James Bond in the Public Domain

[WHF]

In January James Bond entered the public domain in Canada, New Zealand and other countries. More specifically the books written by Ian Fleming are now in the public domain but the movies are not. Link

One could now, in theory, make a James Bond movie based on the books, but in practice without being able to show the movie in Europe or the USA it won't happen. A person could also write new James Bond novels, as long as they took nothing from the movies or other licensed products. Perhaps even an animated series?

The Conservative government looks like they will probably change the law to extend copyright to 70 years as part of a future free trade agreement. If they don't, Lord of the Rings will enter the public domain in 9 years.

Is 50 years after the death of the creator long enough? Is 70 years like in the US and Europe more appropriate or should it be shortened to less than 50, say 25? Should Canada let a foreign corporation like Disney dictate the law?

 

[Takeru]

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.

 

[Beagleman]

Everything should be in the public domain, copyright and intellectual property are silly and should be abolished.

This may just be one of the dumbest things I've read in the last 70 years.

 

[Hound of UIster]

Everything should be in the public domain, copyright and intellectual property are silly and should be abolished.

This may just be one of the dumbest things I've read in the last 70 years.

*tips 50¢*

 

[Melakon]

Everything should be in the public domain, copyright and intellectual property are silly and should be abolished.

This may just be one of the dumbest things I've read in the last 70 years.

*tips 50¢*

*adds 25¢*
It sounds like something that would be said by someone who has never worked as a writer, artist, musician, filmmaker, photographer, programmer, or otherwise created anything original in his life.

 

[Jedi_Master]

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.

Chuckle. No. Just no.

 

[J.T.B.]

These laws are silly and their only purpose is to make corporations richer, screw them, don't let them hold characters and stories hostage.

So whoever has the biggest printing presses, distribution chain, communications network etc. could corner the market for whatever intellectual property they think would be profitable, without paying anything for it. Yeah, rich corporations would hate that!

 

[Relayer1]

Everything should be in the public domain, copyright and intellectual property are silly and should be abolished.

I quite agree.

Then you can find some way of entertaining yourself as no writers, film makers, television program makers, musicians, photographers, artists or designers would ever be able to afford to produce anything. Or eat.

The Buy 'n' Large Corporation would flood the market without paying anyone a cent for the stuff.

 

[Doctorwhovian]

Bond's always had an interesting legal history, most famously the whole Kevin McClory mess over the use of Blofeld/Spectre/Thunderball etc. which I'm pretty sure has been settled.


I don't think this'll effect the movies too much though, the James Bond series diverged from being faithful adaptations a long time ago, although the movies ocassionally have inspiration from the (much darker) books, especially after the more goofy films such as Moonraker and Die Another Day.



BTW I think the Bond novels that are out now in stores follow Fleming's 'canon' but I'm not too sure about that. They have also adapted some of the films (Although I think they were worked into that canon, with License To Kill having to re-maim Felix because he previously was maimed in the novel Live and Let Die, which inspired the movie version of License To Kill).

 

[doubleohfive]

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.

This is the most confoundingly naïve and utterly stupid thing I've read all day, and it's only 9:39am here, and I've been arguing the merits of goddamn Star Trek fan films in another forum. Bravo.

 

[JWPlatt]

Youthful idealism. Be patient and give them time. They'll come around when it's their work and time to support themselves and a family. It's probably more helpful to explain why it's naïve than to just say that it is.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Should Canada let a foreign corporation like Disney dictate the law?

They've actually done that in the past. For a long time, and I don't know if this is still the case, Disney owned the image of the Canadian Mountie, all because of Dudley-Do-Right, I believe. It became a tangled web of ownership, and I believe anytime they appeared in public events in their ceremonial garb, they had to pay Disney. Personally, I think law enforcement should be off-limits when it comes to intellectual property rights and belong to the force itself. But those were different times.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

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.

While I think the current copyright terms are insanely long (I would prefer a return to a maximum of 54 years), I don't think that copyright should be abolished altogether.

 

[Beagleman]

*tips 50¢*

*adds 25¢*
It sounds like something that would be said by someone who has never worked as a writer, artist, musician, filmmaker, photographer, programmer, or otherwise created anything original in his life.

Agreed... but too cheap to add anything.

C'mon man, gotta make a livin!

 

[Gaith]

I'm not a copyright scholar, but 50 years after the death of the author or 70 years after initial publication, whichever comes first, sounds good to me.

 

[Trekker4747]

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.

I can see the point in a copyright expiring with the death of the creator but no point in it expiring before then. If someone creates a work they deserve to make money off of it and profit from it That's what copyrights are for.

It wouldn't be fair if I were to create a story and have ownership over it, have it loved by millions, and make a modest windfall on it but only have that for 10 years then Hollywood can scoop it up, make a movie, and then rake in millions off of MY work.

Hell, put such a short time limit on copyrights Hollywood would no longer bother with buying up people's books or even their scripts. Just wait a few years and then duplicate it! Change a few things, boom, you've got a popular piece of fiction, it's been altered so you can theoretically get a new 10-year copy-right on it, and it's literally cost you nothing to make it!

No, that's bullshit. Copyrights exist for a reason, so people can benefit from their artistic work and no one else can.

Want copyrights to expire with the creator? I can see some sense in that, maybe allowing for contractual mumbojumbo for it to be passed on to a relative, spouse, next-of-kin, but this can only be done so much or so many times. Maybe one single generation.

After-all, once the creator dies he can no longer profit from it and, arguably, none of his surviving family has a "right" to profit from his work. But even-then it's a grayish area.

But come-on, no copy-rights at all? Only good for 10 years? Hollywood and other large industries would abuse that to hell and the under-appreciated creators of things would only get screwed over more.

 

[Kemaiku]

I'm not a copyright scholar, but 50 years after the death of the author or 70 years after initial publication, whichever comes first, sounds good to me.

Pretty much, an argument could be made for a decade less on either if need be, but not much less.

 

[JWPlatt]

Only good for 10 years? Hollywood and other large industries would abuse that to hell and the under-appreciated creators of things would only get screwed over more.

It's amusing how the laws we impose upon ourselves are a reflection of what humans are willing to do each other.

If I were to encounter an alien civilization, I'd ask to see their laws first to make an evaluation of their culture.

 

[WHF]

I favour 25 years or the life of the creator, which ever is longer. Much less and corporations would simply wait out the time period and the creator would get nothing. Copyright should be there to protect the artist. With no copyright law corporations would steal even more than they do now.

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.

 

[EnriqueH]

Youthful idealism. Be patient and give them time. They'll come around when it's their work and time to support themselves and a family. It's probably more helpful to explain why it's naïve than to just say that it is.

What's the expression?

If you're not a Marxist when your 17, you have no heart. If you're still a Marxist when you're 40, you have no brain.