Copyright

[[serious]]

28 years from creation of the work? That's probably a bit short.

A little shy of three decades of exclusive rights? i think that's fair. I think within three decades of release, you can get something else done to tide you over. The constitutional reason for copyright is to promote further work. If people are guaranteed residuals for 70 years after they are dead, that's pretty much doing the opposite of the constitutional intent. Get off your butt and do something new within a generation or you don't really have any call to continue stifling those who want to run with it.

 

[A2SG]

A little shy of three decades of exclusive rights? i think that's fair. I think within three decades of release, you can get something else done to tide you over.

See, I don't consider this a primarily economics issue. You write a book, you should have the final say in how it's to be presented. Sure, the world can have it at some point, but in your lifetime, I believe it should be yours do do with as YOU wish, no one else.

The constitutional reason for copyright is to promote further work. If people are guaranteed residuals for 70 years after they are dead, that's pretty much doing the opposite of the constitutional intent.

What guaranteed residuals? What book has ever been guaranteed to make money, even at the time of publication, let alone years after the author's death? I think you're overstating the economic value of a copyright.

Get off your butt and do something new within a generation or you don't really have any call to continue stifling those who want to run with it.

Who's stifling anyone? You want to write a story, write it. You don't need to rewrite someone else's story, write your own.

-- A2SG, if you want an incentive to create future work, that's a good one, I'd say....

 

[[serious]]

See, I don't consider this a primarily economics issue. You write a book, you should have the final say in how it's to be presented. Sure, the world can have it at some point, but in your lifetime, I believe it should be yours do do with as YOU wish, no one else.

That is not the historical purpose of copyright. The idea that an artist should have complete control over derivatives as a fundamental moral issue is a relatively recent idea. Furthermore, when one considers the rise of fan fiction, it's an impossible standard anyway.

What guaranteed residuals? What book has ever been guaranteed to make money, even at the time of publication, let alone years after the author's death? I think you're overstating the economic value of a copyright.

Two points:
1. by residuals I mean any residuals that arise. not the guarantee of some fixed amount.
2. If a work isn't popular enough to make money, the copyright issue is pretty much moot anyway.

Who's stifling anyone? You want to write a story, write it. You don't need to rewrite someone else's story, write your own.

You miss the point that some people want to further a specific story line. When Frank Herbert died, the Dune universe was left with countless unanswered questions. It is of no benefit to society (or Frank Herbert) for a general prohibition against anyone filling that void aside from the talentless hack that is Brian Herbert. Let's face it, the kid can't write to save his life. He lacks the commitment to consistency his father had, and he doesn't exactly have any decent ideas to continue the saga.

If nothing else, all copyright should be null and void on the author's death. At that point, they no longer have any legitimate interest in the work. They are dead.

 

[A2SG]

That is not the historical purpose of copyright. The idea that an artist should have complete control over derivatives as a fundamental moral issue is a relatively recent idea.

Okay. Recent idea or not, I still believe it is an author's right to decide the fate of his own works.

Furthermore, when one considers the rise of fan fiction, it's an impossible standard anyway.

Maybe so...but the fact that fanfic isn't "legitimate" in a marketable or publishable sense does make a clear distinction between the two.

Two points:
1. by residuals I mean any residuals that arise. not the guarantee of some fixed amount.

There are no guarantees of those either.

2. If a work isn't popular enough to make money, the copyright issue is pretty much moot anyway.

True.

You miss the point that some people want to further a specific story line. When Frank Herbert died, the Dune universe was left with countless unanswered questions. It is of no benefit to society (or Frank Herbert) for a general prohibition against anyone filling that void aside from the talentless hack that is Brian Herbert.

Whatever your opinion of Brian Herbert or his talent as a writer, he, as the author's heir, has a legitimate right to the work. You don't. You may not like that reality, but I, for one, support it.

(Beyond that, I can't comment...I tried reading Dune once a long time ago, I couldn't get through it.)

Let's face it, the kid can't write to save his life. He lacks the commitment to consistency his father had, and he doesn't exactly have any decent ideas to continue the saga.

So? The saga remains unfinished, then. It isn't the first to go unfinished, it won't be the last.

If nothing else, all copyright should be null and void on the author's death. At that point, they no longer have any legitimate interest in the work. They are dead.

And I'd be okay with that. But I'm also okay with a period of waiting for the heirs the writer to keep the work "in the family" so to speak for a time afterward. But I will agree that all works should fall into the public domain at some point.

-- A2SG, after all, you can't say Christopher Robin Milne has no interest in his father's works......

 

[Willtor]

Because he added something new and unique to the world, a product of his imagination. Stories are important to our world and our culture.

Ah! Do you believe that owning the copyright to a thing is the same as owning the thing, itself?

Haven't given that much thought, really. Probably not, but I suppose a reasonable argument could be made.

Why one and not the other? The inventor has added something new and unique to the world.

You lost me here.

It sounded like you asked if 28 years was an insufficient time to create derivative works from an existing one, and I don't think time is an issue there, since people can come up with ideas based on existing stories as soon as they read them. But given your response, I may have misunderstood you here.

Sorry! Let me restate:

The Constitution cites the reason for granting copyright as an incentive for authors to create the works: "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

It's a contract between society and the author: we (society) want the author to produce the work for our enrichment, so we have made a contract with authors that if they produce the work, its expression and distribution will be at their sole discretion for a period of time so that they can make money off of it.

Is 28 years insufficient time for this purpose? If so, and if you still believe the current duration is acceptable, what additional purpose do you perceive as motivation for the granting of copyright that might allow it to last so long?

If the goal isn't to tell a story, I'm not sure what the goal would be. If all someone wants to do is leech off another person's work, well, I don't see why that shouldn't be restricted, or at least made difficult.

Walt Disney and Shakespeare were both leeches since they rehashed existing stories rather than telling new ones of their own. Should they have been disallowed from doing what they did? Peter Jackson only got to be a leech because he had a studio with money behind him. Why allow any story to be rehashed, copyright or no, if the activity is so egregious?

More on this topic at the end...

But, again, I still don't see a restriction here. If you want to infringe on an existing copyright and, say, rewrite Star Wars or adapt The Little Mermaid to feudal Japan, you can. You can't make money off of it, but you're free to post it to the internet for the enjoyment of anyone who likes that kinda thing. Even before the internet you could have photocopied or mimeographed it and sent it to like-minded friends.

Copyrights don't prevent infringement, it only protects the author's right to make money off of the story.

A court would decide, in part, based on how much copyrighted material was present in the derivative work. The Little Mermaid is a bad example because its copyright expired a long time ago, and anyone is free to leech off it -- even at a profit.

In the case of protected works, however, most fan fic is junk, so the copyright holders don't care. But that doesn't mean that it would stand up under scrutiny in a court. If it were good, such that the copyright holders convinced the court that it devalued their copyright, the author of the fan fic would lose the case. That it is distributed for free is a factor, but it is not the only one. A freely distributed derivative work may still infringe. An example of this is the fan-made Dune movie, which was made for non-commercial purposes, but restricted from distribution.

Not at all. But if someone is only interested in rewriting Star Wars, and can't consider the possibility of going a step backward and retelling the hero's journey myth in their own way without infringing George Lucas' copyright, that does lack imagination, I think.

-- A2SG, the problem isn't retelling existing stories, only which stories you want to retell.....

Again, you are talking about many great authors throughout history -- people whose work largely consisted of leeching in such a way as to have violated copyright if the earlier works had been protected. You say it shows a lack of imagination. I think you haven't read (or seen) enough of their work to realize just how much imagination they brought to their respective projects. You may use pejorative words like "leeching" but many of these works are considered classics in their own right.

 

[A2SG]

Ah! Do you believe that owning the copyright to a thing is the same as owning the thing, itself?

To the extent anyone can own a story, yes.

Why one and not the other? The inventor has added something new and unique to the world.

True. As I said, it isn't something I've given a lot of thought to. Basically, I can see both sides of the argument on this one.

Copyrights, though, are something I have an interest in, as a writer.

Sorry! Let me restate:

The Constitution cites the reason for granting copyright as an incentive for authors to create the works: "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

It's a contract between society and the author: we (society) want the author to produce the work for our enrichment, so we have made a contract with authors that if they produce the work, its expression and distribution will be at their sole discretion for a period of time so that they can make money off of it.

Is 28 years insufficient time for this purpose?

In most cases, it's more than enough. Few books make money that long after publication.

If so, and if you still believe the current duration is acceptable, what additional purpose do you perceive as motivation for the granting of copyright that might allow it to last so long?

As has been noted, I see this as kind of a "moral" issue...the author should have the right to determine the use of his own works for as long as he lives...and his heirs for a period afterward. As regards the time afterward, I have no problem with the current 70 year standard, but if that time were shortened a bit, say 25 years as an example, I'd have no problem with that.

I think that's a fair balance between the needs and rights of the author versus the needs of society. I do think the author's needs and rights are more important while he's alive, but afterward, society should have it's say.

Walt Disney and Shakespeare were both leeches since they rehashed existing stories rather than telling new ones of their own.

I disagree. Both Shakespeare and Disney told new stories, they simply took existing ideas and stories and made them their own. I believe I've been abundantly clear on how I feel about that.

What I mean when I said leeching off another's work is people who only want to infringe on a copyright, and nothing more. Lazy writers who only want to use existing characters in unimaginative ways, or do nothing more than rehash what has already been done, adding nothing new. A lot of fanfic authors are like this, as an example (thought not all, by a long shot!).

Should they have been disallowed from doing what they did? Peter Jackson only got to be a leech because he had a studio with money behind him. Why allow any story to be rehashed, copyright or no, if the activity is so egregious?

Because rehashing stories is something writers do. The only difference is whether you add something new in doing so, or not.

Try to keep in mind I never criticized the idea of reinterpreting a story to a different medium, or in a new, unique way. In fact, I applaud it.

A court would decide, in part, based on how much copyrighted material was present in the derivative work. The Little Mermaid is a bad example because its copyright expired a long time ago, and anyone is free to leech off it -- even at a profit.

I meant Disney's version, the one with Ariel, Flounder, Sebastian, et al. But you are correct, anyone can adapt the Andersen original to feudal Japan if they like.

In the case of protected works, however, most fan fic is junk, so the copyright holders don't care. But that doesn't mean that it would stand up under scrutiny in a court. If it were good, such that the copyright holders convinced the court that it devalued their copyright, the author of the fan fic would lose the case. That it is distributed for free is a factor, but it is not the only one. A freely distributed derivative work may still infringe.

It absolutely does. Whether or not money is made off it isn't a factor, really, but it is something only the copyright holder has a legal right to do, that's all I meant by that.

An example of this is the fan-made Dune movie, which was made for non-commercial purposes, but restricted from distribution.

Youtube has tons of stuff like that. Most copyright holders ignore it, legally speaking, or acknowledge it only to send a cease and desist letter from their lawyer, mostly as a paper trail to protect the copyright. You're right, little, if anything, is done about it for the most part.

Again, you are talking about many great authors throughout history -- people whose work largely consisted of leeching in such a way as to have violated copyright if the earlier works had been protected. You say it shows a lack of imagination.

No, it only shows a lack of imagination when someone does it unimaginatively.

I think you haven't read (or seen) enough of their work to realize just how much imagination they brought to their respective projects. You may use pejorative words like "leeching" but many of these works are considered classics in their own right.

You misunderstand me.

There's a difference between a fanfic author who writes stories about Luke Sykwalker rescuing captive princesses and blowing up death stars, and someone who, inspired by Star Wars, writes a story about his own character undergoing the classic hero's journey, retelling that journey in his own unique may and making the hero myth his own in the process.

One I'm okay with, the other not so much.

-- A2SG, but, I grant you, sometimes the quality of a story is in the eye of the beholder....or reader......

 

[thaumaturgy]

That is not the historical purpose of copyright. The idea that an artist should have complete control over derivatives as a fundamental moral issue is a relatively recent idea.

I'm curious if you can tell us how "recent" this idea is? It is an integral part of 17USC that outlines the basics of Copyright. Can you tell me what caselaw established derivative works and why it would be "recent".

I can find a discussion of Nichols v Universal Pictures Corp (45 F 2d 119) from 1930 in which the discussion is undertaken around non-literal copying which sounds a lot like "derivative" works to me. Again, I'm not a lawyer but I don't believe that "derivative" works is such a "recent" idea in copyright.

2. If a work isn't popular enough to make money, the copyright issue is pretty much moot anyway.

No copyright is not about how popular a piece is. If I scribble a doodle on paper right now (which I just did), it automatically contains copyright protection. If I go further and register it I can get recompense from you if you copy it, or if you make a derivative of it.

Fan Fiction probably simply falls under the radar. I suspect if someone were vicious enough they could easily sue fan-fic sites for registered works. But there is often little incentive to do so.

You miss the point that some people want to further a specific story line. When Frank Herbert died, the Dune universe was left with countless unanswered questions. It is of no benefit to society (or Frank Herbert) for a general prohibition against anyone filling that void aside from the talentless hack that is Brian Herbert. Let's face it, the kid can't write to save his life. He lacks the commitment to consistency his father had, and he doesn't exactly have any decent ideas to continue the saga.

Along with not being a lawyer I am also not an artist, but sometimes the greatness of a work is predicated on the "unanswered questions". Maybe it's the author's original purpose, maybe it's something they didn't get around to.

But I have a near universal revulsion to someone coming along later and trying to "fill in the holes" of an authors work.

An authors work should have holes from time to time. It makes for great wandering possibilities in the mind of the viewer/reader.

If nothing else, all copyright should be null and void on the author's death. At that point, they no longer have any legitimate interest in the work. They are dead.

Let their estate have a couple of years, but not a huge amount. There's nothing wrong with their kids making a bit of cash off a good idea. But perpetuity is a bit extreme, agreed.

 

[Willtor]

To the extent anyone can own a story, yes.

This, then, is the crux of the issue, I think. Once I publish my book, the idea will be in the mind of everyone who reads it. There's no way of preventing that. In fact, on the contrary, that's why I'm writing it. Nobody owns a story (even the very expression of a story) except insofar as they internalize it. That isn't an exclusive thing.

I don't think that anyone can own a story to the exclusion of anyone else. Try enforcing that*. The (exclusive) right to copy it, yes. But not the story, itself. And that right to copy is something we (society) grant to authors to encourage them to write the stories.

* There will come a time when it's possible. So be careful of what you wish for.

True. As I said, it isn't something I've given a lot of thought to. Basically, I can see both sides of the argument on this one.

Copyrights, though, are something I have an interest in, as a writer.

In most cases, it's more than enough. Few books make money that long after publication.

As has been noted, I see this as kind of a "moral" issue...the author should have the right to determine the use of his own works for as long as he lives...and his heirs for a period afterward. As regards the time afterward, I have no problem with the current 70 year standard, but if that time were shortened a bit, say 25 years as an example, I'd have no problem with that.

I think that's a fair balance between the needs and rights of the author versus the needs of society. I do think the author's needs and rights are more important while he's alive, but afterward, society should have it's say.

I disagree. Both Shakespeare and Disney told new stories, they simply took existing ideas and stories and made them their own. I believe I've been abundantly clear on how I feel about that.

What I mean when I said leeching off another's work is people who only want to infringe on a copyright, and nothing more. Lazy writers who only want to use existing characters in unimaginative ways, or do nothing more than rehash what has already been done, adding nothing new. A lot of fanfic authors are like this, as an example (thought not all, by a long shot!).

Because rehashing stories is something writers do. The only difference is whether you add something new in doing so, or not.

Try to keep in mind I never criticized the idea of reinterpreting a story to a different medium, or in a new, unique way. In fact, I applaud it.

I meant Disney's version, the one with Ariel, Flounder, Sebastian, et al. But you are correct, anyone can adapt the Andersen original to feudal Japan if they like.

Disney's The Little Mermaid would have violated copyright if someone had still held it. I'm not talking about the lame fan fic that I used to write about Star Trek when I was a kid. Who cares about that kind of thing, anyway? It's just bad writing. We need laws against bad writing? Who sits on the deciding panel?

I'm talking about real and interesting re-expressions. I'm not so interested in restricting a Star Wars meets Star Trek story posted on a 12-year-old's blog (that nobody is going to read, anyway) as I am in permitting the next masterpiece (in the vein of Disney's The Little Mermaid).

It absolutely does. Whether or not money is made off it isn't a factor, really, but it is something only the copyright holder has a legal right to do, that's all I meant by that.

Youtube has tons of stuff like that. Most copyright holders ignore it, legally speaking, or acknowledge it only to send a cease and desist letter from their lawyer, mostly as a paper trail to protect the copyright. You're right, little, if anything, is done about it for the most part.

No, it only shows a lack of imagination when someone does it unimaginatively.

You misunderstand me.

There's a difference between a fanfic author who writes stories about Luke Sykwalker rescuing captive princesses and blowing up death stars, and someone who, inspired by Star Wars, writes a story about his own character undergoing the classic hero's journey, retelling that journey in his own unique may and making the hero myth his own in the process.

One I'm okay with, the other not so much.

-- A2SG, but, I grant you, sometimes the quality of a story is in the eye of the beholder....or reader......

I'm not talking about Star Wars fan fic. You think George Lucas cares about that? Would you, in his position? Does any author? Besides, as I say, try restricting all 12-year-olds from writing about Luke Skywalker. Nobody reads what they write, anyway. Bad writing doesn't get attention. It's _good_ writing that copyright is designed to restrict. What else could threaten to undermine the financial incentive an author has in writing his or her book? Certainly not a child's blog.

The idea that you are proposing would have restricted the creation of most feature Disney movies, and Star Wars fan fic is not a good justification. Let's talk about copyright in the context of great works that would have violated copyright, if the copyrights had been held when they were written (or made into movies or whatever).

 

[A2SG]

This, then, is the crux of the issue, I think. Once I publish my book, the idea will be in the mind of everyone who reads it. There's no way of preventing that. In fact, on the contrary, that's why I'm writing it. Nobody owns a story (even the very expression of a story) except insofar as they internalize it. That isn't an exclusive thing.

I don't think that anyone can own a story to the exclusion of anyone else. Try enforcing that*. The (exclusive) right to copy it, yes. But not the story, itself.

True enough. However, we do call Moby Dick Melville's story, not our story, and I think there's a reason for that. We all may "own" the story that lives on in our imagination, but there is a tangible difference between a story you've read and a story you've written. That is where ownership of the story comes in, if such a term really applies.

And that right to copy is something we (society) grant to authors to encourage them to write the stories.

I don't see it that way. I think we (society) acknowledge the right author's have to their own story and codify it into law, but I don't believe it's granted unto them. They've earned the right by virtue of having created something.

But, this may be a difference of viewpoint, rather than any real appreciable difference. It all works out the same in the end.

* There will come a time when it's possible. So be careful of what you wish for.

Not sure what that means.

Disney's The Little Mermaid would have violated copyright if someone had still held it. I'm not talking about the lame fan fic that I used to write about Star Trek when I was a kid. Who cares about that kind of thing, anyway? It's just bad writing. We need laws against bad writing? Who sits on the deciding panel?

Nope. I only meant to define a difference between what is and isn't "leeching" off someone else's work, that's all.

I'm talking about real and interesting re-expressions. I'm not so interested in restricting a Star Wars meets Star Trek story posted on a 12-year-old's blog (that nobody is going to read, anyway) as I am in permitting the next masterpiece (in the vein of Disney's The Little Mermaid).

And on that, we agree.

All I'm saying is that copyright law isn't a problem for that. If you have a masterpiece in you, you'll find a way to get it out, someone else's copyright or no.

I'm not talking about Star Wars fan fic. You think George Lucas cares about that? Would you, in his position? Does any author?

I have a friend who has one book published. It barely sold any copies, few people have even heard of it.

And yet, there's fanfic out there about it.

(And yes, given Rule 34, it's porn.)

Besides, as I say, try restricting all 12-year-olds from writing about Luke Skywalker. Nobody reads what they write, anyway. Bad writing doesn't get attention. It's _good_ writing that copyright is designed to restrict.

I disagree. A good writer doesn't need to violate anyone else's copyright. If he wants to retell Star Wars in his own, unique way, he can do so without violating George Lucas' copyright.

Good writers can always find a way to tell their story.

What else could threaten to undermine the financial incentive an author has in writing his or her book? Certainly not a child's blog.

The idea that you are proposing would have restricted the creation of most feature Disney movies,

No, it wouldn't. How do you figure that? Which Disney movie was made using an author's work without permission while that author was still living (or only dead about 25 years or so)? That's about the only restriction I mentioned. In fact, Disney did EXACTLY what I said good writers do, he took an existing story and, using his own imagination, told it his own way and made it his own.

and Star Wars fan fic is not a good justification. Let's talk about copyright in the context of great works that would have violated copyright, if the copyrights had been held when they were written (or made into movies or whatever).

Uh, you misunderstood me if you think I used Star Wars fanfic as justification in any way whatsoever. I used it as an example, nothing more.

-- A2SG, we seem to be at cross purposes here, since I don't really think we disagree as much as you seem to believe we do.....

 

[[serious]]

I'm curious if you can tell us how "recent" this idea is? It is an integral part of 17USC that outlines the basics of Copyright. Can you tell me what caselaw established derivative works and why it would be "recent".

I can find a discussion of Nichols v Universal Pictures Corp (45 F 2d 119) from 1930 in which the discussion is undertaken around non-literal copying which sounds a lot like "derivative" works to me. Again, I'm not a lawyer but I don't believe that "derivative" works is such a "recent" idea in copyright.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was not saying that derivative works haven't been regulated until recently, but that until recently, the argument has been a practical one of "we need time to make money on this so that we can make more stuff" in keeping with the original constitutional intent. The argument that there is an intrinsic MORAL reason why people should have copyright control over works is relatively recent (in a historical context.) Madison and Jefferson, for example, viewed copyright and patent as necessary evils to promote the advancement of science and art and that they must be carefully limited lest the evils of them outweigh the good.

No copyright is not about how popular a piece is. If I scribble a doodle on paper right now (which I just did), it automatically contains copyright protection. If I go further and register it I can get recompense from you if you copy it, or if you make a derivative of it.

Again, I'm saying that as a practical matter, copyright is primarily a concern for popular works. You might patent a left handed pole climbing shoe, but you really don't need those protections, because no one is going to care enough to market a knock off left handed pole climbing shoe.

Fan Fiction probably simply falls under the radar. I suspect if someone were vicious enough they could easily sue fan-fic sites for registered works. But there is often little incentive to do so.

Likewise with singing or humming a bit song on your way to work. Or kids making costumes of their favorite movie characters for halloween. Or a thousand other things that could technically run afoul of copyright. Now, I'm willing to let these go as a practical matter since, like my example with an unpopular work, it isn't something that's used in the real world.

There's a point to be made if you look at either the practical use or the technical definition.

Along with not being a lawyer I am also not an artist, but sometimes the greatness of a work is predicated on the "unanswered questions". Maybe it's the author's original purpose, maybe it's something they didn't get around to.

But I have a near universal revulsion to someone coming along later and trying to "fill in the holes" of an authors work.

An authors work should have holes from time to time. It makes for great wandering possibilities in the mind of the viewer/reader.

I think there's a difference between writing a fanfic epilogue to "The Lady or the Tiger" and writing an end to "The Art of Fugue". There is a difference between a finished work with a piece left out and a work interrupted by death. That said, neither, in my mind, should be banned. Countless school children argue for whether the tiger or the lady was behind the door. This is not morally wrong, but it's a kind of dumb assignment due to the nature of the work. Likewise, many conjectured endings to Bach's piece have been created. Again, no moral issue there.

Let their estate have a couple of years, but not a huge amount. There's nothing wrong with their kids making a bit of cash off a good idea. But perpetuity is a bit extreme, agreed.

And that's the main thrust of my argument. since around the 20s, no work has been allowed to naturally enter the public domain. Every time the latest law approaches mickey mouse entering the public domain, a new law is passed extending it. There is no reason to suppose that any copyright will ever expire under the current model.

 

[Willtor]

True enough. However, we do call Moby Dick Melville's story, not our story, and I think there's a reason for that. We all may "own" the story that lives on in our imagination, but there is a tangible difference between a story you've read and a story you've written. That is where ownership of the story comes in, if such a term really applies.

I take your point that we call it Melville's story. But, by the same token, we say that Hamlet is William Shakespeare's story. Never mind that it had been told by Francois de Belleforest, and that he had taken it from history.

I don't see it that way. I think we (society) acknowledge the right author's have to their own story and codify it into law, but I don't believe it's granted unto them. They've earned the right by virtue of having created something.

But, this may be a difference of viewpoint, rather than any real appreciable difference. It all works out the same in the end.

I think it's the key difference. After all, if the story is the author's by virtue of his (or her) having penned it, in the same way that the author might have built a widget, then the life of the author makes sense, as does its passing onto the next generation (and the generation after, ad infinitum).

On the other hand, if the matter of copyright has to do with society's encouragement of the useful arts and sciences, then finding a balance between society's interests and the author's opportunity to profit from the work is crucial to its purpose.

Not sure what that means.

That _was_ rather ambiguous. Sorry about that.

I meant to say that if the technology were available to remove ideas selectively from peoples' minds, would you still feel the same way about who owns the idea?

Nope. I only meant to define a difference between what is and isn't "leeching" off someone else's work, that's all.

It sounds to me that the only "leeches", then, are people that are going to do what they do, anyway, and nobody will care. So, why are they relevant?

And on that, we agree.

All I'm saying is that copyright law isn't a problem for that. If you have a masterpiece in you, you'll find a way to get it out, someone else's copyright or no.

Copyright _is_ a problem for that. I have cited examples of masterpieces for which copyright would have stood in the way.

I have a friend who has one book published. It barely sold any copies, few people have even heard of it.

And yet, there's fanfic out there about it.

(And yes, given Rule 34, it's porn.)

That rule really needs to be named after somebody. It's as useful as Godwin's Law.

I disagree. A good writer doesn't need to violate anyone else's copyright. If he wants to retell Star Wars in his own, unique way, he can do so without violating George Lucas' copyright.

Good writers can always find a way to tell their story.

Maybe. The point is, many masterpieces are works that would have been violations of copyright by today's law. With every extension, that number increases.

No, it wouldn't. How do you figure that? Which Disney movie was made using an author's work without permission while that author was still living (or only dead about 25 years or so)? That's about the only restriction I mentioned. In fact, Disney did EXACTLY what I said good writers do, he took an existing story and, using his own imagination, told it his own way and made it his own.

None, to my knowledge. But there are only a couple more extensions to go, before the aforementioned The Little Mermaid would have been a violation.

As to what Disney did: Yes! He was imaginative! And, yet, he did something that, with a couple more copyright extensions (that we both know are going to come), would have been in violation of copyright. Do you see, now, what I'm saying? Yes! It is good that he was allowed to do this thing. And other authors should be free to do the same based off of his work.

Uh, you misunderstood me if you think I used Star Wars fanfic as justification in any way whatsoever. I used it as an example, nothing more.

-- A2SG, we seem to be at cross purposes here, since I don't really think we disagree as much as you seem to believe we do.....

What is fan fic an example of? It appears not to apply to anything either of us care about.

 

[A2SG]

I take your point that we call it Melville's story. But, by the same token, we say that Hamlet is William Shakespeare's story. Never mind that it had been told by Francois de Belleforest, and that he had taken it from history.

Exactly. de Belleforest took an existing idea and made it his own, creating a unique story. Same as Shakespeare did. Same as Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas did when they retold it as Strange Brew with Bob and Doug MacKenzie.

I think it's the key difference. After all, if the story is the author's by virtue of his (or her) having penned it, in the same way that the author might have built a widget, then the life of the author makes sense, as does its passing onto the next generation (and the generation after, ad infinitum).

On the other hand, if the matter of copyright has to do with society's encouragement of the useful arts and sciences, then finding a balance between society's interests and the author's opportunity to profit from the work is crucial to its purpose.

Which is why the public domain exists. As I've said, I agree that all stories should eventually fall into the public domain, the only question, really, is when.

That _was_ rather ambiguous. Sorry about that.

I meant to say that if the technology were available to remove ideas selectively from peoples' minds, would you still feel the same way about who owns the idea?

Well, if time travel existed, someone would rewrite history so it would never have happened in the first place, so it's kind of moot.

It sounds to me that the only "leeches", then, are people that are going to do what they do, anyway, and nobody will care. So, why are they relevant?

They're not, really. Except to say that they're the only ones really limited by copyrights, as I see it...and they're only limited in an ability to make money off their hackneyed derivatives.

Copyright _is_ a problem for that. I have cited examples of masterpieces for which copyright would have stood in the way.

But didn't. And that's my point.

That rule really needs to be named after somebody. It's as useful as Godwin's Law.

I'll ask my friend, maybe we can put his name to it.

Maybe. The point is, many masterpieces are works that would have been violations of copyright by today's law. With every extension, that number increases.

Maybe, maybe not. If a work is significant enough to be considered a masterpiece, though, I think it probably surpasses the original in enough ways to be considered a work on its own merits, and not a violation of copyright. Unless, of course, the writer didn't bother to change the names.

None, to my knowledge. But there are only a couple more extensions to go, before the aforementioned The Little Mermaid would have been a violation.

But it isn't. And Andersen isn't going to come out of the public domain, so anyone who wishes to retell the story of a little mermaid is good to go.

And, as we've noted, few if any stories being written today are so unique as to have no influences in the past, so I doubt imaginative writers are going to have too many problems in the future.

As to what Disney did: Yes! He was imaginative! And, yet, he did something that, with a couple more copyright extensions (that we both know are going to come), would have been in violation of copyright.

But wasn't. And won't be in the future, no matter how many times we prolong new copyrights in the future. Copyrights, after all, only protect a single unique work, not the idea behind it. Ideas cannot be copyrighted.

Do you see, now, what I'm saying? Yes! It is good that he was allowed to do this thing. And other authors should be free to do the same based off of his work.

And they are. They're only prohibited from making money off of it if they violate the author's copyright. If they don't, they're good to go.

What is fan fic an example of? It appears not to apply to anything either of us care about.

I tried to make a distinction between how an imaginative writer deals with source material, and how an unimaginative writer does. Shakespeare is an example of one, the author of a Mary Sue Star Trek fanfic is another.

-- A2SG, not that some of those haven't made it into the world on their own.....

 

[Willtor]

Exactly. de Belleforest took an existing idea and made it his own, creating a unique story. Same as Shakespeare did. Same as Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas did when they retold it as Strange Brew with Bob and Doug MacKenzie.

Which is why the public domain exists. As I've said, I agree that all stories should eventually fall into the public domain, the only question, really, is when.

_When_ is a problem. I'm troubled at the thought of stifling modern-day Shakespeares with respect to some project they find compelling, indefinitely.

Well, if time travel existed, someone would rewrite history so it would never have happened in the first place, so it's kind of moot.

That's not really a fair comparison, since time travel will probably never exist, whereas multiple fields are actively making progress in understanding how the mind works. You and I may live to see the day when ideas can be removed and others added in a precise and repeatable way. This is not so outlandish.

They're not, really. Except to say that they're the only ones really limited by copyrights, as I see it...and they're only limited in an ability to make money off their hackneyed derivatives.

But didn't. And that's my point.

I'll ask my friend, maybe we can put his name to it.

Maybe, maybe not. If a work is significant enough to be considered a masterpiece, though, I think it probably surpasses the original in enough ways to be considered a work on its own merits, and not a violation of copyright. Unless, of course, the writer didn't bother to change the names.

And, in the cases of the masterpieces we have been discussing, they didn't change the names. It isn't a question of what one "bothers" to do. Authors sometimes draw upon the feelings and ideas an audience already has about literary characters and worlds.

But it isn't. And Andersen isn't going to come out of the public domain, so anyone who wishes to retell the story of a little mermaid is good to go.

And, as we've noted, few if any stories being written today are so unique as to have no influences in the past, so I doubt imaginative writers are going to have too many problems in the future.

But wasn't. And won't be in the future, no matter how many times we prolong new copyrights in the future. Copyrights, after all, only protect a single unique work, not the idea behind it. Ideas cannot be copyrighted.

And they are. They're only prohibited from making money off of it if they violate the author's copyright. If they don't, they're good to go.

That's not how copyright works. Money is _a_ factor in a court case, but it isn't the deciding factor. A work can violate copyright, even if it's free. Again, I mentioned the fan-created Dune movie.

I tried to make a distinction between how an imaginative writer deals with source material, and how an unimaginative writer does. Shakespeare is an example of one, the author of a Mary Sue Star Trek fanfic is another.

-- A2SG, not that some of those haven't made it into the world on their own.....

Artistically, we agree there is a distinction. Legally, there isn't. Mary Sue is violating copyright, not because she is a hack, but because the work is under copyright. Shakespeare was not violating copyright, not because he was creating a masterpiece, but because the work was not under copyright.

 

[A2SG]

_When_ is a problem. I'm troubled at the thought of stifling modern-day Shakespeares with respect to some project they find compelling, indefinitely.

And I'm not. Simply because I don't see the impediment.

That's not really a fair comparison, since time travel will probably never exist, whereas multiple fields are actively making progress in understanding how the mind works. You and I may live to see the day when ideas can be removed and others added in a precise and repeatable way. This is not so outlandish.

Tell you what, when memory erasing becomes a business plan, we'll talk. Until then, let's leave it to the imagination of Philip K. Dick.

And, in the cases of the masterpieces we have been discussing, they didn't change the names. It isn't a question of what one "bothers" to do. Authors sometimes draw upon the feelings and ideas an audience already has about literary characters and worlds.

Sure, when they can. When they can't, they change the names and other details, and make it a whole new story.

That's not how copyright works. Money is _a_ factor in a court case, but it isn't the deciding factor. A work can violate copyright, even if it's free. Again, I mentioned the fan-created Dune movie.

What I meant was that you can infringe on someone's copyright if you want to. No one's stopping you. Herbert's heirs won't come bashing down your door and confiscate your computer if you start to write a "better" ending for Dune. The sheer volume of fanfic out there proves this true.

The only impediment is you can't make money off of it. That's it. So there is no stifling. Write as many infringing stories as you like.

Artistically, we agree there is a distinction. Legally, there isn't.

Actually, there is a clear legal distinction. West Side Story did not violate copyright, neither did the episode of Fame where two gangs had a "breakdance-off" to settle their turf war. Ideas are not copyrightable.

So if you want to write a story about a boy who goes to a school where he learns magic, as long as you don't call him Harry Potter and the school Hogwarts (and, of course, not make the plot too similar), chances are you're fine.

Mary Sue is violating copyright, not because she is a hack, but because the work is under copyright. Shakespeare was not violating copyright, not because he was creating a masterpiece, but because the work was not under copyright.

If I write a Mary Sue (or in my case, I guess it's a Marty Stu) Star Trek fanfic, you're right, I've violated copyright. But no one will throw me in jail for doing so, no matter how bad my story is. No one will bust down my door and confiscate my computer. So I'm not stifled.

Now, if I want to make money off my Mary Sue novel, all I need to do is not make it a Star Trek novel. If I have any sense of imagination at all, I can easily create my own space-faring agency and a ship of brave, stalwart adventurers to command it, throw in a character a lot like me, and voila! Instant classic!

-- A2SG, not like Star Trek created the space-faring adventure, after all....they're all Hornblower in space anyway....

 

[Willtor]

And I'm not. Simply because I don't see the impediment.

Tell you what, when memory erasing becomes a business plan, we'll talk. Until then, let's leave it to the imagination of Philip K. Dick.

Sure, when they can. When they can't, they change the names and other details, and make it a whole new story.

What I meant was that you can infringe on someone's copyright if you want to. No one's stopping you. Herbert's heirs won't come bashing down your door and confiscate your computer if you start to write a "better" ending for Dune. The sheer volume of fanfic out there proves this true.

The only impediment is you can't make money off of it. That's it. So there is no stifling. Write as many infringing stories as you like.

Actually, there is a clear legal distinction. West Side Story did not violate copyright, neither did the episode of Fame where two gangs had a "breakdance-off" to settle their turf war. Ideas are not copyrightable.

The difference between what Mary Sue did and what Shakespeare did was that what Shakespeare did was good. The law doesn't make that distinction.

So if you want to write a story about a boy who goes to a school where he learns magic, as long as you don't call him Harry Potter and the school Hogwarts (and, of course, not make the plot too similar), chances are you're fine.

If I write a Mary Sue (or in my case, I guess it's a Marty Stu) Star Trek fanfic, you're right, I've violated copyright. But no one will throw me in jail for doing so, no matter how bad my story is. No one will bust down my door and confiscate my computer. So I'm not stifled.

But if it's good, they will.

Now, if I want to make money off my Mary Sue novel, all I need to do is not make it a Star Trek novel. If I have any sense of imagination at all, I can easily create my own space-faring agency and a ship of brave, stalwart adventurers to command it, throw in a character a lot like me, and voila! Instant classic!

-- A2SG, not like Star Trek created the space-faring adventure, after all....they're all Hornblower in space anyway....

The following video is distributed for free on YouTube:

Anger is Illogical

Is it imaginative? Does it matter? The difference between whether YouTube gets a takedown notice or no is whether Paramount feels threatened by it. Imagination doesn't enter into it.

 

[A2SG]

The difference between what Mary Sue did and what Shakespeare did was that what Shakespeare did was good. The law doesn't make that distinction.

Actually, the difference is more specific than that. Shakespeare created a new story that, while influenced by past stories, was an original work. A Star Trek Mary Sue fanfic is not.

But if it's good, they will.

Good, bad or indifferent, no one can prevent me from writing a story that infringes someone else's copyright.

I'll never make money off of it, but that's the only restriction I face.

The following video is distributed for free on YouTube:

Anger is Illogical

Is it imaginative? Does it matter? The difference between whether YouTube gets a takedown notice or no is whether Paramount feels threatened by it. Imagination doesn't enter into it.

Actually, that doesn't violate copyright. It would fall under the category of "fair use."

But, that aside, it's also not what I was talking about.

-- A2SG, it was a clever, very imaginative video,though....

 

[Willtor]

Actually, the difference is more specific than that. Shakespeare created a new story that, while influenced by past stories, was an original work. A Star Trek Mary Sue fanfic is not.

Good, bad or indifferent, no one can prevent me from writing a story that infringes someone else's copyright.

I'll never make money off of it, but that's the only restriction I face.

Also, you can't distribute it, even if it's for free.

Actually, that doesn't violate copyright. It would fall under the category of "fair use."

But, that aside, it's also not what I was talking about.

Fair use is not as broad a concept as it sounds. As Paramount does with Mary Sue, they haven't issued a take-down notice or sued, but they could prosecute the author for copyright violation.

-- A2SG, it was a clever, very imaginative video,though....

I know! A bunch of his videos are like that.

 

[A2SG]

Also, you can't distribute it, even if it's for free.

Technically true...but it happens anyway. Or, it used to. I still have some old Star Trek fanfic from conventions back in the day. Now, of course, we have websites where the stuff isn't so much distributed as left where you can read it for free and even copy it at will.

Ah, technology....

Fair use is not as broad a concept as it sounds. As Paramount does with Mary Sue, they haven't issued a take-down notice or sued, but they could prosecute the author for copyright violation.

They could, sure....but I still think that video qualifies under fair use, so it's probable they won't win. Still, ya never know, I guess, it depends on the judge you get.

Still, infringement is only a problem if you want to publish a story that infringes someone else's copyright in order to make money off of it. If you just want to write it, no worries.

So copyrights don't stifle creativity at all, only the commerce of it.

And, as I've said, if you do want to make money off your story, it really isn't all that hard to change enough of it in order to make it a unique work. People do it all the time, even Douglas Adams.

-- A2SG, so I don't see this as an insurmountable problem, really.....