The Grinch Who Stole The Public Domain

Interesting...

Nuh-uh. Everyone knows that copyright exists to keep the mouse in his house

Article I, Section 8 of the U. S. Constitution:

Constitution said:

The Congress shall have Power ... 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.

Click to expand...

The goal was to limit the terms of Copyright so that all works would eventually end up in Public Domain.

They keep extending the terms.

I'd be happy with life plus 25 personally. Life plus 75 is more than adequate.

I'm expecting that in the next ten years we'll see it extended to Life plus 200 years, or more.

I disagree with his assumption that because people made creative works while the old 28+28 law was in effect, that means they agreed "absolutely" that 56 years was acceptable, an incentive, or even figured in their calculations--or that they even made calculations before saying "Man, I wanna write a story, let's do it!". The two things have basically nothing to do with each other.

I wrote my stories for money from the very beginning. So while life plus whatever is not a scale that would effect my decision, the extent to which I could profit from them was by far the most important issue at that time, and still in the top two reasons.

I guess I'm a bit puzzled why we have the need for the heirs of authors to profit for nearly a century after the author's death. I can see extending the terms to where the first generation heirs have control (and any profits) for their own lifetimes, but beyond that, well, it seems odd. I get it that some writers would be furious over the ways in which some of their works have been used in hindsight (I'm pretty sure JRR Tolkien would not like the changes to his story in the Hobbit movies), but life is for the living, and it's rather hard to predict where society will be or what's still going to have artistic relevance in a couple of decades, let alone a century or more.

Yeah, copyright law is supposed to give artists enough protection that they can afford to create art. (Edgar Allen Poe starved to death partly because people could re-publish his work freely without paying him. He had no effective way to make a living from his own popularity.)

It's not supposed to lock things up indefinitely, for every work of art, so that corporations and heirs can keep slurping royalties out of the tiny fraction of works that have lasting popularity.

Edit: I'd be okay with life plus 25 too. I'd probably even be okay with 28 plus the ability to renew. For most works of art, the profitability for the artist is long gone after three decades, and they might as well release it to the public and see if a stranger's remix bestows some additional popularity to their current works.

The joke in the legal profession is that the duration of a copyright is X + 75 years, where X is the length of the copyright on Mickey Mouse.

Roxxsmom said:

I guess I'm a bit puzzled why we have the need for the heirs of authors to profit for nearly a century after the author's death. I can see extending the terms to where the first generation heirs have control (and any profits) for their own lifetimes, but beyond that, well, it seems odd. I get it that some writers would be furious over the ways in which some of their works have been used in hindsight (I'm pretty sure JRR Tolkien would not like the changes to his story in the Hobbit movies), but life is for the living, and it's rather hard to predict where society will be or what's still going to have artistic relevance in a couple of decades, let alone a century or more.

Click to expand...

Well, why do heirs have the right to inherit anything? There are many people sitting on enormous piles of wealth earned through the many means of production of useful goods. Yet you don't often see people having these sort of debates about someone's manufacturing plant or small business. What's the difference here? Why shouldn't copyright be an inheritable property right?

(I am not, in general, for huge lengths of copyright, but when I'm trying to come up with a personal stance on the various issues involved, this is a question I often struggle with.)

Liosse de Velishaf said:

What's the difference here? Why shouldn't copyright be an inheritable property right?

Click to expand...

Because society benefits when art is released into the public domain; it spurs the creation of more art.

Copyright laws are meant to strike a reasonable balance between what is good for the individual artist against what is good for society.

Liosse de Velishaf said:

Well, why do heirs have the right to inherit anything? There are many people sitting on enormous piles of wealth earned through the many means of production of useful goods. Yet you don't often see people having these sort of debates about someone's manufacturing plant or small business. What's the difference here? Why shouldn't copyright be an inheritable property right?

Click to expand...

I see a very basic difference between them, actually.

The means of production of useful goods is an on-going enterprise. The creation of a copyrightable work is a single act. The need for production demands is very different.

Personally, I see no reason why my children and grandchildren should benefit from the copyrights I create, and any money I've earned from them is already theirs. Now, if they can do something original off my stuff, well, more power to them, but I'm a big fan of things going into public domain sooner than later. I'd prefer in my lifetime, but others disagree, so whatever.

DeleyanLee said:

I see a very basic difference between them, actually.

The means of production of useful goods is an on-going enterprise. The creation of a copyrightable work is a single act. The need for production demands is very different.

Personally, I see no reason why my children and grandchildren should benefit from the copyrights I create, and any money I've earned from them is already theirs. Now, if they can do something original off my stuff, well, more power to them, but I'm a big fan of things going into public domain sooner than later. I'd prefer in my lifetime, but others disagree, so whatever.

Click to expand...

Personally, I'd prefer to be able to keep ownership until my death, if I so choose for a given work.

After that, people can do whatever they want with it.

I don't actually mind the life+ x years formula - where someone dies unexpectedly young it is some insurance for their family (and indeed publisher.) It's just the term is *so* long at the moment. Like Medi I'd say Life + 25 sounds about right.

DeleyanLee said:

I see a very basic difference between them, actually.

Click to expand...

The simpler difference is this. A patent for making a widget lasts 14 years. Everything else is opening available to everyone.

Yes people can keep making widgets, but they can't stop anyone from also making any widget the invented after 14 years.

So actually industry has less protection than books. They are almost all working in the equivalent of the public domain.

All those works are locked up? Huh, I'm pretty sure I can still buy copies of them anywhere.

Copyright was made to ensure that information and knowledge eventually worked it's way into the public domain. It's really not much different than patents.

It's one thing to hold back knowledge of chemistry, astronomy, politics, etc., from free public use for an extended period of time, but I see no reason why this should apply to a novel, or a short story, or a song, or a poem. I see no reason why my heirs shouldn't profit from my work, or why anyone believes they have a right to my work after a given length of time.

The knowledge that one's heirs will be taken care of is a major factor in how hard many of us work. Whether we make our money from selling widgets or novels, the end goal is the same, to provide our heirs with a better life.

If you want the rights to something, create it yourself. The public does not gain when my work goes into public domain. All that really changes is who they pay. The only people who gain are those who want to use my work for their own financial gain.

Don't confuse knowledge and learning with pure entertainment. And really, just what work has been lost to history because of copyright?

The public as a whole does nothing with my work. But someone who wants to make a movie of my work without paying me or my heirs does. And the public pays him to watch his movie. He has to pay no one. He profits, while I, or my heirs, do not. Or he wants to write a sequel. He does, and the public buys it, paying him, but I do not profit, and my heirs do not profit. All for entertainment.

The Grinch didn't steal the public domain, the grinches are those who want to use public domain for their own personal gain.

It would be sensible for published writers to make arrangements for their literary estate to be managed after their death. That could include placing works in the public domain.

I agree with James. No one is prevented from reading anything I might publish because of copyright. They are prevented from making money from it without compensating me and/or my family. They didn't create that original work - why should they make money from it when I or my family do not?

Liosse de Velishaf said:

Well, why do heirs have the right to inherit anything? There are many people sitting on enormous piles of wealth earned through the many means of production of useful goods. Yet you don't often see people having these sort of debates about someone's manufacturing plant or small business. What's the difference here? Why shouldn't copyright be an inheritable property right?

(I am not, in general, for huge lengths of copyright, but when I'm trying to come up with a personal stance on the various issues involved, this is a question I often struggle with.)

Click to expand...

I think you've got a point here, especially for those who die in the beginning or middle of successful careers. Pop music is full of such cases. There are even cases where popularity didn't come until after death, as happened to Eva Cassidy.

Even so, it makes sense to have the time of copyright limited to a few decades, regardless of whether the creator is alive or not.

The Beatles' recordings continue to sell well after 40 to 50 years. Should copyright still apply?

Jamesaritchie said:

The public does not gain when my work goes into public domain.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I think society does benefit when creative works enter the public domain. Ideas are pretty freakin' important things, even if they're creative ones rather than factual knowledge.

IMHO.

Don't confuse knowledge and learning with pure entertainment.

Click to expand...

I differ with you, I think, in that I believe fiction to have more dimensions than just "pure entertainment." Fiction is often orchestrated to make statements about society, or to make the audience think, or to cause intense emotional reactions. Even fiction that is designed to be "pure entertainment" often touches people in profound ways, ways the creator might not even have expected. Stories can be pretty damn powerful things.

I don't think facts are the only things that are important to the world at large.

And I don't see fiction as a one-way communication, either, that exists only to be static, in one form, forever. I see it as a dialogue with society, one in which, in my perfect world, society would be able to talk back (as limited by sensible copyright, but for that discourse definitely to exist), thus deepening and enriching the whole marketplace of ideas.

And really, just what work has been lost to history because of copyright?

Click to expand...

Many. My (layman's) understanding of the issue is that this is actually a very serious problem. (Assuming that one is not indifferent to the preservation of culture, which I accept -- with minor heartbreak -- that some people are.)

Anyway.

Personally, I'm not sure what I think copyright law should be. Speaking about the U.S., as that's what I'm familiar with: I know I think the time period is too long right now. I know that I think there should be more protection for fair use, and better/easier defenses against SLAPP lawsuits -- right now, what is considered "fair use" tends to be de facto determined by who has the most money for lawyers. I like the idea of a renewable copyright, with limited renewals (and I think that will help combat works falling into obscurity when third parties would still like to resurrect them but are unable to because the works are still under a copyright that's owned by someone completely uninterested in them). Perhaps a renewal could happen for a fee, so if the creator is still making money, it makes it worth it to renew. I wish there were more acceptance for creators to choose to release some rights if they so wish (publishers have balked at allowing authors to publish under Creative Commons, and unions have balked at allowing movies to be filmed under it). I know I think the consequences for copyright violations in this country have pretty much gone off the rails, and that IMO it's a very serious problem of justice. And I definitely think we need to stop attacking technology and the free flow of (legitimate) information in a misguided attempt to stop piracy (see SOPA, PIPA, DRM, the DMCA).

I definitely don't think copyright should be done away with entirely, though: I think it's a good thing to protect creators' abilities to make money with their work, and that copyright is, fundamentally, a valuable construct. But to me it's like the cool science experiment that got some DNA splicing wrong and is now a twenty-foot tall HORROR MOVIE MONSTER spreading terror instead of protecting people.

I really don't see why my heirs should own my copyrights.

They can own my original manuscripts. They can have my notes. They can roll around naked in the money I earned from my wildly successful work. But why should they get royalties from art they didn't create? How is that any different than a stranger getting royalties from art they didn't create?

A business (or for that matter, ownership of the family chicken), is fundamentally different from ownership of a copyright. A business requires ongoing management to continue making money. If the heirs won't do that work, then their inheritance rapidly becomes worthless. Likewise with the chicken, if no one takes over feeding and protecting it.

The heirs are inheriting the means to make money, but they must take over the actual process before they can make money.

My heir can't take over my process; the books are already written. Why should they own the copyright when they did none of the work and do not need to do any work? Why should they get ownership of the magical chicken that pops out eggs but never needs to be fed?

I'd be quite happy to bequeath my "brand" to my heirs, however. If they wanted to keep writing novels under my name, that would be perfectly in keeping with the inheritance of a business; they would have to take over the process to keep making money.

jjdebenedictis said:

A business (or for that matter, ownership of the family chicken), is fundamentally different from ownership of a copyright. A business requires ongoing management to continue making money. If the heirs won't do that work, then their inheritance rapidly becomes worthless.

Click to expand...

But literary estates also require management to continue making money. So I don't quite see the difference.

jjdebenedictis said:

But why should they get royalties from art they didn't create? How is that any different than a stranger getting royalties from art they didn't create?

Click to expand...

Because they're your heirs and not strangers. Of course, you could always sign over the proceeds to some charitable organization if you don't want your heirs benefiting from your work...

Buffysquirrel said:

But literary estates also require management to continue making money. So I don't quite see the difference.

Click to expand...

Though your overheads and overall stress and expense are probably lower, I think. From that point of view I'd much rather inherit some copyrights than inherit an actual business.

The problem here (and the source of the money for the lobbiests who get things loosened as needed) is the commodidization of brands (the Mouse being the prime example). If it were a matter of Harper Lee's great-great grandkids not getting annuity payments 80 years from now, or whatever, it wouldn't be an issue.

Imagine what Disney would need to do, creatively, if they actually had to come up with new stuff every two generations.