The New Rules Of The Creative Economy

[Dan '82]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/201...ve-economy

Quote:Nearly 200 A-list musicians have signed an open letter to Congress calling for better protections against copyright infringement and higher royalty rates from streaming sites. Current licensing laws, they say, are out of sync with the digital age and threaten the ability of artists and songwriters to make a living. It’s an oft-repeated critique that will sound familiar to anyone in a creative field: that the Internet and media consumption habits have strained the economics of producing art to the point that musicians, writers and filmmakers will be forced out of business. Yet the reality is more complicated. While it’s true that many of these professions increasingly favor the few, there’s little reason to worry about the creative class disappearing altogether.

The state of the creative economy is the subject of frequent—and often conflicting—headlines. Critics warn of rampant piracy and collapsing prices while declaring everything from music sales to print to photography dead. In 2015, the book Culture Crash insisted that technological and economic forces are making it impossible for the middle class to pursue creative careers—the same year a New York Times Magazine cover story­ argued that most professional creators are actually faring as well as they did 15 years ago....



http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/201...e-economy/

[pbrower2a]

First of all, I can't say much to defend continued income streams of such people as George Gershwin or Hank Williams, Sr. no material enticement will ever bring them back to the creative activities wherein they excelled. Publishing companies get the revenue and creative people often get $crewed.

What could be even more troublesome to creative people is that just about anyone with a modicum of talent and effort can be a creative person. Competition is not only with free stuff streamed, but with fellow creative people. How many people can write a good op-ed or a good song? Many who never made the star system.

It's very difficult to find recordings of classical music -- in part because there was so much competition in the business. There were forty or so competing versions of such a warhorse as the 6th symphony of Peter Tchaikovsky. As a rule it was the newest recording that could sell at a full price, but the recording companies then flooded the market with old ones on various 'budget' arrangements -- two for one, five for two, etc. The market collapsed. The CD is so durable that people can listen to a 30-year-old CD with no audible loss of sound...

The recording industry is doing much the same with pop. The biggest seller of recorded music may have been Tower Records at one time -- but that entity went belly-up. It's now Wal*Mart. It sells lots of compilation discs for $5 each. So if you are a singer starting out you are competing with old recordings of Simon and Garfunkel, Carly Simon, Johnny Cash, Alabama -- you name it. Add to that, one can buy a second-rate or dated DVD of a movie for about the same price.

Contrary to myth, it was ever easy to be a creative person, whatever one's class. The poor always had to struggle to meet the demands of employers and outright owners. The middle class is largely a recent phenomenon, and a creative component within it a small part because the middle class was mostly obedient retainers, enforcers, and technicians. Getting the inspiration to do something creative implies taking a break from paid work... But even in recent times, the Beatles, arguably the most polished of all pop groups ever, put in about 10,000 hours of practicing and into performances in utter dives before going onto the world scene. 10,000 hours? That's about what one needs to achieve just about anything remarkable in entertainment, musical performance, athletics, or some high-level careers (law, medicine, architecture, engineering). That's time not spent on raw labor (as most must perform) or activities not meaningful to one's art, like tooling around in cars. As an example, symphony musicians have a reputation for being underdeveloped in their love lives; for all practical purposes they spent more time with perhaps a violin than with any person.

There will always be garage bands, and of course most of them will simply be obnoxious noise to distressed neighbors. Remember, of course, that much creative activity is rubbish... and most creative people who fall short will end up milking cows, doing oil changes, clerking in stores, or driving trucks.

Most of the money for creative people would seem to be funneled through advertising, the biggest use of creative talent, if not the most obvious. Most of the writers, photographers, and graphic artists making a genuine living do so in advertising. That may not be the noblest of activities, but it is the one in which creative people can most hone their talents, get steady work if they are good, and be certain of payment.

[Ragnarök_62]

(09-01-2016, 12:19 PM)Dan Wrote: http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/201...ve-economy

Quote:Nearly 200 A-list musicians have signed an open letter to Congress calling for better protections against copyright infringement and higher royalty rates from streaming sites. Current licensing laws, they say, are out of sync with the digital age and threaten the ability of artists and songwriters to make a living. It’s an...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_pa...ted_States
Vs.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html
Geez.  Go cry me a fucking river , copyright whores.  If I had my way, I'd shave a whole lot of years off y'alls fucking copyrights! Man, what a gaggle of fucking dipshits.

[pbrower2a]

Few artists could outlive the duration of the copyrights of their material when the term was 75 years.  One would need to have done the work when a child and then lived to an advanced age. Under that criterion, one of the few creative people who could still be making a good living off royalties on a copyrighted juvenile work if alive to this date seventy or more years later would be Anne Frank. Had she survived to adulthood she would have had plenty of opportunities to make a good living off her talent, even if only by going on a lecture tour to discuss her work.  Of course she obviously cannot profit from that. As we know she died before reaching adulthood.

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!

The objective is to ensure that works created in the middle-to-late 1920s and later do not go into the public domain. How that can make life better for such aging copyright-owners as Yoko Ono, or younger ones, is beyond me. If anything, much of the creative activity of our time is the creation of derivative works.

In all fairness I have no problem with busts of people who siphon copyrighted work for their own gain. Just remember: almost all copyrights have either no initial value or have rapidly-diminishing value. Copyrights with no remaining values might as well be released into the public domain.

[beechnut79]

(09-01-2016, 02:52 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(09-01-2016, 01:33 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: First of all, I can't say much to defend continued income streams of such people as George Gershwin or Hank Williams, Sr. no material enticement will ever bring them back to the creative activities wherein they excelled. Publishing companies get the revenue and creative people often get $crewed.  

What could be even more troublesome to creative people is that just about anyone with a modicum of talent and effort can be a creative person. Competition is not only with free stuff streamed, but with fellow creative people. How many people can write a good op-ed or a good song? Many who never made the star system.

It's very difficult to find recordings of classical music -- in part because there was so much competition in the business. There were forty or so competing versions of such a warhorse as the 6th symphony of Peter Tchaikovsky. As a rule it was the newest recording that could sell at a full price, but the recording companies then flooded the market with old ones on various 'budget' arrangements -- two for one, five for two, etc. The market collapsed. The CD is so durable that people can listen to a 30-year-old CD with no audible loss of sound...  

The recording industry is doing much the same with pop. The biggest seller of recorded music may have been Tower Records at one time -- but that entity went belly-up. It's now Wal*Mart. It sells lots of compilation  discs for $5 each. So if you are a singer starting out you are competing with old recordings of Simon and Garfunkel, Carly Simon, Johnny Cash, Alabama -- you name it. Add to that, one can buy a second-rate or dated DVD of a movie for about the same price.

Contrary to myth, it was ever easy to be a creative person, whatever one's class. The poor always had to struggle to meet the demands of employers and outright owners. The middle class is largely a recent phenomenon, and a creative component within it a small part because the middle class was mostly obedient retainers, enforcers,  and technicians. Getting the inspiration to do something creative implies taking a break from paid work... But even in recent times, the Beatles, arguably the most polished of all pop groups ever, put in about 10,000 hours of practicing and into performances in utter dives before going onto the world scene. 10,000 hours? That's about what one needs to achieve just about anything remarkable in entertainment, musical performance, athletics, or some high-level careers (law, medicine, architecture, engineering). That's time not spent on raw labor (as most must perform) or activities not meaningful to one's art, like tooling around in cars. As an example, symphony musicians have a reputation for being underdeveloped in their love lives; for all practical purposes they spent more time with perhaps a violin than with any person.

There will always be garage bands, and of course most of them will simply be obnoxious noise to distressed neighbors.  Remember, of course, that much creative activity is rubbish... and most creative people who fall short will end up milking cows, doing oil changes, clerking in stores, or driving trucks.

Most of the money for creative people would seem to be funneled through advertising, the biggest use of creative talent, if not the most obvious. Most of the writers, photographers, and graphic artists making a genuine living do so in advertising. That may not be the noblest of activities, but it is the one in which creative people can most hone their talents, get steady work if they are good,  and be certain of payment.

Yep advertising, tattoo designs, logo design (which is part of advertising). I have also recently started tutoring. Art classes. People saw my work on job pages through fb and suddenly whoosh i am getting a lot of requests. Also getting paid to do fine art. I was unhappy in my job, I quit and making a living doing this. Now, I fall short of becoming a concept artist due to the degree i received teaching you to be a generalist.....so I am taking their advice and scouting which school would be appropriate for what i want to do specifically. Some design schools are almost a waste of time if they do not allow you to specialize in what you want to specialize in. It is ending up as a mere stepping stone that showed me what i enjoyed and what i didn't. Concept art was only an elective. Super hard to get into the field i want to anyway, but worse given the fact it was just an elective at my school. I refuse to do work now that makes me unhappy. Entitled, maybe. But my mother settled for that and she is one of the most miserable people I know who has given up and does not believe in herself. Always a dream is unattainable for her. Something about that line of work and the disrespectful, and controlling influence from others tends to change mindsets of the cleaners/kitchen hand workers to believe that is all they are good for and that they deserve that treatment. Control. That is all it is. One wrong move and instantly fired. Never again. You can make money doing something creative whether it is in advertising, or others i mentioned. Put yourself out there. Get the experience. Continuously learn. Go back to school like I am. I am thinking of another bachelor degree. This time in fine art specializing in film. Or maybe go to a school specifically in animation. There are always options and if there are no jobs go online, find job pages on fb and advertise your skills. Make your own work. It can be done. I am swamped in paid design work atm. Ok off to start my morning. Art does not design itself.

I am a creative person who has written over a thousand song lyrics, eleven of which have now been demoed to music. Also have self-published three books, one of which deals with the dark side of office politics. Your comment about one wrong move, instantly fired, brought this to mind. We all know that in today's workplace office politics and political correctness trump reason, and there are countless horror stories of the mind games played in said workplaces to get rid of those not liked for whatever reason, even if they are reliable and productive workers. They can get away with this because they know that they've got the law on their side and they know it. What I am wondering is how I can apply the principle you did with your art to my area of expertise.

[Warren Dew]

(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.

[Ragnarök_62]

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

Geez, what a load of crap the above is. Pharmaceuticals for example likewise aren't the work of  individuals.  So, hell, a pox on both houses of Big Pharma and especially fuckshit Mickey Mouse Inc.   I can live without Mickey Mouse piss, but some antibiotic may save my life.

So again, blast the copyright limit down to 17 years.

[pbrower2a]

(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.

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).

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.

[Warren Dew]

(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.  

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).

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.

[Warren Dew]

(09-12-2016, 05:22 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

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

Geez, what a load of crap the above is. Pharmaceuticals for example likewise aren't the work of  individuals.  So, hell, a pox on both houses of Big Pharma and especially fuckshit Mickey Mouse Inc.   I can live without Mickey Mouse piss, but some antibiotic may save my life.

So again, blast the copyright limit down to 17 years.

Pharmaceuticals are protected by patent, not copyright; the issues are very different.  In particular, patent law prohibits related work even if it is nonderivative.  It's relatively safe to extend copyright law because you can always tell your own stories; extending patent law threatens to shut down technological progress.

[pbrower2a]

(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.  

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).

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.

...and good-quality presentations that would be good reason to get the genuine Disney product which comes with a premium compared to non-Disney products of the same genre (animated or live-action). Figure that Disney still has possession of animation cells and archived commentary, and that that allows Disney to create a new copyright work in the 'extras' because the compilation is itself a new work. So is an upgrade of the sound or a transformation of a movie to 3-D.

I have seen some public-domain editions of old movies, and the product was often awful.

Even so, Disney is profitable enough that it could win the bidding war for the latest series of Star Wars flicks... Then there are restorations of old movies.  A restored version of a 1922 silent movie is potentially copyright even if the decayed film stock is not. It is arguable that, in view of restorations, that no film is ever in a fully-finished form as might be a book, stage play, a musical composition, or a musical recording.

[beechnut79]

(09-01-2016, 12:19 PM)Dan Wrote: http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/201...ve-economy

Quote:Nearly 200 A-list musicians have signed an open letter to Congress calling for better protections against copyright infringement and higher royalty rates from streaming sites. Current licensing laws, they say, are out of sync with the digital age and threaten the ability of artists and songwriters to make a living. It’s an oft-repeated critique that will sound familiar to anyone in a creative field: that the Internet and media consumption habits have strained the economics of producing art to the point that musicians, writers and filmmakers will be forced out of business. Yet the reality is more complicated. While it’s true that many of these professions increasingly favor the few, there’s little reason to worry about the creative class disappearing altogether.

The state of the creative economy is the subject of frequent—and often conflicting—headlines. Critics warn of rampant piracy and collapsing prices while declaring everything from music sales to print to photography dead. In 2015, the book Culture Crash insisted that technological and economic forces are making it impossible for the middle class to pursue creative careers—the same year a New York Times Magazine cover story­ argued that most professional creators are actually faring as well as they did 15 years ago....



http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/201...e-economy/

One of the nuisances here is paywalls which have been formed to force one to take out a paid subscription in order to read anything. Forbes is one of these. In theory it is no different than paying for a print edition, but it could be a nuisance nonetheless. I happened to read the landmark book by Richard Florida, "The Rise of the Creative Class". Been too long ago now to recall that much about it. The biggest downfall of the advent of online subscriptions is that it has increased our dependence on credit cards. When that house of cards falls, pun intended here, we would no doubt be in for such a big crash as to make the Great Depression seem like a carnival. Surprised that it hasn't yet happened.

[pbrower2a]

(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.

[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?

[pbrower2a]

Trademark cheats like "Donald Duk's" deserve or condescension and legal retribution.There was a Donald Duck brand of orange juice, and it seems to have been licensed.

Disney obviously has the right to control its images, so if you are to decorate a cake with a Disney character, then you had better get the license.

[Anthony '58]

There is an interesting echo here from the last 4T: In the early 1940s, there was one "lockout" and one "strike" in the music industry: In 1941, songwriters "locked out" the musicians - to which the musicians responded by importing songs from Latin America, resulting in such hit songs (in 1941) as Maria Elena and Amapola. In 1943, the musicians went on strike - and this gave us such "a capella" hits as You'll Never Know and Comin' In on a Wing and a Prayer.

[beechnut79]

But it seems that there have been more such "job actions" since the advent of the Internet, on the part of songwriters and performers. Their income sources are far different now than they were before. This may be good in some ways, yet not so good in others. Whether it will result in fewer music Superstars such as the Beatles were remains to be seen. I am a writer of many song lyrics myself and have managed to get 18 demoed to music which can be found at http://www.soundclick.com/brianbeecher. Would love to get many more done but the cost of production is so prohibitive that they may very well end up just languishing.

[David Horn]

(05-20-2022, 02:45 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: But it seems that there have been more such "job actions" since the advent of the Internet, on the part of songwriters and performers. Their income sources are far different now than they were before. This may be good in some ways, yet not so good in others. Whether it will result in fewer music Superstars such as the Beatles were remains to be seen. I am a writer of many song lyrics myself and have managed to get 18 demoed to music which can be found at http://www.soundclick.com/brianbeecher. Would love to get many more done but the cost of production is so prohibitive that they may very well end up just languishing.

The new music business model is, frankly, horrible.  Yes, a few hardy souls have found a path to, if not greatness, limited success.  If I had to pick one example, it would be Ani DiFranco.  She seemed to sense the sea change and rolled with it.  That's both rare and gutsy.  Almost all of the mainstream artists are wholly in the bag with "the industry", or big enough, like Cold Play, to roll on regardless.  Ani DiFranco showed that this level of subservient misbehavior isn't necessary.  Good for her.