James Bond in the Public Domain

[Venardhi]

My optimal take on it would be something like this:
50 years from the date of transfer of rights from the original creator through death, gift, or sale. Works for hire would get 75 years, starting from the original publishing date of the completed work.

With potential exceptions made for creations which serve as important branding icons for their respective owners such as Mickey Mouse so long as such use is continuous and ongoing.

 

[JWPlatt]

With potential exceptions made for creations which serve as important branding icons for their respective owners such as Mickey Mouse so long as such use is continuous and ongoing.

That's the kind of subjective and poorly defined language that gives job security to the lawyers and less money for those intended.

There are already enough opinions here to demonstrate why things take as long as they do to make societal decisions of law.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Everything should be in the public domain, copyright and intellectual property are silly and should be abolished. I can maybe accept works being protected for about 10 years after first publication as a compromise but not longer than that. I have no idea why it has to be some time after the death of the creator.

These laws are silly and their only purpose is to make corporations richer, screw them, don't let them hold characters and stories hostage. Disney is one of the worst offenders, it probably wouldn't even exist today if it hadn't had access to the public domain, they had no problem using Snow White to save their own asses but if anyone dares to use the stupid dwarf names or the movie designs they get sued ... blergh. I despise greedy companies who have no problem using the public domain but do anything in their power to never add anything to it.

While what you say is great in principle, to me it sounds like all of the arguments put forth at websites like these (plus one more whose name escapes me.) Both may think that their idea is great, but it probably won't work in real life.

I want Canada to stand its ground and say 50 years is long enough but I don't think it will. In a perfect world Disney buying congress wouldn't affect laws in other countries. In a perfect world Disney couldn't buy congress but America has decided that corporations will make the laws. When you're next door to a country with 10 times the population and your own politicians are in it for their own personal gain you often end up with political decisions hurting your country and the people in it.

As Pierre Elliot Trudeau said:

Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt.

 

[Greg Cox]

Everything should be in the public domain, copyright and intellectual property are silly and should be abolished. I can maybe accept works being protected for about 10 years after first publication as a compromise but not longer than that. I have no idea why it has to be some time after the death of the creator.

These laws are silly and their only purpose is to make corporations richer, screw them, don't let them hold characters and stories hostage. Disney is one of the worst offenders, it probably wouldn't even exist today if it hadn't had access to the public domain, they had no problem using Snow White to save their own asses but if anyone dares to use the stupid dwarf names or the movie designs they get sued ... blergh. I despise greedy companies who have no problem using the public domain but do anything in their power to never add anything to it.

It's not just about huge, soulless corporations. It's about hard-working writers and artists who (gasp!) may want their life's work to benefit their families after they've gone. (Remember, the rights to one's output may be the only real, tangible legacy an author can leave to their kids and grand-kids.)

There's a weird double standard here. Nobody complains if, say, a baker or plumber leaves the family business to their kids, but if a writer works their whole life to build something for their family, that's supposed to evaporate the minute they die?

(The problem comes from people not realizing that creating stuff is not just Art; it's also a job, like anybody else's.)

Seriously, I see people complaining all that the time "Why should the heirs profit? They didn't create anything!"

Because most people want to leave something behind for their spouses, kids, and grand-kids, that's why. Isn't that supposed to be the American dream or something?

(Plus, seriously, you think copyrights should expire at ten years? So if you write a book or create a comics character when you're twenty years old, you lose the rights when you're thirty? That hardly seems fair . . . and so much for your retirement plans!)

 

[Venardhi]

With potential exceptions made for creations which serve as important branding icons for their respective owners such as Mickey Mouse so long as such use is continuous and ongoing.

That's the kind of subjective and poorly defined language that gives job security to the lawyers and less money for those intended.

There are already enough opinions here to demonstrate why things take as long as they do to make societal decisions of law.

I'm not a lawyer and I wouldn't know what language to use to make something like that more definite. I do see unique value in branding icons vs. other copyrighted material though. Someone making a derivative work or remake of Disney's Snow White, for example, wouldn't impact or impugn the Disney brand as a whole nearly as much as someone making a Mickey Mouse and Friends cartoon series where Mickey curses and makes dick and fart jokes. There would need to be a hard and fast line defining at which point such a creation becomes a branding icon though, obviously.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I'm not a lawyer and I wouldn't know what language to use to make something like that more definite. I do see unique value in branding icons vs. other copyrighted material though. Someone making a derivative work or remake of Disney's Snow White, for example, wouldn't impact or impugn the Disney brand as a whole nearly as much as someone making a Mickey Mouse and Friends cartoon series where Mickey curses and makes dick and fart jokes. There would need to be a hard and fast line defining at which point such a creation becomes a branding icon though, obviously.

That's what trademark is for. Even when Mickey Mouse begins to pass into the public domain, Disney will still have trademark protection and can use it to keep others from exploiting the character in such a way.

 

[Venardhi]

I've never been especially clear about trademarks on fictional characters. At which point does a character or vehicle or alien species cross the line from copyright to trademark? Superman is one of the most recognizable characters in the world, but he isn't the branding icon of DC the way that Mickey is for Disney. He and his symbol represent Superman, not a corporate entity or brand unto themselves. If DC spun off Superman LLC which just owned and created Superman products, would that be enough to essentially keep Superman's name and appearance locked down forever even as his stories and other characters enter the public domain?

 

[Gaith]

^ That's essentially the dilemma Zorro is in now. The original Zorro story, The Curse of Capistrano, and the first Zorro movie, The Mark of Zorro, were published in 1919 and 1920, respectively, and they're both in the public domain for reprinting/reselling at will. Zorro Productions International, however, holds a trademark on the character, and goes after anyone who tries to make use of the character without paying them off, even if they limit their new take/use of the character to elements taken from those public domain works. As I understand it, the whole thing is a bit of a gray area, because the law itself is a bit fuzzy, and it's generally cheaper and safer to pay ZP Inc. its stated fee than to defend against a lawsuit that might result in all profits being taken.

Of course, the flip side to that is ZP Inc. may not sign off on what you'd like to do with the character even if you willingly offer them dough. Hence the art and speech-chilling effects of unlimited copyright/trademark combos.

There's a weird double standard here. Nobody complains if, say, a baker or plumber leaves the family business to their kids, but if a writer works their whole life to build something for their family, that's supposed to evaporate the minute they die?

You wanna talk about "nobody", Nobody, except the odd Takeru, actually takes that absolutist anti-copyright stance. The vast majority of us agree that copyright protection for a certain, non-trivial period of time is a good thing.

That said, a copyright is much more analogous to land property than a bakery or plumber's business, as the latter requires constant upkeep and renewal, whereas the former mostly just sits there, benefiting its owners. And the state does tax land ownership, both through property taxes and (sometimes) estate taxes when there's a generational transfer of assets. If the heirs to the land don't ever work themselves, at a certain point they won't be able to afford the taxes, and will lose the land. Similarly, after a certain number of decades, art should go into the public domain, and the grandkids or great-grandkids of artists should find ways to support themselves. I certainly don't think any contemporary descendants of Jane Austen, say, should get royalties on sales of her works today.

 

[Jedi_Master]

^ That's essentially the dilemma Zorro is in now. The original Zorro story, The Curse of Capistrano, and the first Zorro movie, The Mark of Zorro, were published in 1919 and 1920, respectively, and they're both in the public domain for reprinting/reselling at will. Zorro Productions International, however, holds a trademark on the character, and goes after anyone who tries to make use of the character without paying them off, even if they limit their new take/use of the character to elements taken from those public domain works. As I understand it, the whole thing is a bit of a gray area, because the law itself is a bit fuzzy, and it's generally cheaper and safer to pay ZP Inc. its stated fee than to defend against a lawsuit that might result in all profits being taken.

Of course, the flip side to that is ZP Inc. may not sign off on what you'd like to do with the character even if you willingly offer them dough. Hence the art and speech-chilling effects of unlimited copyright/trademark combos.

There's a weird double standard here. Nobody complains if, say, a baker or plumber leaves the family business to their kids, but if a writer works their whole life to build something for their family, that's supposed to evaporate the minute they die?

You wanna talk about "nobody", Nobody, except the odd Takeru, actually takes that absolutist anti-copyright stance. The vast majority of us agree that copyright protection for a certain, non-trivial period of time is a good thing.

That said, a copyright is much more analogous to land property than a bakery or plumber's business, as the latter requires constant upkeep and renewal, whereas the former mostly just sits there, benefiting its owners. And the state does tax land ownership, both through property taxes and (sometimes) estate taxes when there's a generational transfer of assets. If the heirs to the land don't ever work themselves, at a certain point they won't be able to afford the taxes, and will lose the land. Similarly, after a certain number of decades, art should go into the public domain, and the grandkids or great-grandkids of artists should find ways to support themselves. I certainly don't think any contemporary descendants of Jane Austen, say, should get royalties on sales of her works today.

Good grief. Valuable pieces of art are allowed to remain in the possession of the family members of the original owners for generations, who are welcome to charge people to see the piece, or make money off of that piece in other ways.

Why should the rights to a novel my great-grandfather wrote be any different?

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I've never been especially clear about trademarks on fictional characters. At which point does a character or vehicle or alien species cross the line from copyright to trademark? Superman is one of the most recognizable characters in the world, but he isn't the branding icon of DC the way that Mickey is for Disney. He and his symbol represent Superman, not a corporate entity or brand unto themselves. If DC spun off Superman LLC which just owned and created Superman products, would that be enough to essentially keep Superman's name and appearance locked down forever even as his stories and other characters enter the public domain?

As long as Disney continues to use Mickey Mouse and DC continues to use Superman, even if the earliest works fall into the public domain Disney and DC can use trademark to prevent others from profiting from them.

Personally, I think that needs to be reformed somewhat, because it destroys the whole concept of the public domain if there can be a de facto permanent copyright.

 

[Trekker4747]

But as long as someone is using the copyright and there's something of a continuity of how it's been handed off then why shouldn't it be held on to? Would Superman, Mickey Mouse and other iconic, nearly a century old, characters really be better off if they weren't being ran by a single entity that's pretty much handled them forever?

Do we really need or want 50 different versions of Superman out there being dealt with in various forms, various qualities, and various continuities? It'd be chaos!

It'd be one thing if DC or Disney had ownership of these characters and mostly sat on them and never used them then yeah, sure, the copyright should expire and let the characters slip into public domain. Yeah, it'd bring us to above chaos I mentioned, but at least it'd be chaos born from death.

But as it stands, both are being used and if they're being used it's best to have them being used by a single entity instead of having various versions of them out there.

Especially in the case of Superman where he's an iconic character with on-going stories in various forms of media. If just anyone could use Superman, then no combined cinematic or comic-book "universe" with a sense of continuity and consistency.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

The period should definitely be shorter, maybe 25 years after the creator's death is appropriate. It's reasonable for artists to be able to profit from their art, but it's ridiculous for the artist's company's shareholders to exclusively profit from it a century later. Stop making exceptions for Disney!

On one hand you can say, copyrights expiring would allow big corporations to scoop up your work and take all the money. But also, Star Trek's copyrights expiring would allow people to make new series without being under the thumb of Paramount's brand control. It cuts both ways.

 

[Gaith]

Good grief. Valuable pieces of art are allowed to remain in the possession of the family members of the original owners for generations, who are welcome to charge people to see the piece, or make money off of that piece in other ways.

Why should the rights to a novel my great-grandfather wrote be any different?

Good grief; you seem to not understand that the entire point of having a public domain is the underlying philosophical belief that, after a period of a certain number of decades, the public's interest in being able to adapt, reinterpret and remix certain artistic ideas, stories, characters, melodies and more, to the profit those new creators, outweighs the virtue of letting any descendants of the original artists profit and, more importantly, control said works without limit.

Don't confuse ideas with the paper they're printed on. Different things, different rules.

But as long as someone is using the copyright and there's something of a continuity of how it's been handed off then why shouldn't it be held on to?

Freedom of artistic expression, that's why. It's already pretty much legal for anyone to make and distribute Superman comics, written stories, fan films, etc., so long as they're not selling them. The virtue of a public domain is that, at some point, new artists can do all that and sell their new work.

Do we really need or want 50 different versions of Superman out there being dealt with in various forms, various qualities, and various continuities? It'd be chaos!

Freedom is a messy thing. Supporting artistic freedom means supporting the existence of stuff you may not personally like or enjoy.

Especially in the case of Superman where he's an iconic character with on-going stories in various forms of media. If just anyone could use Superman, then no combined cinematic or comic-book "universe" with a sense of continuity and consistency.

Heck, if anyone could write and sell a Superman story, someone might do a better, more interesting, and more artistically daring one than a corporation like DC might have signed off on.

And, if just anyone could sell a Superman story, established conglomerates such as DC might have to... gasp... put more energy into developing original characters and stories! And in doing so, they might have to pay higher wages to contemporary original artists and thinkers, instead of just churning out carefully inoffensive pablum year after year! The horror!

 

[JirinPanthosa]

And the 'Valuable piece of art' analogy is not a good one. You can own a valuable piece of art and charge people to see it, but you can't sue somebody who paints a replica of the piece you own, or paints their own picture with the same character.

The whole idea of owning an abstract concept is a tenuous one. It was meant to protect small artists from being exploited by big corporations, but in practice it allows big corporations to sue elementary schools for painting murals of their characters. Really the period of owning the abstract idea should only last long enough to allow the original creator to reasonably profit off their creation.

 

[nightwind1]

Everything should be in the public domain, copyright and intellectual property are silly and should be abolished. I can maybe accept works being protected for about 10 years after first publication as a compromise but not longer than that. I have no idea why it has to be some time after the death of the creator.

These laws are silly and their only purpose is to make corporations richer, screw them, don't let them hold characters and stories hostage. Disney is one of the worst offenders, it probably wouldn't even exist today if it hadn't had access to the public domain, they had no problem using Snow White to save their own asses but if anyone dares to use the stupid dwarf names or the movie designs they get sued ... blergh. I despise greedy companies who have no problem using the public domain but do anything in their power to never add anything to it.

So, artists, writers and creators shouldn't be able to make a living?

 

[JWPlatt]

I've been looking forward to what Takeru has learned. Alas, no post. We might be talking to the hand.

 

[Greg Cox]

^ That's essentially the dilemma Zorro is in now. The original Zorro story, The Curse of Capistrano, and the first Zorro movie, The Mark of Zorro, were published in 1919 and 1920, respectively, and they're both in the public domain for reprinting/reselling at will. Zorro Productions International, however, holds a trademark on the character, and goes after anyone who tries to make use of the character without paying them off, even if they limit their new take/use of the character to elements taken from those public domain works. As I understand it, the whole thing is a bit of a gray area, because the law itself is a bit fuzzy, and it's generally cheaper and safer to pay ZP Inc. its stated fee than to defend against a lawsuit that might result in all profits being taken.

Of course, the flip side to that is ZP Inc. may not sign off on what you'd like to do with the character even if you willingly offer them dough. Hence the art and speech-chilling effects of unlimited copyright/trademark combos.

There's a weird double standard here. Nobody complains if, say, a baker or plumber leaves the family business to their kids, but if a writer works their whole life to build something for their family, that's supposed to evaporate the minute they die?

You wanna talk about "nobody", Nobody, except the odd Takeru, actually takes that absolutist anti-copyright stance. The vast majority of us agree that copyright protection for a certain, non-trivial period of time is a good thing.

.

Takeru is certainly an extreme case, but I have seen plenty of people insist that, say, Jack Kirby's wife or kids should not profit from his work because they didn't actually create anything. And ditto for various other dead artists and writers. The idea that a creator may have wanted to provide for his or her family after he or she is gone often gets lost in the discussion.

(And let's not even talk about the sad case of Stieg Larsson's girlfriend.)

Funny you mention Zorro, though. I actually reprinted the original novel at Tor several years back (around the time of the first Antonio Banderas movie) and, yes, even though the book was technically in public domain, I threw some money at Zorro Properties because of the whole trademark thing and because, honestly, it was easier to work with them than against them.

And, to their credit, they were actually very supportive and easy to work with. They actively promoted our edition, kept me updated on the movies, the musical, the comics, and other Zorro-related projects, provided me with Zorro logos and reference materials, etc.

I have no regrets. It was money well spent.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Jack Kirby can't save some of the money from the first 70 years and put it away in a trust fund? Patents don't last longer than 14 years and they can be even more profitable. The patent system created because inventors were holding back their discoveries for fear of getting robbed, not because of some sense of indefinite entitlement for the exclusive rights to an idea to be traded around like a commodity a century later.

Look at all the people who are still exclusively profiting off intellectual property of the deceased artist. It isn't the grandchildren of the artists, it's the shareholders of the company.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Seriously, I see people complaining all that the time "Why should the heirs profit? They didn't create anything!"

Because most people want to leave something behind for their spouses, kids, and grand-kids, that's why. Isn't that supposed to be the American dream or something?

I can understand where Takeru's coming from; there are too many wealthy brats (I'm looking at you, Paris Hilton!) and Trustafarians around who do nothing but live off of daddy's/mommy's money and do fucking stupid things (like go into poor neighborhoods in most U.S. cities, gentrify it, and drive the [mostly] poor people of color out due to the high rents)-Spike Lee and Danny Hooch can tell you more about that.

Plus, what some of these trustfunders do in most cases is cause the property to have nothing done with it, as in the case of the son of famed TV producer Sheldon Leonard, who's apparently sitting on a couple of TV shows other than I Spy and not doing anything with them other than have them collect dust. Then there's the article about how the Trustafarians are potentially messing up U.S. society just bey doing what they do as children of wealth.

Amazingly enough, there are wealthy parents who aren't giving their progeny such a big financial couch after they die, through: Sting has made it clear that when he dies, his kids won't be getting a big trust fund, and Ted Turner has also done the same thing. I used to be angry at what Turner did, but now, looking on the excesses of the Hilton sisters, and reading about the behaviors of most Trustafarians and standard trustfunders, I think that both men have the right idea.

Heck, if anyone could write and sell a Superman story, someone might do a better, more interesting, and more artistically daring one than a corporation like DC might have signed off on.

And, if just anyone could sell a Superman story, established conglomerates such as DC might have to... gasp... put more energy into developing original characters and stories! And in doing so, they might have to pay higher wages to contemporary original artists and thinkers, instead of just churning out carefully inoffensive pablum year after year! The horror!

The most interesting Superman/Supergirl stories are being written right now by the current teams in Superman, Action Comics, Superman & Wonder Woman, Batman/Superman (formerly World's Finest), Superman Unchained, and Supergirl-I'd hate to see what the other people you want to see do Superman/Supergirl stories would come up with. Most likely it'd would be crappy retro nonsense set in the 40's, or with the kind of writing seen in most of the books of the 50's 60's, 70's and (early) '80's. Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[Relayer1]

And let's not even talk about the sad case of Stieg Larsson's girlfriend.

Who it seems, may well have the manuscript to the fifth novel, Stieg having left the fourth one he was having problems with. It was apparently on his laptop which has 'gone missing'.

His family have comissioned another continuation from elsewhere...