The New Rules Of The Creative Economy

[beechnut79]

(03-20-2022, 08:45 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-13-2016, 12:23 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-12-2016, 06:04 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-12-2016, 04:26 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-01-2016, 07:35 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The objective of copyright extension was to protect the interests of corporations that own extant, aging copyrights -- like movie studios, recording companies,. and publishing houses. Even with the extension to 95 years, some works from after 1922 (practically anything in completed form from before January 1, 1923 is in the public domain) will start entering the public domain on January 1, 2019.

Does anyone know of any composer, author, artist, or performer can get any benefit from having a copyright on his own creative activity extended? Will William Faulkner write another novel or will Paul Hindemith compose another musical work due to copyright extension? Absolutely not!

Movies are not the work of individuals the way songs are.  Personally I have no problem with extending the copyright on movies indefinitely, or as long as the corporation does not go bankrupt.  Disney's income stream from movies as far back as the 1920s allows them to continue producing wonderful movies today.

Such a copyright wouldn't need to apply to scripts or sheet music or possibly even the recordings, just to the overall multimedia result.

Disney makes current products because they project to turn a profit. Disney has made some cinematic bombs, but comparatively few, mostly through the not-so-family-friendly Miramax Studios. Revenues from the sale of videos of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs , which under existing copyright laws would go into the public domain in the 2030s and the first such desirable property, do not figure into whether to make another feature film today. Such is practically fixed revenue.  

The problem with extending copyrights indefinitely is that many copyrights are of items that would never be made available. Owners of the movie, book, or musical composition might simply be sitting on something of little value. Copyright effectively becomes censorship. If there is to be any extension of a copyright, then let have a significant cost to the copyright holder who gets a special break. In effect, use it or lose it.

Warner Brothers would probably seek to extend the copyright on Casablanca and Meet Me in St. Louis... But there are lots of movies that they might as well not protect. Let those devolve to the public domain because Warner is unwilling to pay the $100K or so a year or so dollars to protect them until the 2090s. Enforcing a copyright is after all a privilege granted by the government to a special interest, and the special interest might as well pay the cost.

Agreed regarding the availability issue.  Extended copyright holders should be required either to keep the product available or grant compulsory licenses.  I agree that copyright extension fees should work in principle, but in practice, I worry about finding the "correct" level for them.

I agree that Disney's revenue on historical titles is essentially fixed revenue, but I think that revenue permits them to take risks that they might not otherwise take.  "Frozen", for example, was seen as highly risky because it was a musical, and they were concerned that would make it a flop, but they could afford to absorb the potential loss.  I'm happy that they were able to make it.  They also have a vested interest in providing good quality presentations of their historical titles, while competitive third party providers would probably cut corners to reduce prices in a race to the bottom.

One thing that does not expire is trademarks, and such could be used against anyone who materially imitates a Disney property to make it not-so-family friendly (let us say a pornographic video involving Mickey and Minnie Mouse, let alone involving characters unambiguously under-age). Trademarks can suppress that.

There was just such a case around Chicago several years back. A local fast food outlet with about four locations called itself Donald Duk's, with the c left out. I believe that Disney company sued and they then shorten the name to just Duk's. I do not believe they are any longer around. Will try to research the event though to see what I could find. Happened before the Internet was really a thing.

And the classic rock band Chicago Transit Authority sued over use of the name and so they shortened it to just Chicago. I wonder though if that was a mistake, because it could have given the real CTA a lot of free publicity one the namesake band made it big.

Seems as if the number of copyright and trademark infringement lawsuits has increased rapidly within the past couple of decades. Any ideas as to why?