One man's fight to save Public Domain (1 Viewer)

[Damin J Toell]

Another way of looking at it is this: if a film slips into the public domain, that only means that anyone can distribute copies of it and profit from it. It doesn't change who owns the original negatives but the fact that anyone could redistribute the film without compensating them would create a disincentive to restore and distribute the film.

I agree. Putting a given work into the public domain doesn't necessarily make good copies of it accessible to the public.

DJ

 

[Jeff Adkins]

All this restoration stuff will be moot anyway. As we head towards digital filming and digital projection, there will be no degradation in quality to worry about. It won't be like now where there's better versions of Nosferatu and Metropolis every few years. Either the digital material will exist or it won't.
I think 75 years from the date of release is very fair. A few of the things I dislike about the recent changes in the copyright law include the Moroder version of Metropolis now being illegal as well as the 1925 version of The Gold Rush being locked up in a vault. Had the 56 year rule been in effect, Song Of The South would be in the public domain now.
I think public domain gave new life to George Romero. I wonder how much attention would've been paid to him had Night Of The Living Dead not been on television constantly and at every convenience store for $3.99 on VHS?
Jeff

 

[Damin J Toell]

All this restoration stuff will be moot anyway. As we head towards digital filming and digital projection, there will be no degradation in quality to worry about. It won't be like now where there's better versions of Nosferatu and Metropolis every few years. Either the digital material will exist or it won't.

Even by the time we make it to 100% digital filmmaking and projection, if ever, we'll still have 150+ years worth of film on film with us in order to worry about "all this restoration stuff."

DJ

 

[John Watson]

If we were a more reasonable species, perhaps we could agree that intellectual property rights could be held for a term like 25-30 years, a person's "working life".

Any well educated person knows that we all stand on the shoulders of giants (generations of our predecessors) who created and endowed their successors with truly amazing knowledge and resources, and at best have a statue in a public place and are footnotes in books only a few read anyway. Proudhon's bon mot about "property is theft" is relevant too, when one realizes that many such rights are held by people and corporations who bought or stole them, but certainly didn't create the idea on which a right is now held.

The much more complicated aspect of the issue comes from the role of corporations in our lives. These almost permanent bodies take on a life of their own, tho driven or high-jacked by successions of those people who have the "working life" of 30 years.

As for what is being copy-righted, and permissions and payments demanded to use certain sequences of words, or commonsense ideas, we saw a crazy instance of what can happen a few years ago, in the frenzy of establishing Internet domain names. There actually may have been a family owned restaurant down the road that had to change ITS name because of the legion of lawyers and accountants with faster feet hustling us into a NEW ECONOMY had a new use for the word. The dot-com business maybe gone but Mom & Pop's restaurant is (hopefully) still serving some alternative to the Soylent Green or whatever coming from the chains.

Anyway, its a minefield, beyond our ability to solve in a way that would give us the movies we want, in the format we want. I'm grateful that as many have come my way as have.

BTW, are current producers of entertainment any better than previous ones at ensuring the rights are concurrent with the package? Its always mind-blowing to know that a movie from 50 or 20 years ago easily available on tape won't be on disk, because the songs in it aren't licenced for disk!!!

 

[Paul McElligott]

To clarify my earlier statement (and no, I do not have copyright confused with derivative rights):
The problem is not with copyrights in general, but specifically with publishers and other corporations holding onto derivative rights without using them, thus depriving us of the opportunity to experience the work in question and the original copyright holders of income.
This is not as much an issue with films because of their collaborative nature. Even if a film slips into the public domain, that only means we can redistribute copies of it without paying anybody. It doesn't change who owns the original physical negatives nor does it give us the right of access to them.
And I abhor the idea that any work should slip into the public domain while the original creator is still alive. The current term of life plus fifty years is just fine.

 

[Damin J Toell]

The problem is not with copyrights in general, but specifically with publishers and other corporations holding onto derivative rights without using them, thus depriving us of the opportunity to experience the work in question and the original copyright holders of income.

I'm not sure what you mean by "derivative rights," as the rights I specified are all the primary rights conferred by the U.S. Copyright Act. Further, such rights could not be held onto without being used if those rights were not conferred by copyright law. If you see holding onto rights without using them as a problem, then the problem does indeed lie with copyrights.

DJ

 

[Jeremy Stockwell]

The current term (for works created after 1978) is life plus seventy years. Also just fine.

JKS

 

[Fred Turner]

I found Larry Lessig's Intellectual Property and Copyright talk (available here) VERY edifying (as well as truly entertaining -- man, does this guy know how to give a presentation!) You'll want to see the Flash version of the presentation.
It'll take a half hour of your life, but it is worthwhile to grasp the significance of the issues Lessig will be arguing before the Supreme Court...
Fred.

 

[John Watson]

Thanks for that link Mr Turner, once its down loaded you can move thru it quickly.

Seems like Matrix - Dark City - Wild Palms - Robocop type regimes are not so easily thwarted or overthrown.

Let's not talk about bio-engineering and the new slavery...

 

[Brenton]

I'm told that with when copyright law was first put into effect, it would cover a work for (I think) seven years. This would entitle the author and publisher the legal ownership of the work long enough to recieve the royalties and bask in the initial success without the fear of someone else duplicating it on their own and dulling the financial impact for the author/publisher.

Once the copyright expired, the author could choose to renew it for (let's say) another seven years.

The way I see it, this was a very satisfactory approach to it, and it did just what was needed. Once the copyright expired, it was the property of the public to do as they please with it. In fact, the majority of copyright holders DIDN'T have any interest in renewing their works after its initial copyright, and their works went into public domain.

Now, my opinion is my own, but if I was an author, I would prefer to have my work in public domain so that the public could enjoy it the way they see fit. Unfortunately, not everyone sees things the way I do, and the demand for "more money" has brought copyright protection to like 70 years after the death of the author. To me, this seems utterly ridiculous and WAY over-the-top.

Because of this, there are countless works that their intellectual owners to not give a hoot about, that could be readily enjoyed if only they were going to be public domain sooner than the year 2122.

Current copyright law is doing the opposite of what it was created to do, and it is severely violating our Constitutional right to free speech.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Current copyright law is doing the opposite of what it was created to do, and it is severely violating our Constitutional right to free speech.

I'm not sure how the current law is doing "the opposite" of the original intent of copyright (what was the original intent? what is the current law doing to violate that intent?), but you realize that the same Constitution you speak of also grants Congress the power to grant copyrights, right? Both provisions need to be read in light of one another, so I'm not sure how a lengthy copyright term, on its face, "severely" violates the 1st Amendment.

DJ

 

[Seth Paxton]

I don't think I'm saying anything controversial by noting that the needs of copyright holders in 2002 are quite different than what they were in, say, 1902 or 1802.

I'll bite. In what way are the "needs" different?

People need longer periods of income now? Works of art are generating a much larger amount of income 30 years out compared to then?


I mean compared to scientific patents I don't see how copyrighted art generates anywhere near the same PCT of income past the first 10 years of creation, generally speaking. I will give you that scripts and novels can go some time before being converted into lucritive films, thus I can see some extention even beyond 28 years.

But to be honest, anything at all beyond the creator's lifetime makes no sense to me. When I die my kids aren't going to automatically get my job for another 70 years, especially if they aren't working themselves, so I don't buy the "protect the family" defense in the least. The income maker is gone, that income is gone, period. That's normal life.


I'm not arguing the current legality of any of this, just curious about the HONEST practicality of the current laws.

Since defenders are saying "It's just fine as it is", what specifically will be the harm if it is reigned back in? What sort of examples do we have to show damage caused by, say, 50 years after creation going into public domain?

I really am curious for such an answer. I would certainly be willing to adjust my view if some good examples can be given.

I just don't see some DVD company (or whatever) saying "okay, Matrix 2 just came out, we sure are going to cash in in 30 years with the unknown technology release of the film. I can't wait to be rich." And I REALLY don't see audiences, DVD buyers, etc waiting 30 years either, do you?

Star Wars is still 5 years from a 30 year point. Think of the income already generated. Will the income past 2007 be of any significant comparison to the income already created (if based on adjusted for inflation amounts since this previous income COULD be invested to keep pace with inflation, or actually exceed it).

 

[Matt Perkins]

I'll bite. In what way are the "needs" different?
Ooo, ooo! Can I answer for Damin?
"Because copyright owners in 2002 are gigantic multinational corporations with lots of campaign money, and in 1902 or 1802 they were just slobby little artists."
Something like that, maybe?

 

[Damin J Toell]

Quote:

Again, we're back to the "the greatest"/"a lot" dichotomy. Will Star Wars make as much money in the 30 year period from 2007 to 2037 as it did from 1977 to 2007? Maybe, maybe not. Will it still make millions upon millions? Yes. Is that a significant comparison? I think so.
DJ

 

[Damin J Toell]

Ooo, ooo! Can I answer for Damin?

No.

 

[Jan Strnad]

I definitely want my intellectual property rights to extend beyond my lifetime. Risen will be published in January 2004 by Kensington Books. Suppose I die before then. My widow, who received no income from my labor on Risen while I was alive, will receive income from the book after my death. I'd hate to think that my death would put the book into public domain before I or my estate ever made a dime.

I believe she does deserve income from the book because of the sacrifices she has made to enable me to write it. Without those sacrifices (i.e., my making no money so far) I'd have been working an office job and bringing in income.

I understand that intellectual property is different from real property and should be handled differently. If I build a table, my estate will inherit it and pass it on forever. If I write a book, my estate will inherit it...for a time. This form of life + x-many years is reasonable for individual owners.

Jan

 

[Seth Paxton]

It seems rather obvious to me, for example, that if Beethoven were composing today, his compositions would have a much greater value 30 years out than they did 30 years out from the time he actually worked.

But he DID work back then and his works DO have plenty of value today. That is fact.

So am I to believe that Lucas, Spielberg, et al have MORE staying power than Dickens, Beethoven, etc?

To be honest I find that hard to believe. And that is why they have no greater need of protection than Beethoven did (have need).

It actually seems to be just the opposite to me today to be honest. Modern artists are able to extract a larger PCT of money from their art early on it would seem. I can't imagine that Shakespeare did so much better in his time on up front income than Lucas just did with AOTC, for example.

And in an era of disposable entertainment it would seem that the value of current art depreciates much quicker. It appears to me that when books, paintings and statues were the only art (and to some extent written music) that they had much greater value to the owners and for a longer period of time.

And that would seem to perpetuate the art longer in that if people were being introduced to a book by a neighbor some 20 years after press that those people in turn would be interested in buying it. Thus the number of copies of Dickens' work that has been sold since it was first published, etc.

Again, considering how much less value Star Wars SE had with the public versus its initial release, and this at a 20 year point only, I'm not sure I can agree that modern artists are in a position where they reap their rewards much later in the process than previous artists did.


One thing I do notice, the greatest longterm value seems to be in MEDIUM TRANSLATION, ie turning a book into a novel, making a DVD of a film, and so on.

In regards to that specifically I could see slightly longer copyright periods.

But I think there is a strong point to be said that if Grimm Bros became a multi-national corp all those many years ago and this corp. endured to this day, Disney would have a lot less material themselves.

What skews so much of this is the concept of the artist becoming a long-lasting corporate entity rather than a single human being. A corporation can ALWAYS show a need for income, long after a person is dead.

Imagine Shakespeare, Inc suing the pants off of everyone today for example.

 

[Seth Paxton]

I definitely want my intellectual property rights to extend beyond my lifetime. Risen will be published in January 2004 by Kensington Books. Suppose I die before then. My widow, who received no income from my labor on Risen while I was alive, will receive income from the book after my death. I'd hate to think that my death would put the book into public domain before I or my estate ever made a dime.

I would agree 100% on that. But then I would agree that copyright should be based MORE upon introduction than on lifetime anyway. I was just saying that for it to go beyond the artist's lifetime (when already outside whatever introduction window there was) makes little sense to me.

I would hate for my fiancee to not have my income to count on if I died either, but beyond pensions, insurance, investiments, that's exactly what WILL happen.

With an artist, I think a proper amount of protection time should be given to recoup rewards. I'm not even pro-30 years, just basing that off the 14+14 mentioned by Damin and comparing the artists needs of then versus now.

Again, in 1700 or 1800 or now, if you JUST sent a book to press and died you would want your family to still get money from your work. That is not some new concept just introduced that demands better copyright now.

My point was only how does an author from 1800 need less protection than an author of today. Which author stood to gain the greater PERCENTAGE OF INCOME from his work 30+ years out.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Again, considering how much less value Star Wars SE had with the public versus its initial release, and this at a 20 year point only, I'm not sure I can agree that modern artists are in a position where they reap their rewards much later in the process than previous artists did.

And how much less value, exactly, did the Star Wars SE have compared to the 1977 release? Are you only considering comparative box office take? Are you calculating home video revenue? Are you calculating continued merchanding related to the SE release? Lucas most certainly reaped a quite substantial reward from the 1997 SE release; he certainly reaped more funds from that release than I am likely to ever earn in my lifetime. But what, exactly, are you proposing? That because revenues see any degree of drop over time, the term of copyright should therefore be quite limited, despite the enormous continued economic viability? I don't get it.
DJ

 

[TheLongshot]

Any given modern composer, however, can also make much more money from mass-produced, mass-distributed, and mass-broadcasted recordings of his or her compositions. And those sources of revenue have much longer staying power than 2 out of 3 of Beethoven's sources (while sheet music might stay in print beyond death, benefactors and performance revenues presumably end much sooner).

Not really. The average album or book probably has most of its sales in the first year, if that long. Sure, the media is going to last much longer, but there aren't signifigant sales most of the time, even with format changes. You aren't even guaranteed that your work will even be in print during this time. Course, the even bigger problem is, it isn't the individual that has the copyright, it is the corporation the artist sold his copyright to that has it.

I don't mind if an artist has his rights for 40-50 years. What I am upset about is that, if the corporations have their way, they would want the rights forever. Considering some of these corporations built their empire on the public domain, it would only be fair if they gave back as well, when their time comes.

This argument goes beyond the entertainment business. My girlfriend deals with academic publications that require submitters to give up their copyrights on their articles. Course, when they are the main publication for your field, and you need to be published, what is a college professor to do?

The fact is, things have gotten out of hand and something needs to be done.

Jason