making a profit rather than it simply being the luck of who owns the equipment and "name" (aka the idea) first.

[Jokerz79]

Disney didn't create the vast majority of the characters they own. Most of their famous properties are public domain characters they trademarked, so the multi-billion company should be the last to complain about other people using their IPs

In the cases where they used Public Domain characters these were fairytales, myths, and stories where the creators who long dead and were the heirs. When a company is still active and using their property or a direct heir still has ownership of a property, I don't agree with them losing ownership just because of the passage of time. If some Putz wants to do a Batman story in 20 or so years, then have them creator their own characters instead of leeching off a brand.

[Gaastra]

Disney didn't create the vast majority of the characters they own. Most of their famous properties are public domain characters they trademarked, so the multi-billion company should be the last to complain about other people using their IPs

But they were fine bulling filmation twice threating lawsuits on them. Why? They made movies based on snow white and Pinocchio. Disneys lawsuit made them delay snow white and the land of doom and they were forced to change the name to remove snow white from the title or disney would sue them from using a pd story!

For Pinocchio and the emperor of the night they got to keep the name but disney attacked the movie even telling everyone "It's not a disney movie". It worked! Why? We were going to see it at the movies as kids till mom saw a critic review hour before we went slamming the movie for "not being disney" and tearing the movie apart listing the changes from the disney version! Ironic it was based on the book versions. We didn't go!

This was the time disney also put their own animated movies out same day as new animated movies like land before time among others to "show them who is boss". Disney played hardball than. Ironic as just a few years ago from than disney was in the worst dark age in the studio's history.

Poor filmation after most of their animated movies other than secret of the sword flopped and bravestarr was a bust went out of business. And yes, the snow white movie bombed.

[ed2962]

Disney vs the Air Pirates

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXRL...st=WL&index=14

[ChrisIII]

Disney's Atlantis did get heavy comparisons to Gainax's Nadia and some of Miyazaki's work back in the day. Not so much the character design (as it was Mignolia's style, more or less) but certain similarities in the story.

Although I don't think Gainax and Disney really cared that much, just more of an internet thing back then.

I'm not brushed up on it too much but I think copyright is a bit more heavily enforced in Japan, although certainly many anime have 'borrowed' from other productions, especially the soundtracks of anime like Bubblegum Crisis which borrowed wholesale from Jeanne Mas, Jim Steinman etc. or video games like Street Fighter and Mega Man using the Top Gun soundtrack....